/sci/ - Science & Math

"You're right" is the only acceptable answer

Mickey is right. Brain just keeps telling you it's smart but you can't trust a brain.

>>9529341
dolan is pretty much btfo

shit like this is why philosophy is so stupid, there is no real discussion just statements that can't be proven or disproven

>i know Mickey, you can't know nuffin

>>9529345
>>9529356
>>9529388
Wrong.
Mickey is making an unjustified leap.
From:
>Everything we know is absurd.
To:
>Therefore everything we know is unreliable.
He needs to prove absurdity suggests a lack of reliability if he wants to try to claim Donald's statement is hypocritical.
If he can't prove that then Donald could well have absurd but reliable knowledge of the world, the lamentation of which wouldn't make him a hypocrite because his trust would only indicate a belief absurdity is the case and not a belief the case isn't absurd.

>>9529341
Punch that belligerent mother fucker in the mouth.

>>9529525
This. Even my 17 yo me knew this years ago when I browsed /b/ back then.

You dumb "white" brainlets are inferior to me. Your subhuman race will never accomplish what I do, did, and will do.

>>9529525
>say Mickey is making an unjustified leap
>proceed with the same

>>9529553
Wrong.

>>9529525
>everything we know is unreliable
nowhere does Mickey say or imply that

>>9529553
>>9529555
More specifically I don't need to prove absurdity never implies unreliability to point out Mickey hasn't proven absurdity implies unreliability and that Donald's belief isn't necessarily unreliable just because it's absurd.

>>9529560
Mickey calls Donald a hypocrite for trusting in what Donald called absurd.
Are you arguing untrustworthy is not the same as unreliable?

>>9529341
I didn't know that Mickey was so verbose

>>9529560
>>9529570
And if that is what you're arguing then replace all instances of "unreliable" with "untrustworthy" and I think you'll get the same basic idea.

>>9529570
and that is why philosophy is junk and nothing more than a game of words for brainlets

>>9529585
I don't think that follows, no.

>>9529570
Mickey is literally a brainlet as he is addresing Donald's judgement and avoiding focusing the topic Donald was talking about. Mickey is literally a brainlet coward. The most pathetic type of brainlet.

Pseuds on /lit/ are that kind of brainlets.

>>9529341
>>>/reddit/

>>9529624
I'm not going to perish like a dog. Fuck you.

You don't understand that there is an immateriality to life. Something that can never be measured.

I’ll attack Mickey’s assertation: “All knowledge is ultimately based on that which we cannot prove.” This is incorrect—and I can prove it. The nature of knowledge is too nebulous to make a statement like this. If I drop an object and observe it to fall down, I have gained the knowldege that objects fall down. To prove that my knowledge is unreliable, Mickey must disprove that objects fall down. Therefore Mickey cannot prove that my knowledge is unreliable.

>>9529650
>religiously biased post on the science & maths board
Back to /pol/ then I guess

>>9529663
>implying /sci/ is /reddit/atheism

>>>/trash/

>>9529658
>If I drop an object and observe it to fall down, I have gained the knowldege that objects fall down
But objects don't fall down, there is no such things as down, and there is no such thing as fall

>>9529393
>just statements that can't be proven or disproven
This is the case with science; however, you can prove and disprove things in philosophy if you make up some axioms. That's how math was invented.

>>9529650
>implying agnostics aren't atheists

>>9529656
>you don't
>you don't think something that can
You are also a brainlet. You cannot address Donald's topic. It's easy to do so.

>>9529684
This is just a language game. The knowledge is of what happens, not the human definitions of what is happening. Mickey’s assertation is self-defeating: if all knowledge is based on that which we cannot prove, how can he prove that this is the case?

>>9529684
>there is no such thing as fall
Then why do the leaves change color?

>>9529341
>How do you respond
... with terminating force, and extreme prejudice.

>>9529752
Colour does not exist. It is an illusion created by your brain. The chemicals are lying to you.

>>9529658
Hi Wittengenstein.

>>9529525
>Mickey is making an unjustified leap.
>From:
>>Everything we know is absurd.
this is definitely one of the more quality baits I've ever seen

>>9529730
>This is just a language game.
Discovering a language-game is the start of the analysis not the end. Don't talk to me or my Wittgenstein ever again.

>>9530978
It's not bait, absurdity and unreliability aren't interchangeable.
e.g. Jiro from the Jiro Dreams of Sushi documentary has led a somewhat absurd life in that he's dedicated all the time and effort of his adult existence (through to his current age of 92) obsessing over and constantly trying to improve on the craft of arranging and serving fish on top of rice, including considerations like slightly altering how he puts the sushi together based on the physical dimensions of the customer's mouth or pinpointing the exact time when a dead fish's flavor is optimal and insisting customers consume his sushi immediately after he serves it to them to ensure this optimal flavor window isn't missed.
Does his absurd lifelong dedication and serious minded approach to such a simple task mean his knowledge of sushi is shoddy or unreliable? No, not at all. In fact he's probably far more knowledgeable of the topic of sushi than almost everyone else on the entire planet.
And I shouldn't even have to make this argument since the burden is really on someone assuming absurdity implies unreliability to make their argument for why this should necessarily be the case, not on everyone else to prove it isn't.

>>9529341
I guess Mickey makes a strawman, since Donald is assuming the material world exists and makes deductions within that framework, while Mickey just says "lol what if the universe is just an illusion", without actually addressing his argument given his assumptions.

>>9529525
>>9529548
Mickey doesn't bring up absurdity as a point in his argument, all he says is that you can never be certain your mind works correctly as you could only ever use your mind to prove that, which is basically proving X by assuming X is true.

>>9529658
>If I drop an object and observe it to fall down, I have gained the knowldege that objects fall down.
Please go ahead and prove that having the memory of witnessing an object falling down proves it actually fell down without resorting to circular logic.
>To prove that my knowledge is unreliable, Mickey must disprove that objects fall down.
To prove your knowledge unreliable, Mickey has to show that there is at least one thing you're wrong about, while you'd have to prove you're right about everything to prove your knowledge reliable, again without resorting to circular logic. Mickey doesn't actually have to prove anything anyway, it's your job to prove your knowledge reliable, not other people's job to prove it isn't.

>>9529658
>If I see an object falling in a particular instance, it means it will always fall

This is the unjustified assumption you are taking, Mickey is right. Hume's problem.

>>9531038
>Mickey doesn't bring up absurdity as a point in his argument
He's not the one who brings it up to begin with (Donald is), but he certainly references it by calling Donald a hypocrite.
He calls Donald a hypocrite "for [he] trust[s] the chemicals in [his] brain to tell [him] they are chemicals" in response to Donald saying "love is reducible to the absurd acts of chemicals." Which isn't a reasonable response to what Donald said because Donald's talking about the absurdity of a lack of purpose or substance to the underlying chemical reality of his mental processes, and just because this situation is absurd doesn't mean that's a reason to doubt what the chemicals of his brain activity are determining about the world. Absurdity doesn't necessarily have anything to do with how likely something is true. Donald's not distressed about an inability to know for sure what the world is like, he's distressed by his lack of purpose or meaning.
Mostly I think you're overlooking the implications of "hypocrite" if you don't think Mickey used absurdity as the reason for his argument about trusting brain chemicals. His use of that word means he's equating absurdity with a lack of trustworthiness because he's calling Donald a hypocrite for saying they're absurd but still trusting them, and the whole point of what hypocrisy means is doing something that contradicts what you're saying. It's not hypocritical to trust the information derived from your brain chemicals while also expressing dissatisfaction with the absurdity of what you are being reducible to chemicals because again, absurdity and a lack of trustworthiness are not the same thing.

>>9529341
who cares

maybe mickey should give me a reason to care about his argument

>>9531094
Because its the key to defeat nihilism.

>>9531100
why do i care about defeating a bunch of self defeatists

>>9529679
>implying religious and faith based thought as compatible with scientific rationale

people really think this?

>>9530979
If that's witt for you, I have bad news for you. He plagiarized Nietzsche.

>>9531100
>mickey aiming at donald's judgement instead of the topic is solving nihilism
You pseuds are too funny.

>>9531017
don't push your luck

>>9531153
this is profoundly unlikely

>>9529341
There are others apart from me, you included Mick, that can affirm this notion, ask a blind person and they can come up with this train of thought if exposed to the correct logic and reasoning and they can reaffirm without reliance on my primary sense. Either way, it is fucking pointless, you chose warrior class and I am stuck as wizard, so go ahead. end my suffering, you do me a favor since I won't have to keep caring about you and your peoples bitch ass.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HVv2saWOl0

>>9531159
?
Make an argument or fuck off.

>>9531038
It's proof by contradiction. Mickey assumes what Donald is saying is true and shows that it contradicts itself thereby showing that Donald is incorrect.

He is not making any statement. He is only demonstrating the error in Donald's statement.

>>9531379
The opposite of nonsense is nonsense. There is nothing to say to your bullshit. 3/10

Nothing but Brainlets ITT
Donald is whining about absurd nature of universe.
Mickey is laughing at him because he uses the same observational skills (that he thinks shows the universe is absurd) that exist in the same universe. It's kind of like the paradox if you woke up one morning and every color was different - your eyes were clearly perceiving color wrong your whole life, why would this new perception be correct? Donald is a Brainlet for assuming his fallible brain exists in the absurd universe can now tell him beyond a doubt the objective truth that the universe is absurd. MICKEY is telling him to nut up and deal with it, as even if this is true it's still your compulsion to learn and understand.

>>9531121
Tip your fedora harder faggot

>>9529341
>ur a hypocrite bc u trust the chemicals in your brain telling u they are chemicals
>dont trust nobody not even urself
>u have to trust me more than urself
jesus how big of a cuck

>>9531510
no this is literally just propaganda and you're a cuck if you think mickey is making a valid point

>bro u cant prove anything
>bro signal processing is a joke bro u cant see electrons or photons bro
>wait u can?
>bro that doesnt prove anything bro
>trust nobody not even urself

kek

>>9531389
You're a retard and should fuck off if you can't figure out how to make an argument.
>>9531510
Absurdity isn't unreliability. Just because your life doesn't have purpose or value doesn't mean your perception of the world is mistaken. Your perception could be mistaken, but if it is it won't have anything to do with that faulty reasoning,
And assuming you can't know anything isn't going to accomplish anything. The most sensible approach is to pay attention to what you can perceive and to check your results against the rest of the observing parties on this planet so you can get as reliable a picture as possible about what reality is and how it works. And if your findings tell you your life doesn't have purpose or value that's not a reason to throw everything out and make up your own bullshit.
Your life doesn't need to be important or fulfilling in order for physics to be a working approximation to make use of for example. If Mickey were in charge we wouldn't be able to have this conversation because instead of anyone engineering computers and telecommunications networks we'd all just sit around saying we can't know nuffin and trying to will technology into existence by squinting really hard and waiting for reality to magically change because truth isn't real.