[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math


View post   

File: 153 KB, 1280x800, J1oO4.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6946393 No.6946393 [Reply] [Original]

What is the most agreed upon view of what knowledge might be and how we go about learning?

I know of Plato's inane idea that Knowledge is gained through remembering past life but that's about it.

>> No.6946422

>>>/lit/

>> No.6946428

>>6946422
They don't like science epistemology, so that's not helpful.

>> No.6946440
File: 17 KB, 297x426, phil idiots.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6946440

>>6946393
philosophy idiots please go. No one gives a flying fuck about your useless bullshit.

>> No.6946448
File: 74 KB, 550x500, 67f3510ef0f94d2f32276322886aab31c4833b8df2abd9956ac472b2f4facfab.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6946448

>>6946428
Too fucking bad......GTFO!!

>> No.6946451

>>6946440
not a philosophyfag but please recognize that science cannot rigorously prove something like math can

>> No.6946455

>>6946393
>what is the most agreed upon view

Philosophy is for stupid children. Glad we got that settled.

>> No.6946456

>>6946440
>>6946448
>Throwing ebik maymays :^)))) and pejoratives at random.

>>6946451
>Red herring.

>> No.6946459
File: 16 KB, 500x378, useless-degrees-philosophy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6946459

>>6946451
>not a philfag

Bullshit

>> No.6946466
File: 69 KB, 625x418, 03b0571d97c3f54a7963a95bd5868bc326ba02c7a8f455d44a8ac6c36b419a15.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6946466

>>6946451
Yes, this is a "Science" and "Math" board.
If you want to talk about mathematical proofs, go ahead. PROOF THE FUCK UP!

If you want to talk about useless philosophical circles jerks, aka the OP, take your garbage to lit.

>> No.6946472
File: 202 KB, 830x974, 1417530862002.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6946472

>>6946393
>knowledge from past lives

Please take your stupid bullshit to /x/

>> No.6946475

>>6946456
>>6946459
>>6946466
do you seriously believe that the scientific method can accomplish what a mathematical proof can?

>> No.6946482
File: 110 KB, 1280x848, thinker.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6946482

Can we ever truly know what epistemology is?

>> No.6946489

socratic irony and language games u fag

>> No.6946490

>>6946475
To specify, I am >>6946456
No, "red herring" means that your comment is not even a rebuttal.
Someone says
>Philosophers are idiots and this boards isn't for philosophy.
you reply with
>But math proves things definitively unlike science.
which has nothing to do.

>> No.6946498

>>6946490
i am referring to the accomodating picture that said that science can objectively prove things

>> No.6946509

>>6946498
In that case, I agree with you to some degree; science can not completely objectively prove or disprove something, but opinions can be proven wrong on science and mathematics. No one has so many opinions on mathematics, anyway. ...Except for whether 0 = 0.9999... or 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + ... = -1/12.

>> No.6946515
File: 20 KB, 326x326, 0496.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6946515

>>6946482
>Can we ever truly know what epistemology is?

BUT WHAT IS IS? IS WHAT IS BUT?

PHILOSOPHY!!!!! PHILOSOPHY!!!

>> No.6946527

>>6946509
Furthermore, that pic was one of the ebik maymays :^)))) that I was talking about.

>> No.6946533

>/sci/ hates philosophy

No surprise a bunch of pragmatic reductionists who believe inductive reasoning is flawless would shit talk people who actually think about the meaning of truth and knowledge.

>> No.6946543

>>6946533
Welcome to 4chan.

>> No.6946545

>>6946533
[tipping intensifies]

If you really think you're smart for considering kindergarten thought experiments like "brain in a vet", then it's time for you to go back to >>>/lit/

>> No.6946550

>>6946533
to be fair most philosophers do not have a claim to truth or knowledge

>> No.6946553

>>6946543
Welcome to the internet.

>> No.6946573
File: 95 KB, 625x472, a5efccd0c90a62517f1966d7965e403d16a48cad57d5328fe694fd6023a1cfc8.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6946573

>>6946393
>MUUH philosophy

>> No.6946593

>>6946573
>>>/s4s/

>> No.6946604
File: 65 KB, 490x490, PhilDoggy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6946604

>>6946393
How do you know you are not a brain in a vat?

Maybe I'm fucking your mom right now?

Maybe Time-CUBE?

SOO DEEP Philosophy! SO thinking! We smart!

>> No.6946621

>>6946440
>>6946448
>>6946455
>>6946459
>>6946466
>>6946515
>>6946573
>>6946604
>A philosophy thread! Taking combat stance!

>> No.6946633
File: 61 KB, 490x375, 56256222.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6946633

>>6946621
Are you time Cube? Deep thinking!

>> No.6946667
File: 47 KB, 450x600, philo.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6946667

>What is the most agreed upon view of what knowledge might be and how we go about learning?

Knowledge is information stored in the brain. Learning is a cascade of chemical reactions in the brain.

>> No.6946705

>>6946667
Not all information stored in the brain is knowledge and not all chemical cascades in the brain represent learning. Your model is flawed on a very fundamental level.

>> No.6946715
File: 94 KB, 600x746, Jaden-Smith-stupid-look.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6946715

God... why does everyone think they're the modern day socrates? Have you heard/seen Will Smith's kids?

>> No.6946722

philosophy haters everywhere

>> No.6946729
File: 86 KB, 817x1264, philososhitposting.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6946729

>>6946705
>me: X is an instance of Y
>you: b-b-but not all Y are X

Why does it not surprise me that a philosotard doesn't even understand the semantics of a propositional implication? Come back when you gained enough IQ points to compete with a preschooler.

>> No.6946748
File: 42 KB, 407x405, philosophy majors.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6946748

I heard in the starbucks job interview they ask profound questions about Plato, Kant, Hegel and Heidegger.

>> No.6946776

>>6946393
why do people shit on philosophy so much? i know it isn't practical and not applicable to the real world (to some extent) but don't pretend you wouldn't be a philosopher if STEM didn't exist.

>> No.6946791
File: 279 KB, 800x430, philo-vs-science.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6946791

>>6946776
You got it the wrong way round. It is philosotards who are shitting on STEM all the time.

>> No.6946833

Reminder that all great STEMfags were philosophags too

>Pythagoras
>Aristotle
>Euclid
>Alhazen
>Copernicus
>Galileo
>Kepler
>Pascal
>Huygens
>Newton
>Orsted
>Ampère
>Ohm
>Dalton
>Joule
>Thomson
>Maxwell
>Darwin
>Fechner
>Mach
>Boltzmann
>Tesla
>Meitner
>Noether
>Russell
>Whitehead
>Heisenberg
>Einstein
>Schrödinger
>Bohr
>Turing
>de Broglie
>Nath Bose
>Poincaré
>Cantor
>Alan Turing
>Godel
>David Hilbert
>von Neumann
>Müller
>Lemaître
>Kandel
>Hawking
>Minsky

>> No.6946848

>>6946833
Reminder that this is a list of random names not supporting your claim.

>> No.6946852

>>6946848
>not registering your claims with well respected peer-review journals
>you know that one picture and the year
why do I even spend time on this board

>> No.6946853

>>6946848

Nope, that's a reminder that you're an idiot that can't be bother to peer review (which would prove the list correct)

>> No.6946859

>>6946853
Your list is a weird mixture of non-STEM philosophers and STEM persons who were not philosophers. It seems the only criterion you used for compiling this list was whether these names appeared in footnotes in your high school textbooks. Please readjust your fedora, gain some education and stop talking so ignorantly out of your ass.

>> No.6946864

>>6946791
>It is philosotards who are shitting on STEM all the time.
did you read the thread?

I wonder how old are those who hate philosophy...

>> No.6946866

>>6946859
>non-STEM philosophers
what are some STEM philosophers then nay-sayer? Or are ye sneakily attempting some form of underhanded gainsay?

>> No.6946870
File: 33 KB, 434x290, feynman.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6946870

>>6946864
>I wonder how old are those who hate philosophy...

You can look up wikipedia how old Feynman is.

>> No.6946874

>>6946866
With this question you reveal that you didn't even read your own list before mindlessly copypasting it.

>> No.6946889

>>6946859
>Please readjust your fedora, gain some education and stop talking so ignorantly out of your ass.
HAHAHA, oh the irony

>>6946870
he was a very opinionated faggot, yeah
other than that and being good at some specific field of science (a.k.a., real autist)... he was a worthless, self-aggrandizing human being. just like most anti-intellectual americans are, no surprise there.

>> No.6946895
File: 15 KB, 410x304, stupid.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6946895

>>6946889
top ad hominem

I see you're out of arguments. Next time try to be more creative in your trolling.

>> No.6946903

>>6946859
>>6946874


>Pythagoras
mathematicia
>Aristotle
father of science
>Euclid
mathematician
>Alhazen
physicist, mathematician, astronomer
>Copernicus
astronomer
>Galileo
astronomer
>Kepler
astronomer
>Pascal
mathematician
>Huygens
physicist
>Newton
physicist
>Orsted
physicist
>Ampère
physicist
>Ohm
physicist
>Dalton
chemist
>Joule
physicist
>Thomson
physicist
>Maxwell
physicist
>Darwin
biologist
>Fechner
physicist
>Mach
physicist
>Boltzmann
physicist
>Tesla
engineer
>Meitner
physicist
>Noether
chemist
>Russell
mathematician
>Whitehead
mathematician
>Heisenberg
physicist
>Einstein
physicist
>Schrödinger
physicist
>Bohr
physicist
>de Broglie
physicist
>Nath Bose
physicist
>Poincaré
mathematician
>Cantor
mathematician
>Alan Turing
CS
>Godel
mathematician
>David Hilbert
mathematician
>von Neumann
mathematician
>Müller
philologist
>Lemaître
astrophysics
>Kandel
neuroscience
>Hawking
Cosmology
>Minsky
A.I

>> No.6946907
File: 58 KB, 622x626, 1406736327362.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6946907

>>6946903
>>Aristotle
>father of science

more like "father of anti-scientific dogma holding back scientific advancement for more than two millennia"

Just go back to >>>/lit/ already with your fedora bait.

>> No.6946913

>>6946903
>>Müller
>philologist

meant physician, but that's wrong too, chemist*. There is a different muller i'm aware off

>> No.6946915
File: 53 KB, 625x626, 1406734307127.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6946915

>>6946903
>>Alan Turing
>CS

That's an insult. The guy was a mathematician and he'd turn around in his grave if he saw how CS is taught today.

>> No.6946921

>>6946907

>list has around 20 names
>focuses only on one
>save facing this pathetically

>> No.6946924

>>6946915

that doesnt affect the fact he is mostly known for his work in CS

>> No.6946925

>>6946907
>>6946915
i love this fish meme :D

>> No.6946927

>>6946903
Pythagoras was not a mathematician, he was a mystic and a cult leader.
Aristotle had nothing to do with science. He was a demagogue.
Darwin was not a biologist. He was a "natural theologian" and at his time his theory was highly speculative because he didn't have the science we have today to prove it.

>> No.6946929
File: 57 KB, 700x350, stephen_hawking_philosophy_2545.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6946929

>>6946833
>putting Hawking in a list of philosophers

Never go full retard.

>> No.6946932

>>6946895
>>top ad hominem
>implying it isn't true

>>I see you're out of arguments
>I've only posted twice in this thread.
I think I know you, you are a poltard who posts images in every single reply. I think you are also a mentally ill manchildren or just a teenager
you are the cancer of this board and 4chan in general

>> No.6946935

>>6946929

He writes philosophy books all the time

>> No.6946938
File: 36 KB, 493x342, retardalert.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6946938

>>6946921
>special pleading

I proved you wrong. No fallacy can save that disproved nonsense of yours.

>> No.6946941
File: 49 KB, 237x300, facepalm.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6946941

>>6946833
>Emmy Noether
>philosophy

Her only encounter with philosophy was when the philosophical faculty objected her attending university because she was a woman. Only more evidence how philosophy held back scientific progress.

>> No.6946945

>>6946941

Nope, she was a marxist (a philosophic position) during her lifetime.

>> No.6946950

>>6946932
>all these projections

>> No.6946954
File: 42 KB, 500x415, full retard meme.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6946954

>>6946945
Falling for anti-intellectual political propaganda is not a philosophy. Or else you'd have to say every /pol/tard is a top tier philosopher.

Your trolling is pathetic. Go back to >>>/b/ and learn some subtlety.

>> No.6946955

>>6946941

>philosophical faculty objected her attending university because she was a woman.


Damn, are you telling me philotards got something right?

>> No.6946958

>>6946945
>having political opinions == being a philosopher

0/10

>> No.6946959

>>6946954
>Falling for anti-intellectual political propaganda
back to your containment board
>>>/pol/

>> No.6946964

>>6946958

>implying he said she was a philosopher
>thinking philosophag means philosopher

>> No.6946967
File: 100 KB, 490x614, GetMyFuckingDrink.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6946967

>>6946945
Having a philosophical position doesn't make you a "philosopher". Just because she was a Marxist doesn't mean she worked at star bucks.

>> No.6946969

>>6946959
That's where you belong, /pol/tard. I object your anti-intellectual and anti-scientific propaganda.

>> No.6946970

>>6946393
>What is the most agreed upon view of what knowledge might be and how we go about learning?
Empiricism.
Anyone pretending otherwise is just lying to themselves.

>> No.6946976

>>6946964
So you admit she has nothing to do wtih philosophy and therefore doesn't belong on his list? Just like the rest of the physicists on his list? Now that this is settled, would you two please either educate yourself in STEM or go the fuck back to your containment board >>>/lit/?

>> No.6946982

>>6946967
Anti-intellectual political propaganda is not even a "philosophical position".

>> No.6946983

>>6946967
>>6946964


>>6946976
>thinking you have to be a philosopher to be a philosophag

>> No.6946987
File: 87 KB, 500x800, philosotards REKT by Sam Harris.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6946987

>>6946983
>moving the goalposts

>> No.6947011
File: 55 KB, 850x400, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6947011

>>6946987

>> No.6947020
File: 78 KB, 671x531, 1407736565701.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6947020

>>6947011
Good thing I'm not a man.

And us STEM people are still better philosophers than the professional philosophers themselves, solely due to the fact that we are more talented at rigorous analytical and logical thinking.

>> No.6947036

>>6946970
>Empiricism
you still need the theory and the hypothesis that come from it all

>>6947020
>pic implies science can solve it
kek

>> No.6947039

>>6947020
>>>6947011

>> No.6947040

>>6946874
>your own list
But that's wrong dickhead, slow down before you get lost. I'm just another anonymous poster of many thousands making a reply who did not make a list which puckered your anus.

>> No.6947042

>>6947020

>woman

Woman are statistically inferior to man both physicially and intellectually.

>> No.6947046

>>6947036
>you still need the theory and the hypothesis that come from it all
Those are science and do neither require nor imply any philosophical musings.

>>pic implies science can solve it
Science can explain why the question itself is meaningless.

>> No.6947052

>>6947046

>meaningless

What branch of science studies meaning?

>> No.6947061

Neural synthesis that proves true with more than one present party. Dan is 6'2", I'm 6'1", people say Dan's about an inch taller than me.

If I hit a ball at x ma, and it goes 100 ft, and if J hits a ball at x ma, and it goes 100ft, then x ma causes a ball of y kg to go 100ft,

>> No.6947070

>>6947052
All branches.

>> No.6947079

>>6947036
>you still need the theory and the hypothesis that come from it all
It doesn't matter where it 'came from', it still works whether you like it or not.
Bridges built on the basis of empirical knowledge will carry a car across a river.
Theoretical bridges created as thought experiments will not.

QED.

>> No.6947081

>>6947070

Oh right, I forgot that one day in chemistry I when the professor taught us how to use the meaningometer in the lab to test the meaningfulness of 1L of mercury.

>> No.6947085

>>6946907
Aristotle contributed to the development of modern day science..
>>6946927
Pythagoras contributed to modern day science..

the context which you anons are zealously taking these GLORIOUS WHITEMEN out of distorts people's understanding of how contributions to utilitarian science were historically made.

>>6946915
and so apparently this is just a small team /s4s/ troll raid for social justice. I'm sure Something Awful users, American shills, British imperialists, and the entire Viking race (RIP in Valhalla nord bros and vixens) all around the world are smiling and proud of the fun you are having these days on /sci/.

>> No.6947086

>>6947081
Stop forgetting

>> No.6947087

>>6947081
A meaning's only comprised of how it fits into the whole. The red boy.

>> No.6947089

>>6947081
The meaning of your 1L of mercury will be whatever you're using it for at that moment.

>> No.6947091

>>6947085
>Aristotle contributed to the development of modern day science..

No, he didn't. At best you can argue he "contributed" by causing people in the late middle ages to develop science in OPPOSITION to his retarded dogma. But that only shows how he held back science.

>> No.6947092
File: 48 KB, 490x367, PhilIdiots.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6947092

>>6946393
/lit/ please fuck off

>> No.6947095

>>6947091
Yes, I can argue, thank you for pointing out the obvious. I'm just wondering why you'd argue the contrary without providing some insightful shit to go along with it so we know you're not some random unwanted turd in the toilet.

>> No.6947096

>>6947087
>>6947089

these propositions aren't scientific.

>> No.6947098

>>6947079

You can build a working bridge from deductive knowledge too

>> No.6947099

>>6947095
>random unwanted turd in the toilet.
random unwanted turd in the toilet decent cats drink out of.

>> No.6947102

>>6947096
The lighter needs fluid. Butane is introduced into the lighter and causes the spark to remain as flame upon and during its release. therefore the meaning of butane is 'the lighter fluid'. or the fluid which allows flame.

>> No.6947103
File: 82 KB, 750x600, full_retard.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6947103

>>6947095
>toilet insults

Seriously? This is embarrassing. I knew there was a huge gap between our intellectual levels, but I would of never expected it to be that astronomically big.

>> No.6947104

>>6947096
Sure there are.
If you're using mercury to create some amalgam fillings, then you can measure the meaning of it - does it serve well as structural fillings of the tooth? How tough is it? How long will it last? Will it be toxic? Will it prevent the tooth from collapsing? etc
Those are all scientific questions.

>> No.6947110
File: 50 KB, 490x316, 69760976073.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6947110

>>6946393

>> No.6947111

>>6947085
Keep /pol/ memes on /pol/. We don't need them on 4chan.

>> No.6947113

>>6947103
You're grabbing for straws cause you got styled on with toilet humor, and now you're rolling in the mud trying to invite me in. But, go ahead and keep responding, I'll stay here talking to ya.

>> No.6947119

>>6947111
>meme policing
is that a lawful order, sir?

>> No.6947122

>>6947111
oh sorry, got my memes mixed up..
AM I BEING DETAINED?

>> No.6947123

>>6947113
You're lonely and you want someone to talk? Try cleverbot.

>> No.6947129

>>6947123
We seem to be clever enough for each other.

>> No.6947131

>>6947046
>>6947079
>neither require nor imply any philosophical musings.
>It doesn't matter where it 'came from', it still works whether you like it or not.
oh, you know, we came with this theory about black holes and stuff from science itself, and not from our imagination and past lives experiences, you know, knowledge "just is"
wait a minute, if it doesn't matter, and I assume you mean "if it doesn't matter at all" even if it COULD be useful for us... then how come science itself matters? what's its purpose? why are people doing science, at all?

>> No.6947135

>>6947119
>>6947122
did you see what moot did to pol? do you understand why?
inb4 >muh free speech
a website is a privately owned public place.

>> No.6947146

>>6947131
>then how come science itself matters? what's its purpose? why are people doing science, at all?
Depends on the individual.
There's no objective or ultimate purpose if that's what you're asking.

>> No.6947148
File: 4 KB, 225x225, imagesCA2T0YG5.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6947148

>>6947135
What did moot do to /pol/?
/pol/ is the containment board, right?

bump for actual info
(none of this shitty philosophy bullshit)

>> No.6947153
File: 8 KB, 300x225, Question-mark-guy-2-e1291494914699.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6947153

>>6947148
WTF has happend to /pol/? It seems strange?

>> No.6947155

>>6947146
>Depends on the individual.
>There's no objective or ultimate purpose if that's what you're asking.
but there are reasons behind the motivation of those individuals. it could useful to know what motivates them to improve the practice of science. do you agree with me?

>>6947148
go there and see? >>>/pol/

>> No.6947167
File: 29 KB, 347x346, Question-Man.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6947167

>>6947155
What happened to all the racists on /pol/? I am confused? What did moot do?

>> No.6947171

>>6946907
First thing that I'd like to say is I totally agree.

>>6946903
>Russell
>Heisenberg
>Schrödinger
>Turing
>Godel
>David Hilbert
>von Neumann

>Weierstrass
>Zermelo

I have to agree. One of the major concerns of the people I've listed is epistemology: what can we know. What can we prove that we know.

In mathematics we've proven that we can't prove that it's consistent. We believe it to be consistent because we believe nature was created by a divine being (the truth hurts, atheists). We know we can't prove it, though.

>> No.6947174
File: 223 KB, 600x700, that-was-the-stupidest-thing-i-have-ever-heard.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6947174

>>6947171
>we believe nature was created by a divine being

/x/ please go

>> No.6947177

>>6947171
Oops, I meant to agree with >>6946915

Turing was a mathematician, and would hate the current state of CS.

>> No.6947180

>>6947167
>/pol/ finds out that Moot's "gf" is a worker for Gawkers that cucked him
>Ben Garrison calls out Moot to fuck over /pol/ for labeling him as a Nazi
>Moot fucks up /pol/

>> No.6947195
File: 267 KB, 400x300, v8Y1VvbEma2efk3vWvg3NmQm_400.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6947195

>>6947180
Thanks for the info!!!!!!!

>> No.6947199
File: 78 KB, 1306x354, 1406939099623.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6947199

>>6947180
If they had kept it to themselves no one would have given a fuck but literally 99% of deletions on /sci/ are /pol/cucks shitposting about race and how much they hate niggers. I can't imagine things are much better on other boards.

Bronies took a hint and kept learned to contain their illness. /pol/ earned this fate.

>> No.6947201

>>6947177
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KF8mgwgIKGE

The only reason we believe that the world has rules that we can know is that we believe it was created by a divine being.

>> No.6947203

>>6947195
Ah yes, to be more exact he blasted "8 steps to cuckolding" throughout the board, and then rempved CAPTCHA/time limit, and invited all the other boards to fuck /pol/ over.

>> No.6947209

>>6947174
>>6947201
Why am I failing so hard at quoting?

Start at minute 6.

tl;dr

For science to begin:
1) The world cannot be God.
2) The world is ineligible: it has structure.

Both of these come from religion.

>> No.6947211
File: 6 KB, 270x367, Question_Mark_GuyW.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6947211

>>6947180
WAIT? WUT? Ben Garrison was mad at Moot? Because /pol/ made Ben look bad?

So Moot fucked up /pol/ for Ben, Himself, and his GF?

>> No.6947214

>>6947211
More like Ben and himself yes.

>> No.6947221
File: 16 KB, 290x290, widget_afSvvmoFrl6PgZoATEAput.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6947221

>>6947209
>>6947201
>magic is needed to have "rules"

Are you fucking retarded? You literally just posted incoherent gibberish. Try again faggot.

>> No.6947223
File: 102 KB, 513x339, success_baby.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6947223

>>6947214
Ic. Okay. I'm okay with this. 4chan is a private business. Moot can do whatever the fuck he wants.

Plus /pol/ is fucking scum anyway. Fuck those faggots.

>> No.6947225

>>6947221
Magic is needed to get rid of the magical rules. Monotheism was a catalyst to dispel superstitions which gave overly complicated world views.

>> No.6947235
File: 33 KB, 500x372, celebrity-pictures-lady-gaga-eminem-thinking-wtf.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6947235

>>6947201
>magic is needed for rules

[citation needed]

Troll? Or are you one of the /pol/ refugees? Because your argument is beyond fucking retarded. It is just a blind assertion. You should work on your basic reasoning skills faggot.

Claims require evidence. The claims that "magic is needed for laws to exist" is a claim which you have no evidence for. And no "a laughing baby" isn't evidence of magic.

If you could actually demonstrate that without magic we would have no laws, then maybe you could imply we live in a magical universe. However, you need to demonstrate that shit! Until then no one has any fucking reason to believe your outlandish claims.

>> No.6947253
File: 385 KB, 644x520, 1267737760735555.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6947253

>>6947225
>Magic is needed to get rid of the magical rules

WTF are you talking about?

>Magic exists

[citation needed]

>Magical rules exist

[citation needed]

You are making up your own shitty fucking problems (magic rules), and then making up some bullshit to solve it (magic)? DA FUQ? It is a fucking joke. You know what, You have a problem called called "YYKJHKH", the cure is " IYUG IYUG ".

I hope you're trolling and not retarded.

>> No.6947275
File: 1.45 MB, 288x198, 1407064574120.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6947275

>>6947225
>magic A was needed to combat magic B

Please listen to yourself. You are talking nonsense kid. Maybe some people used their belief in magic A to get rid of their belief in magic B. But that doesn't mean magic A was necessary. It also doesn't means that magic A or B are real, are laws, or have any known tie to fucking reality.

You know the easy way to just solve the problem of belief in Magic B is? Just stop believing in magic! No need to introduce more magic! You are talking some truly stupid convoluted bullshit.

>> No.6947281

>>6947235
Actually, I am a /pol/ refugee.
>>6947253

What I'm trying to get at are the base assumptions of science. Science has a base assumption that the world has rules, a base assumption that no one has a reason to believe. For thousands of years of history, people believed in ghosts, and goblins, and demons. The only reason anyone had a reason to believe the assumption that the world had rules is because they, wrongly, believed that a magical being created the world and thus endowed it with rules.

I don't believe in God. I also cannot discount the belief in God in the creation of science. Science was born out of a belief in a Creator God and no amount of Fedoras can cover that up.

>> No.6947284

>>6947275
Ya know... I agree with you but you would be a lot more convincing without all the samefagging and cool memes.

>> No.6947292

>>6947275
Magic A was not needed, but magic A DID.

The logical implications of Magic A were that Magic B did not exist, then they realized that the logical implications of Magic A were that Magic A also did not exist.

>> No.6947295

>>6947281
>Science has a base assumption that the world has rules, a base assumption that no one has a reason to believe.
No, science has the base assumption that we can ATTEMPT to explain the world. Science doesn't assume rules, it just happens to find them. If we found some evidence that shows a "rule" does not exist, we would abandon that "rule". No one has to believe in anything science says, that's why we have evidence and logic. Chemistry evolved from alchemy, that doesn't mean alchemy is somehow important or that if alchemy had not existed, chemistry would not exist. Your argument is stupid.

>> No.6947296
File: 96 KB, 400x300, 30334575.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6947296

>>6947225
>Belief in Magic is needed to get rid of the belief in magical rules.

Plenty of people go from believing in magic to no belief magic. In fact, those numbers are growing fast. So your assertion is demonstrably false Anon.

>> No.6947307

>>6947296
>Plenty of people go from believing in magic to no belief magic.

Because they've grown up indoctrinated with base assumptions which logically imply that magic does not exist.

>> No.6947308

>>6946393
>>6946393
Knowledge is memory. The conscious mind is made of conceptual building blocks that are just memories that have been structured by which areas of them you emphasise in which ways. Knowledge is the resonance in your mind of all data and sensory experience you've ever processed, and how exactly you've organized it.

Why complicate it with shit like past lives?

Also, these assholes don't understand that philosophy is the ultimate point and purpose of science.

>> No.6947311

for those interested, moot is here: >>>/pol/40097349

>> No.6947314
File: 27 KB, 200x200, 200_s.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6947314

>>6947281
>Science has a base assumption that the world has rules, a base assumption that no one has a reason to believe

Nope. We do have a "reason" to believe that shit, because we can observe patterns and make things we call "rules". We observe a phenomena since antiquity and label it gravity. The continued presence of said phenomena is a inductive reason to believe it will continue and label it a law or rule. It is basic inductive reasoning. It is logic 101.

Hell, even fucking animals do this shit. A dog uses inductive reasoning based on his observations to formulate things he equates with "rules". It is the reason you can train a fucking dog!

You don't need magic for any of this shit kid.

>Science was born out of a belief in a Creator God

[citation needed]

You should count how many fucking baseless assumptions you have made. Maybe then you will understand why you're so fucking laughable.

>> No.6947315

>>6947296
>>6947307
Base assumptions which are foundational and stem from religious beliefs.

The reason that we, today, believe that the world has rules is due to the influence of Christianity, and no amount of Fedoras can deny that history.

All I want is the acknowledgement that religion isn't the great evil boogeyman that Atheists make it out to be and was actually a foundational cornerstone to our modern scientific world.

>> No.6947316

>>6947296
Wait which magic are you talking about?
The big bang?
Morphogenesis?
Self-awareness?
A linear progression of causality?
Or just the ones that you've deemed the unacceptable kind of magic.

>> No.6947318

>>6947135
Yes, and no, and I don't expect any pretentious asshole to tell me why /pol/ is the way it is. I've been there and here since their inception, and have my head in other places of relevance not on this website. I think /sci/ of being the most oblivious board here, so all the more reason why I don't want someone else (like this SRS-tier asshole >>6947199) telling me or anyone else why it is in the same way I don't want a philosopher telling a mathematician how to do math.

If you haven't followed the narrative since /new/ you're just pulling shit out of your ass about /pol/. Sure, someone can be a mod making normal anon posts, but fuck them too for all this meta agenda bullshit and their whole "get a clue" philosophy. Mother fuckers, the FBI are regulars on the whole site and god knows what other class-driven bigots, so I don't need your shitty watered down opinions or dictates on it.

On the other hand, I give a fuckless. /pol/ was fun and moot made it more fun, and that's all I would really need to say about it.

>> No.6947320

>>6947315
>The reason that we, today, believe that the world has rules is due to the influence of Christianity
No, you got the cause & effect backwards.
The reason Christianity stipulates a 'rule giver' is because people did start and see pasterns and structure to the world, and then they founded a religion based on that.

>> No.6947322

>>6947318
>I don't want a philosopher telling a mathematician how to do math.
congrats, I'm diagnosing you for free: you are retarded. you don't even understand the point of philosophy.

>> No.6947324
File: 47 KB, 320x235, 6+30+In+the+damn+morning+and+i+m+laughing+my+ass+_13847fdef174fd975e6d9e01430f48f2.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6947324

>>6947307
>they have grown up indoctrinated not to believe in magic

[citation needed]

Stop being an idiot. Most people who go from magic belief to no belief in magic, because they are simply thinking more skeptically about their beliefs. Simple as that.

>> No.6947326

>>6947322
Define "point"
Define "Understand"
Define "You"

>> No.6947327

>>6947316
>doesn't know what magic is

Trolling or retarded?

>> No.6947328

>>6947322
Sure, sure, I'm just skimming over the details, but thanks for that critique. I'm a wildberger fan btw so, anon pls.

>> No.6947330

>>6946393
memory resides in the physical processes of now. it has limited uses

>> No.6947333
File: 271 KB, 600x402, Lipton_Kermit.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6947333

>>6947327
>magic
bending reality to one's will should be the general definition from which many different frameworks can operate cooperatively around the subject.

>> No.6947335

>>6947326
define "fuck you"

>> No.6947339

me>>6947333
I would like to thank my family, everyone participating on this board, and myself for believing in myself for these trips. I am a nobody, and never imaged I was ever capable or worthy of such an awesome achievement.

>> No.6947340

>>6947327
You're sitting here pretending to have all the answers to everything in the universe.
The very fact that you are here is at this point apparently magical. The fact that you are self aware is proof that there are properties of matter that we don't yet understand. And whether you believe in the big bang or the christian god or some form of trans-temporal causal reasoning, you are trying to explain something that is inherently paradoxical. And any reasoning therein is subject to belief and assumption and blurring of reasoning and definition. The real answers beg for a metaphysical explanation at this point.

>> No.6947341
File: 731 KB, 200x202, 1353134519312.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6947341

>>6947315
>Base assumptions which are foundational and stem from religious beliefs.

[citation needed]

You keep just asserting the same thing over any over, without any proof or reason behind it.

>The reason we, today, believe the world has rules is because Christianity

So the Chinese, who have never been largely christian, believe/have rules because the Christians? The Hindus? Are you fucking retarded? What about the civilizations before Christianity? The code of Hamarabi are humanity formulating "rules", right? Nothing to do with Christianity.

You are objectively wrong in all your assertions. Stop spouting crazy bullshit.

>> No.6947357
File: 88 KB, 650x434, 3GL-you-keep-using-that-word-but-i-don-t-think-you-know-what-it-means.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6947357

>>6947340
>>6947339
>crazy nonsense

>The very fact that you are here is at this point apparently magical

You don't know what the word "magical" means. You don't. Please look it up. I didn't read the rest of your crazy bullshit. Try again.

Regardless, /sci/ is science and math. Not magic. Please fuck off to /x/

>> No.6947360

>>6947340
>the big bang is inherently paradoxical

dumbest_thing_ive_heard_all_day.jpg

>> No.6947368

>>6947360
Fucking time is a linear progression of cause to effect that started for no reason.

Okay.

>> No.6947369
File: 64 KB, 460x354, aw8x4.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6947369

>>6947340
>You're sitting here pretending to have all the answers to everything in the universe

Nope. I only asked you to back up the assertions you were making. Then you get all fucking butt hurt because you can't.

WHERE DO YOU THINK YOU ARE FAGGOT?

You are the reason people don't take philosophy seriously. You spout mindless drivel then throw shit fit when you're proven wrong, or unable to justify our beliefs.

>> No.6947373
File: 88 KB, 650x434, f3T-you-keep-using-that-word-it-doesn-t-mean-what-you-think-it-means.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6947373

>>6947368
>doesn't know what the word "paradox" means

Please look up words and concepts, so you don't sound fucking retarded. The big bang isn't a paradox kid. You're ignorance is showing.

>> No.6947378

>>6947360
The idea of linear causal reasoning is doomed to paradox. Once you have a system you beg the question of what events put that system into place, unless, you use a theory of life being a somehow self-sustaining system. In which case, you still beg the question of how it came to be.
Yes. Life preceeds the conceptual confines brought to it by science and human perception. See through them.

>> No.6947379

>>6947020
i think it may reside in the fact they are at closer proximity to the data of reality...with of course the analytical skill/training

>> No.6947382
File: 24 KB, 502x391, 1270664214909.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6947382

>>6947368
>doesn't know what magic is
>doesn't know what paradox is

How is that philosophy degree working out for you? What other basic concepts don't you know?

>> No.6947383

>>6947369
Actually you're yelling at me for stuff some other dude said.
>>6947373
Your* ignorance is showing.

>> No.6947386

>>6947382
The reasoning used to explain it is doomed to paradox. I thought I was clear.

Biology, actually.

>> No.6947387

>>6947357
Oh, so you're an authority on magic now fanboy of science? Or are you just some prejudice fuck from the south trying to protect their culture's religion from the pagans?

>> No.6947390
File: 15 KB, 260x354, 1267590795538.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6947390

>>6947378
>The idea of linear causal reasoning is doomed to paradox

Nope. What you constructed is an argument from ignorance (argument from incredulity). Your reasoning is fucking flawed. Nice try though. Would you like to try again?

Having an unanswered question, IS NOT A FUCKING PARADOX. It is just an unanswered question. Having an answer that raises further questions, IS NOT A FUCKING PARADOX.

Having contradictory answers or predictions would be a paradox. The Big Bang doesn't have anything like that.

please read a book

>> No.6947392

>>6947368
>that started
Found the problem in your paradox.

>> No.6947395

>>6947387
>you are an authority on magic

No, but I speak fucking English and know the meaning of most common English words/concepts. Why don't you?

>> No.6947396

>>6947386
No, all you did was make an argument from ignorance. It is not a valid. Sorry.

>> No.6947407
File: 60 KB, 576x365, obama___wtf_face_by_ele_bros-d78j50s.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6947407

>>6947378
You literally don't know what a paradox is
Too cute
Silly little philosopher

>> No.6947408
File: 2.44 MB, 320x240, 1417857683544.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6947408

>>6947395
I speak the mutt language too, but that doesn't make me an authority on everything I see in it's reference manual. You just have an agenda to push, and dictating unhelpful sources of information on people seems to be apart of it.

If I look up the definition of polite in the dictionary is that going to really help me know what that is in an effective way?

>> No.6947409

>>6947392
That started either because of itself, paradoxically, or by something else that was started by something else that was caused by something else that either happened for no reason or somehow is part of some kind of some trans-causal phenomena.

My only point is that once you get to this kind of reasoning, paradigm-shift is around every corner and being so confident in the quantifiability of it all from our perspective is sort of a bold assumption. "Magic" isn't such an unreasonable idea.

>> No.6947412
File: 42 KB, 200x297, Abbott_older-medium.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6947412

>>6947409
>That started
I'm sorry, I can't finish reading the post.

>> No.6947415

>>6947409
Also, fucking chill. All your hostility is either for OP or some other guy. I just thought i'd make a point and quell the hostility. Because all it was was ultimately two belief systems feuding it out because one refused to admit it was a belief system.

>> No.6947425

>>6947409
me>>6947412 again
Actually I'm joking, but it really seems like you have a fixation for a word that might not be as concrete, meaningful, or actual as you think it is because of perhaps applied utilitarian modes of belief.

>paradigm-shift is around every corner
Well, of course. And either you point at the corner or you try to peak your head around it. Which position do you think will offer better descriptions for those around you?

I think a "thing without a start" isn't as paradoxical as you may initially think. But first, I hope we can agree to recognize "birth" and "death" probably have a lot to contribute to this word "start" which we impose on the inanimate. If you have multiple areas, how can they not be on the same plane? If you have multiple volumes, how can they not be in the same space? I mean, what is volume or space can be like? Don't we all kind of forcibly think of space and the universe as one gigantic volume or square or dodecahedron? Maybe that exact notion needs reexamining and an opening of the floor here.

idk, I wasn't following the conversation earlier tbh, but I figured I'd just chime in on a small problem from the way I see it.

Maybe we disagree on the word "start" ultimately, but oh well. My mind is pretty set on not being set; so, we might have to agree to forever disagree.

>> No.6947436
File: 18 KB, 267x273, 1269751101073.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6947436

>>6947409
None of your comments are about the big bang theory itself. The big bang theory describes a small point that expanded. That is it. It doesn't talk about the very initial conditions, or before those conditions. Stop being so ignorant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

>The whatever caused the big bang caused itself = a paradox

Nope. There need not be contradictory answers in a causal loop. No paradox. This is like GR 101. Plus we know plenty of shit with spontaneous (or no) cause; QM 101.

>a chain of causes

Again, still not a paradox. Raising further questions is not a paradox kid.

You are confusing your ignorance of basic physic concepts and basic logic, with a paradox. It is just another argument from ignorance. Just because you don't know something, doesn't mean others don't. You are just plain ignorant on basic physics and basic logic's, simple as that. You should go read some books.

>> No.6947442
File: 202 KB, 500x333, image.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6947442

>>6947409
>"Magic" isn't such an unreasonable idea.

0/1000

>> No.6947444
File: 48 KB, 740x419, 1277031751910.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6947444

>>6947409
>A casual loop a paradox

>> No.6947447

>>6947425
Do you not see that I am in principle correct? That the existence of a system begs the existence of a causal factor from outside said system, and no matter what form this takes, that will still beg the question of how that external system came to be. Unless, there were a unifying causal factor. In which case, you have some kind of self-sustaining system that still begs the question of how it came to be, but just on a different scale?
If there are levels of organization that preceed even causal reasoning, then no amount of divine intervention is beyond speculation. So any wild pontificating may actually lend context in one way or another.

>> No.6947449

>>6947442
It's not, though. I mean is God really an unreasonable idea in the true sense and definition of an idea being unreasonable if God were just a sneaky asshole hell bent on shitty entertainment?

>> No.6947457
File: 59 KB, 280x280, never-go-full-retard-tee_design.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6947457

>>6947447
Honestly, are you a philosophy major? Because if you are, any respect I had for them is now completely fucking gone. Good job.
Still not a paradox

>> No.6947458
File: 6 KB, 196x167, images.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6947458

>>6947449
>MUUH magic

WOW.

>> No.6947463

>>6947457
I am not, but I still know that would be a really shitty philosophy major.
"Quantum physics is full of dipshits because deepak chopra exists"

>> No.6947471

>>6947447
I see where you're coming from. But us humans with our ideas are jumping in the middle of this thing we call(ed) cause and effect before we really knew what was going on. Also, I do believe that reality cannot contain contradictions, but we can't tell reality it's a big fat stupid contradiction -- just like Einstein can't tell God what to do -- if we don't actually understand the rules as good as we think we do. Moreover, if there's a paradox in the world it's probably always going to be coming from our own fictional man made ideas rather than the behavior of matter and energy.

I can't stress enough that you're probably not doing yourself any favors by thinking everything has to have a start. In my perspective everything is one thing undergoing on huge metamorphosis and we humans just give different sections, segment, and moments of that one everything different names arbitrarily. Beginning, ends, insides, outsides, what's mine, and what's yours are totally man made.

I hope I'm not ignoring what you mean under your use of casual though. That might not be where I see where exactly you're coming from.

>> No.6947473
File: 79 KB, 500x375, colbert-lockwood.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6947473

>>6947447
>MUUH cause and effect
>I must dogmatically believe in cause end effect

You have a problem. This cause and effect shit isn't first principle Anon. It is something we observe for certain systems. And for some systems we don't. We even observe some systems with spontaneous cause. Please stop thinking so fucking small.

Just because you are a philosopher doesn''t mean you have to stay an idiot. Break the stereotype.

>> No.6947476

>>6947458
>wow
What? There are some really good functional definitions out there you might not have heard of.

To begin with are you aware of Clarke's three laws? Most people don't find the 3rd one crazy, irrelevant, dogmatic, or a superstitious trap.

>> No.6947484

>>6947471
I don't feel like we should be disagreeing at all, perhaps something's lost in translation. I don't mean that everything must have a start, but all of the apparent "Starts" must be accountable for in some kind of all-inclusive context, even if that perspective is beyond our conceptual potential. But the way I see things, every existing theory, if thought out, is begging for some degree of metaphysical explanation. Or at least, some dynamical quality that is by definition Metaphysical, as in, beyond-physical. Beyond our sensory experience and the technologies and terminologies we've developed to define it. I just think people are entirely too eager to go "YOUR IGNORANCE" when literally my message is "Our ignorance"

>> No.6947485
File: 103 KB, 300x392, 1353135742944.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6947485

>>6947476
>gibberish
>There are some good functional definitions of magic

Playing semantics to cling to preconceived biases if fucking pathetic. You need help.

/lit/--------->

>> No.6947488

>>6947473
Right, they're frameworks of reasoning used to define a system without accounting for all of the dynamics at play. Therefore, potentially conceptually limiting. Therefore, to some degree, an assumtion. A dogma. I don't see where there's room for disagreement. Perhaps you're taking more from my words than is there to take?

>> No.6947489
File: 1.61 MB, 640x352, 1418425751631.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6947489

>>6947484
>very existing theory, if thought out, is begging for some degree of metaphysical explanation

>> No.6947503

>>6947489
Name for me a theory of existence that does not imply things beyond our physical perception or proveability.

>> No.6947508

>>6946633

i always knew sci was autistic

friendless losers

>> No.6947509

>>6947503
solipsism

>> No.6947510
File: 23 KB, 397x395, 10297928_645023678925728_3480383004303574143_n.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6947510

>>6947488
>without accounting for all of the dynamics at play

[citation needed]

Please stop assuming useless stupid shit, in order to fit your preconceived biases. Just STOP!

Cause and effect aren't a fucking dogma, and they are not used as a dogma by physicists or mathematicians! That is the fucking point!

The only person using them as shitty dogma are idiots trying to make weird incoherent philosophical arguments: >>6947447 >>6947409

They are making up problems that don't exists, to try to invalidate ideas they just don't understand. It is typical philosophy major nonsense.

>> No.6947516
File: 80 KB, 634x600, 1293417184248.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6947516

>>6947503
I just made a theory of how much a a faggot you are.

"Anon is a fucking faggot"

inb4 WHAT IS IS?

>> No.6947517

>>6947509
Touche, but that does imply that consciousness is the ultimate causal factor. Therefore metaphysics.

>>6947510
My citation?
Can you describe for me the conditions outside of the spectrum of light that we can percieve and how light interects with itself on other planes of being? I'm assuming nothing. I'm not saying cause and effect is dogma. I'm saying that our general understanding of it begs expansion upon right now. And no nook or cranny is beyond looking under. I'm not using this to justify whatever you were arguing about with some guy earlier. Or OP. I made my simple points. The things you're disagreeing with are things you've extrapolated from my points that I didn't necessarily imply.

>> No.6947519

>>6947484
But you are ignorant Anon. You are really fucking ignorant. You have demonstrated that here quite a bit.

>> No.6947524

>>6947485
>cling to preconceived biases
I think you're the one guilty of that and making shit up because of it. What preconceived biases am I trying to cling to? As far as I know, I didn't give you any, but please let me know if I have.

>> No.6947537

>>6947519
That may be man but at least i'm fun to talk to. I haven't insulted you at all. If anything what I preach is the idealogical foundation that undoes dogmas and tills the cognitive soils for receptivity to truth, whatever form it may take. That should be welcome in the scientific community. And I say it in ways that conjure imagery that provokes boundary-questioning intice women, rather than ways that just put people down who I deem less intelligent than me because they haven't followed the same journey as I through academia.

>> No.6947543

>>6947537
Provokes boundary-questioning, AND intices women. Damnit.

>> No.6947549
File: 20 KB, 400x320, tumblr_lnvvueuSsj1qcj56b.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6947549

>>6947517
>Can you describe .....

Your logic is really laughable.

1) Your claims isn't related to what you ask me to describe. It isn't the claim. It isn't the opposite of the claim. It isn't the contrapostive. It isn't logically related at all. It has no relevance to your claim.

2) What you describe is full of non-sequiturs

>other plane of being

Are you fucking retarded? Honestly? That doesn't mean anything! You want me to tell you about Harry Potter next? DA FUQ Guy?!

Please tell me how gravity works in "NIUYNIOUNY" ! That is what you are asking. Fucking stupid kid.

No doubt you are a philosophy major. You ooze nonsense.

>> No.6947552

>>6947524
>As far as I know, I didn't give you any

Read what you wrote

>> No.6947557

>>6947517
>how light interects with itself on other planes of being?

/x/ please GTFO!!

>> No.6947559

>>6947549
>97% of the universe is "Theoretical" to us.
>Our causal reasoning accounts for all of the dynamics at play.

Other plane of being. Yeah, you know. Whatever form the rest of the universe takes.


Again, what point of mine exactly are you arguing? I've only basically said "Anything's possible" over and over again. And anything else you've taken from that to argue with, is whatever you've brought to this conversation from someone or somewhere else.

>> No.6947564

>>6947537
>what I preach is the idealogical foundation that undoes dogmas

[citation needed]

You didn't preach anything important or non-trivial.


>MUUH lets ask more questions

*Very very slow clap

>> No.6947567

>>6947557
Is it not accepted as true that 97% of the spectrum of light exists not within any dynamical understanding we've come up with for how the universe works?

Is it not generally accepted that the behaviors of wave and frequency and resonance are pretty fundamental to every level or organization and are not entirely understood right now?

Okay then, so let me state my one and only point again. If there are levels of organization that preceed causal reasoning, then nobody can really be sure of anything. Okay? It's a correct statement in principle.

Now, whatever other thing you are trying to argue with, that you think i'm trying to say. I'm not trying to say that.I'm just trying to say that no stone is not worth turning in the search for some ultimate perspective on things.

>> No.6947573

>>6947567
>97%
Where did you get that number from?

>> No.6947589

>>6947484
>I don't feel like we should be disagreeing at all, perhaps something's lost in translation.
I'm seeing a common theme of people confusing anons together. I don't know if that's what happened, but I've just seen it happen here more than elsewhere.

>is begging for some degree of metaphysical explanation
For one: we don't have to satisfy that. For two: all in due time. Keeping things in order is the first metaphysical thing that should be kept in mind, twice or more over. Keeping a 1st (start of a) thing as the 1st (counting of a) thing might require clarity. The "paradox" I'm looking at is before and after being the same thing because we're on some kind of loop of volumetricish states. Whether before is closer to now than after could be the new astronomical question that perpetually pops up with respect to all phenomena. I think with all metaphysics we're just shaving off dialectic bits, this issue around causality or the 'beginning of all causality' are just a few tiny bits which won't satisfy all metaphysical concerns with respect to existence. In otherwords no matter if we get past this particular "paradox" or not we won't get any complete metaphysical definition, but perhaps we can reveal a couple 1s and 0s along the way.

So yeah, we probably don't disagree, but there's probably going to be a few in incompatibilities or incongruities at the current juncture of time.

>I just think people are entirely too eager to go..
Yeah, me too, but I also think people provide shitty explanations that serve themselves or their agendas better than the people they are immediately share information with here.

>> No.6947590
File: 19 KB, 270x319, eminem-alive.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6947590

>>6947559
Again, how does me being able or unable to describe the "unknown stuff" relate to you claim:

"Cause and effect are frameworks of reasoning used to define a system without accounting for all of the dynamics at play."

Sit down for a second and actually look at your claim. It isn't connected to what you think it is.

I can construct a system of cause and effect that has no "hidden dynamics". I can construct a system of cause an effect that has hidden dynamics. Both are pretty fucking trivial. Neither say anything about the nature of cause and effect or its correlation to hidden dynamics. However, that is what you claim suggests. You claim cause an effect is inherit for hidden dynamics. You don't fucking know that!

Even you simple statements are ripe with useless dogma and blind assertions. You may not see it, but it is there and very obvious.

>> No.6947594

>>6947573
Sigh, you caught me, some facebook thing a while back. But the number isn't essential to the point. I said that we do not know that we account for all the quantum mechanical or photodynamical behaviors of all the levels of organization that we perceive, let alone the ones that we hypothesize about. Expecting causal reasoning to hold true outside these three dimensions could be as culturally biased an assumption as searching the andromeda galaxy for a good cell phone provider.

So, in an effort to quell all the ideological feuding, I came in and went "Hey, how much do we really know anyway" and everyone got all asshurt thinking I was saying a lot of things that I wasn't, because they were mad about some shit someone else said.

>> No.6947597

>>6947567
>Is it not accepted as true that 97% of the spectrum of light exists not within any dynamical understanding we've come up

>we've come up with

WTF are you even talking about?

>> No.6947600

>>6947573
Anon is just saying nonsensical gibberish.

>> No.6947604 [DELETED] 

>>6947552
What about it. I'm not implying I have any I didn't mention either.
Just give up your crusade against this particular piece of vernacular. You don't even know what I'm saying (ever) apparently, you're just being difficult, and you're not being as persuasive to anyone but yourself.

Seriously, ask yourself what it is you're trying to contribute, and don't assume I'm any another other person outside this particular chain of direct quotes.

I'm trying to provide you some useful notions, man.

>> No.6947611

>>6947590
Of course you can construct a system. And you would do so without knowing how much dynamical activity you would be leaving unaccounted for.I'm not claiming your system must have hidden qualities, i'm claiming that the system that you are trying to represent with your system is causally interwoven on levels of organization beyond our current comprehension, so no belief system can make such a bold assumption as to sit upon concrete reasoning.

This has been my only point the whole time. I'm sorry if I worded myself less than effectively. But there isn't really room for disagreement with the main crux of my point. I've lost track of how many times i've pointed that out. And you people still keep arguing with other things that aren't that.

>> No.6947613

>>6947552
deleting>>6947604
What about it. I'm not implying I have any I didn't mention either.

Just give up your crusade against this particular piece of vernacular. You don't even know what I'm saying (ever) apparently, you're just being difficult, and you're not being as persuasive as you think (on this particular issue of the word magic) to anyone but yourself.

Seriously, ask yourself what it is you're trying to contribute, and don't assume I'm any another other person outside this particular chain of direct quotes. And, don't assume I'm siding with anyone else either just because you mentioned something else to someone else earlier before I responded to you.

I'm trying to provide you some useful notions, man.

>> No.6947621

>>6947567
>If there are levels of organization that preceed causal reasoning, then nobody can really be sure of anything

[citation needed]

Again, why the fuck are you clinging to cause and effect dogma. You are incorrectly assuming you're unable to understand other "levels". WHY? You have no justification for this. And the fact that humanity has understanding of non-causual systems, is direct evidence to the fucking contrary.

You trying to appeal to the unknown, as no bearing on this. It doesn't make sense. Think about your agument. How is an unknown system that utilizes A, proof that we can't know or understand A at all? It isn't!!!

>> No.6947622

>>6947611
>i'm claiming that the system that you are trying to represent with your system is causally interwoven on levels of organization beyond our current comprehension

[citation needed]

Please stop making baseless assertions. Dogma please go

>> No.6947628

>>6947621
Again, i'm not clinging to cause and effect dogma. I'm saying that the overlooking of dogma is an inherent possibility in any construction of an opinion or perception. One that people should be weary of, and think often upon it's full implications.

I'm not saying it's impossible to understand other levels of organization, i'm claiming that no system of reasoning can claim to be infallable.

>> No.6947640
File: 6 KB, 184x230, question-mark-guy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6947640

>>6947611
>I'm claiming that the system that you are trying to represent with your system is causally interwoven on levels of organization beyond our current comprehension

[citation needed]

Say, I have a observation that is completed described by model. I get exact answers. No hidden variables. My model is found to completely map to reality.

So what the fuck is this "extra levels" you are rambling about? I find a one to one correspondence between reality and my model. Why do you keep assuming I need more?

It sounds like some bullshit.

>> No.6947651
File: 843 KB, 213x183, 1269603887545.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6947651

>>6947628
>I'm claiming that no system of reasoning can claim to be infallable.

[citation needed]

Still more Dogma? What are you doing dude? Stop it with the dogma.

>> No.6947661

>>6947628
>i'm not clinging to "cause and effect" dogma

>i'm clinging to "no system of reasoning can be infallable" dogma

>> No.6947685

>>6946915
how do you know that? how many CS courses you been to? and what countries? which universities?

>> No.6947689

>>6946927
lelz u retard xD r u srs?

>> No.6947954

>>6946393
Back an forth between empiricism and rationalism. Both are needed in balance to gain knowledge that is the closest approximation of the truth.

>> No.6947965

Does /sci/ actually hate philosophy or are we just trolling?

You do realize Science wouldn't be anywhere without philosophy.

Who postulated atoms? Philosophers. Who invented Mathematics and Physics? Philosophers. Who thought about the origin of life first? Philosophers.

>> No.6947967

>>6947965
That's a really fucked-up depiction of the relationship between philosophy and science. But I guess it fits the general quality of this thread.

>> No.6947969

OP here, after posting this I got a few anti-philosophy replies and gav up, then saw this thread on front page with 200+ replies.

They are almost all anti-philosophy hate, if you all think philosophy is so shit - why did you all need to bump the thread with replies?

>> No.6947975

>>6947969
I don't think philosophy is shit, I just think mainstream epistemology is. I also think that /sci/ doesn't have any substantial idea of philosophy, it's like talking to burgerclaps about the subleties of French cuisine.

>LOL MUH OYSTERS N FRAGS

>> No.6947980

>>6947965
>Who postulated atoms? Philosophers.
Every child does.

>Who invented Mathematics and Physics? Philosophers.
People who got shit done in reality, surely not armchair fedoras. Math was invented for economics. Physics arose out of architecture and military applications.

>Who thought about the origin of life first? Philosophers.
Every child does.

If the only achievement you can attribute to philosophers consists of asking the usual questions every infant asks, then you only confirmed that there is no intellectual merit in philosophy.

>> No.6947981

>>6947969
>>6947975
See what I mean? >>6947980

>> No.6947982
File: 93 KB, 400x398, philosofrog.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6947982

>>6947969
Why don't you go back to your philosophy department and stop talking about science when you clearly know nothing about it?

>> No.6947983

>>6946393
Definitely not Plato lol. Its not quite clear whether your asking about the individual learning process, which is a question for empirical psychology, or what constitutes factual knowledge about the world, which is a metaphysical philosophical question, or even what counts as knowledge in an intersubjective social environment, which is a question for philosophy of science. Concerning the metaphysical side of things, Immanuel Kant's theory of knowledge is probably dominant. As far as philosophy of science goes, the most agreed upon view is probably Karl Popper's.

>> No.6947989
File: 28 KB, 400x400, retard wrong.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6947989

>>6947983
>Immanuel Kant's theory of knowledge is probably dominant
>As far as philosophy of science goes, the most agreed upon view is probably Karl Popper's.

Can you be any more ignorant?

>> No.6947995

>>6947989
Well to be fair, Popper and Kant are probably the closest to the bullshit accounts of the scientific method (singular lol) that you can find in nearly every /sci/ thread. So yeah, they're dominant.

>> No.6948002
File: 41 KB, 420x294, 1386610812670.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6948002

>>6947995
Kant was debunked during his own lifetime. Literally everything he wrote was wrong. His conception of spacetime was fundamentally flawed, his "thing-in-itself" was purest meaningless fedoratarded wankery. His misuses of the wod "noumenon" was a disgusting display of autism. His deontological ethics is so fucked up that every child can see why it's never applicable.

Popper is devoid of intellectual merit. Falsification has been used long before him. It would be not just naive, but even outright retarded, to claim that Popper invented falsification. As if scientists before him kept believing in experimentally falsified theories... Popper, Kuhn etc - all the philosophers of science are merely resembling infants who are overly proud of finally verbalizing trivialities for the first time which everyone else already knew and used every day.

>> No.6948003

>>6947980
>Math was invented for economics.
KEK. This is what happens when you don't start with the Greeks.

>> No.6948006

>>6948002
See, that's one of the points where most people are wrong: philosophy isn't simply debunked. Descartes has been "proven to be wrong" over and over, yet his concepts are so convenient that we keep using them to this day. And that's fucking 400 years of history of philosophy.

>> No.6948007
File: 136 KB, 500x500, 1380977292842.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6948007

>>6948003
>implying the greeks invented math

Your lack of history education is showing. Back to school.

>> No.6948011

>>6947989
Lel what would you say is more popular than Kant and Popper? If you pick up any contemporary epistemology book, you'll either find that the author is explicitly Kantian /Popperian, or that they hold an implicitly Kantian/Popperian view that states something like "knowledge doesn't capture the thing-in-itself... science provides a descriptive and/or predictive tool for analyzing the physical world which will be replaced at anytime if a theory with greater accuracy or explanatory power emerges."

>> No.6948018

>>6948002
To be clear I wasn't making any claim as to the merit or utility of Kant or Popper's work. I was simply saying that these are two of the most popular figures from the perspective of modern philosophers working in academia.

>> No.6948021

>tfw you studied Philosophy
>tfw your best friend studied Theoretical Physics
>tfw your conversations are deep and meaningful
>tfw Philfags and STEMfags shit on each others degrees
>tfw when subject entirely denies the usefulness of the other

Why can't Philfags recognize they do the less important stuff, and why can't the STEMfags recognize they would be a whole lot worse without the Philfags.

Can't we all just get along? ;_:

(also, I work as a ship-broker [trainee currently] - philosophy won't get you a job with philosophy, but its actually not too bad at getting impressing people with you CV)

>> No.6948025

>>6948007
Though earlier civilizations new how to do computations, the Greeks could have very well been the first to do actual math.

>> No.6948028
File: 6 KB, 222x227, dumbest.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6948028

>>6948011
>knowledge doesn't capture the thing-in-itself.

Knowledge also doesn't capture the bfifdodzszoawpe. Meaningless statement is meaningless. There is no "thing-in-itself". The concept is bullshit and to be dismissed. "Hurr durr I define impossible thing which doesn't exist and this somehow disproves science" is /x/tard reasoning. Please go back there and stay there.

>> No.6948031

>>6948021
>Why can't Philfags recognize they do the less important stuff
Why can't they just admit that they're wrong lol

>philosophy won't get you a job with philosophy
Unless you actually get a job at a philosophy department. Just like you'll probably end up at a university with high energy physics.

>tfw your conversations are deep and meaningful
Judging from your post, I really doubt that statement. Maybe something else between you and your friend is "deep" and "meaningful", lol.

>> No.6948033

>>6948002

>"im a grill btw ;)"

>> No.6948034
File: 41 KB, 430x538, Philosophy-Major-Most-Interesting-Man.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6948034

>>6948018
So you're saying the only job of a "modern" philosopher in academia consists of repeating already disproved statements from historical figures? Wow, sure shows how dead philosophy as an academic discipline is. For more than 100 years there has been no creative or new idea. Philosophy has stagnated and doesn't deserve any fundings anymore.

>> No.6948036

>>6948025
But then again, they didn't.

>> No.6948039

>>6948034
>implying theoretical physics isn't just the same post-1950

>> No.6948040

>>6948002

Is your first language memespeak?

>> No.6948042

>>6948025
>elementary arithmetic
>elementary geometry of triangles

Tell me again how you think this preschool shit qualifies as "doing actual math".

>> No.6948044

>>6948042
Probably the same way the Model T qualifies as a car.

>> No.6948045

>>6948002

Holy shit, you post the same in every thread and you're proven wrong time and time again. You have to be a serious NEET for this shit. Do you just copy paste this shit from your meme drive?

>> No.6948047

>>6948042
>>elementary arithmetic
>>elementary geometry of triangles

Are you deliberately retarded?

>> No.6948051

>>6948039
>implying theoretical physics is just "muh string theory"

>> No.6948052
File: 72 KB, 698x854, 1418299351447.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6948052

>>6948042
To prove something in general is math.

I'd also like to point out that this thread has only 28 unique posters and 253 replies, so somebody here is seriously getting upset. For any visiting /lit/friends, please don't take the kind of anti-intellectual views expressed in this thread to be representative of the board as a whole.

>> No.6948054

>>6948051
>implying it isn't

>> No.6948056

>>6948040
lol

>>6948045
What's the matter, samefag? Are you upset because someone is posting facts?

>> No.6948069

/sci/ just hates philosophy because /sci/ can't answer basic philosophy problems.

for example, what are numbers?

>> No.6948075

>>6948069
Three is a number, 15 too, and so is 0.99999. Does that answer your question?

>> No.6948076

>>6948075

Bur are numbers real?

Whose to say?

>> No.6948084

>>6948047
Anon claimed the ancient Greeks were "doing actual math". So please show me which Greek philosopher proved the Gelfand–Naimark theorem. Was it Socrates? Or perhaps Protagoras? Maybe it was Thukydides? Who knows? Oh wait, knowledge is another thing we cannot have in philosophy. So I guess we'll never know who proved that theorem....

>> No.6948087

>>6948076
Well I've been told there are real numbers and then there are complex numbers.

>> No.6948090

>>6948047
>Are you deliberately retarded?
Yes, yes he is >>6948084

Also, the Acropolis isn't architecture because it wasn't built by Rem Koolhaas.

>> No.6948091
File: 50 KB, 522x583, 1414883070520.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6948091

>>6948052
>To prove something in general is math.
Too bad no philosopher ever "proved" anything. All they do is asserting their opinions and beliefs. Not to mention that the concept of formal proof didn't arise early than in the late renaissance, so claiming that ancient greeks "proved" things is ridiculous.

>For any visiting /lit/friends
Lmao, I used to browse /lit/ but the anti-intellectualism over there turned out to be unbearable. That board is just another hangout for fedora'd /pol/ autists.

>> No.6948092

The questions philosophy deals with are interesting. Fuck you.

>> No.6948131

>>6948091
All you've done is spout ad-hominems, bias generalizations and spam memes. And dismiss everything with "its meaningless cause I say so".

>> No.6948166

>>6948091
>Too bad no philosopher ever "proved" anything. All they do is asserting their opinions and beliefs

Literally has never read any philosophical text ever

>> No.6948172

>>6948002
>he was so literally autistic and fedoratard that even a 2 years old understand why his filosophy dosent work xDDD

>> No.6948196
File: 284 KB, 640x480, stay pleb.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6948196

>>6948166
I read more philosophical texts than you and they all confirmed what I said.

>> No.6948199

>>6948196
>he's never read Galileo
>he's never read Boyle
>he's never read Leibniz
>he doesn't even know how a proof works

>> No.6948209

>>6948199
Why would I read them? Their ideas (or at least those ideas which haven't been disproved) can be read much more concisely and in a didactically more pleasing format in any introductory textbook. I'm not a historian, so I don't need to read outdated ramblings in antiquated language. Last sentence of yours is a nice projection btw. I have proved theorems of which you wouldn't even understand the statement, kiddo.

>> No.6948215

>>6948209
>he thinks you don't need to read the original because they're depicted accurately depicted in third-hand accounts
>he thinks all you can actually prove are theorems
>he's not a historian

>> No.6948219

>>6948091
>Too bad no philosopher ever "proved" anything.
gr8 b8 m8

Of course philosophers prove things, they start from axioms just like mathematicians, then explore the problem space looking for interesting patterns that are useful in the real world.

>> No.6948220

>>6948209
>You are a pleb but I only read introductory textbooks.
Seriously?

>> No.6948223
File: 34 KB, 600x246, backpedaling.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6948223

>>6948215
Try harder, kid.

>> No.6948228
File: 48 KB, 720x400, 1417883181619.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6948228

>>6948219
>they start from axioms just like mathematicians

No, they don't. They start from baseless assertions, opinions and beliefs. You don't "prove" an opinion by only declaring it an "axiom". Please learn some formal logic. Your reasoning i /pol/ tier.

>> No.6948234

>>6948223
>spends his time on 4chan
>calls others kids
>wants me to beliefe he's actually proven anything of substance

>> No.6948236

>>6948234
>projective ad hominem

>> No.6948241

>>6948220
An advanced textbook doesn't talk about irrelevant historical figures anymore.

>> No.6948243

>>6948236
>Implying it is worth writing an actual argument against a condescending post that makes no point.

>> No.6948247

>>6948236
>butthurt when people turn his autistic bragging against him

>> No.6948249

>>6948243
Exactly. If I took the time to prove you wrong in detail, it would just be wasted because you don't understand it. That's why I'm telling you to go back to >>>/x/.

>> No.6948251

>>6948249
>he still doesn't understand how a proof works

>> No.6948265

>>6946833
everybody and their mom can be a philosopher. i'm a philosopher, too!

>> No.6948269
File: 19 KB, 1326x223, philo vs math.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6948269

>>6948251
Proof has a very distinct and formal meaning in math. It has nothing to do with your /x/ or /lit/ notion of "hurr durr if I use enough ad hominems, I win and therefore my opinions are proved". Go back to your containment boards.

>> No.6948271

>>6948265

Is the object deterring to authentic experience or is it an extension of the subject experience that which lies can't outside the object?

>> No.6948272

>What is the most agreed upon view of what knowledge might be
Raw knowledge (qualia) is encoded in the configurations of sub-Planckian spinfoam networks.

>how we go about learning?
Using our free will to collapse the wavefunction of superimposed tubulin qubits.

>> No.6948274

>>6948269

You've been spouting ad-hominems and memes since the beginning of the thread.

>> No.6948279

>>6948271
Thus it seems, is the reason of life.

>> No.6948282

>>6948274
>tu quoque
>fallacy fallacy

>> No.6948285

>>6948279

Trick question. The correct answer was "wtf are you even saying?"

>> No.6948287

>>6948285
Are you sure?

>> No.6948290

>>6948287

of course not.
"Convictions are worse foes to truth than lies" -Freddy "God Killer" Nietzsche

>> No.6948292

>>6948290
But that means you can fail, just not less than failing, which I imaigine is not trying.

>> No.6948299

>>6948292

But that's wrong, anon. Did you learn to read with an austistic chinaman?

>> No.6948300

>>6948299
Did I learn what?

>> No.6948301

>>6948300

you cheeky bastard

>> No.6948303

>>6948228
What's the difference? Axioms are the things that cannot be proven, they're simply starting points.

Mathematical axioms are chosen because they create a logical system that models some other system, they are completely arbitrary. In some cases they're useful but most of pure mathematics is just intellectual masturbation.

Mathematics and science are branches of philosophy.

>> No.6948305

>>6948301
I am no monkey, but I appreciate the sentiment.

>> No.6948315
File: 39 KB, 593x581, 1417078920081.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6948315

>>6948303
>they [mathematical axioms] are completely arbitrary
No, they're not, you dimwitted fucktard. If they were completely arbitrary, math wouldn't work out as perfectly as it does in describing nature. Mathematical axioms are carefully and intelligently chosen to be the minimal requirements for math to do its fucking job in depicting reality.

>Mathematics and science are branches of philosophy.
Maybe in the dark ages. For the last 200 years math and science have been separated from philosophy and there is no reason to change this.

>> No.6948344
File: 516 KB, 420x315, michaeljacksoncomiendomaizpira.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6948344

philosophyfags vs STEMfags

This will never end

>> No.6948353

>>6948265
Seems like everybody and their mom can also be mathematicians:

>>6948269
>>6948315
>>6948209

>> No.6948359

>36 posters
>301 replies
y'all posting in a troll thread.

>> No.6948362

>>6948315
> Implying that arithmetic is mathematics and that its job is to depict reality rather than explore patterns

I yield to your vast knowledge on this subject.

>> No.6948446

>>6948353
Nah, only intelligent individuals like myself can.

>>6948362
I'm sorry to hear that your math education stopped at arithmetic.

>> No.6948637

>>6948359
This, one dude is occupying a lot of this thread with scientific narcissism, and throwing out all sorts of assertions without ever backing them up.

It's just kind of wild or odd how committed he was with this particular thread. Seems like philosophy is just too ambiguous for anybody's health, and is basically the devil.

>> No.6948705

>>6946729
Lel you yourself don't understand. He does in fact point out a flaw in the above posters argument. One cannot define knowledge by saying: "Knowledge is information stored in the brain. Learning is a cascade of chemical reactions in the brain."

This proposition fails to provide a means of identifying knowledge. All it does is predicate one property of knowledge, and not even one that will necessarily hold true for everything counting as knowledge (e.g. it excludes any information possessed by non biological entities such as computers or alien lifeforms that don't have a similar CNS to ours). I.e. the property he predicates of knowledge, namely that is stored in the brain, only holds for a subset of the entire set of information counting as knowledge. In order to define knowledge, he would have to present a description that could be used to identify knowledge to the exclusion of anything else.

>> No.6948734

>>6948705
To add to that, logically speaking his description is analogous to this:
"A horse is a mammal."
Such a statement fails to define the word "horse" because it can't be used to specifically pick out solely the set of objects called horses (it also picks out e.g. cat, humans, whales, etc.).

In fact, his description is slightly worse, because once again, it will not hold for all instances of what counts as knowledge. Rather, it only applies to specific types of knowledge, namely knowledge ascribed to biological entities with brains. His description is therefore more similar to the following:
"A horse is ridden by a person."

>> No.6949061

>>6948315
>axiom of choice (applied to 'infinite sets')
>depicting reality
choose one

>> No.6949664

>>6946791

this only happens in reverse, what is wrong with you autists? did you get a bad philosophy prof and blame the entire subject? Pure math fag here, but fuck you idiots sometimes

>> No.6950106

>>6947980
nigga are you retarded? Not a hardcore philfag but this is embarrassing. This is a proSTEM reply? Really? I guess this board really is full of first year autists...