[ 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: 71 KB, 443x469, left-brain-right-brain[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2691383 No.2691383 [Reply] [Original]

Okay /sci/, time for a change of pace. Most of the theoretical postulating and such is about physics. Let's turn it to biology, shall we?

Now. As we all know, death, ends your consciousness. Making an exact clone (Impossible, I know. But just work with me here) of you, would merely make two of your "consciousness"s, correct? As would copying your "consciousness" to an electronic drive (Again, impossible currently, but just work with me here).

However; assume, that we had a way, to "turn a brain back on". Essentially flipping the "on" switch, on a dead/removed brain, that was in all other regards perfectly fine. Would the conscious of that brain "turn back on" as well? Or would it simply make a copy of the conscious?

tl;dr Can we perfectly keep our conscious immortal somehow? As that's what most people want when they want "immortality". Your thoughts/perspective/memories wouldn't suddenly fly back to a clone of yours. Because as we all know, souls (In the fantasy sense, don't bring philosophy into this) don't exist.

>> No.2691415

The conciousness is merely a higher functioning aspect of a combination of factors in the brain.

It could be said that in three seconds time your conciousness was a different one than is currently. Or it isn't. It's just about being nitpicky with words. It just is and it changes as your brain does. Two copies are identical but function independently. The same brain turned off and on is the same matter resulting in the same thing. Whether or not you want to call it a different conciousness to the 'previous' one is up to you, there really is no answer.

>> No.2691416

Oh come on, there have to be at least a few bio/neuro/etc folks here!

>> No.2691431

The question is "Are your thoughts held on a sort of electrical RAM between neurons or are they held structurally in the connectedness of neurons." If the former, turning off the brain kills the conscious. If the latter, you could preserve the brain's structure and "turn it back on" later. Since brain death is permanent, unlike the stopping of the heart, I would lean towards the former.

>> No.2691477

>inb4 philosophical shitstorm.

>> No.2691509

>>2691431

This would also seem make transferring consciousness to other mediums difficult, as it would be harder to scan for exact electrochemical potentials in all the neurons than it would be the connectivity of neurons. It's kind of nice though, as consciousness becomes a metaphorical fluid moving through the pipes of the brain and driving the processes through work, with the brain being nothing more than a machine.

>> No.2691547

There is no single "thing" that is a person's "consciosuness". Consciousness is a process, a function, that works when all the parts are in the right places.

I suppose if you had advanced enough technology you could make a copy of all the bits and parts of a person's mind and upload it to some whatever-machine that will preserve and allow it to function, and since the mind's memories and associations have been copied over this new conscious process would probably think itself to be the same as that from which it was copied, but there's no discreet thingie that passes between them which they share.

>> No.2691570 [DELETED] 

> I know. But just work with me here) of you, would merely make two of your "consciousness"s, correct?

No, first of all, if you have one perfect marble cube, and you replicate another one exactly like it, is it the same cube? No, it's two identical cubes. Each person would have a separate sense of "I", negating any attempt of yours to make the two consciousnesses out as one.

>> No.2691572
File: 15 KB, 261x193, sage.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2691572

This is why I hate philosophy.
So, so pointless.

>> No.2691600

The consciousness receptacles would start to work again but you might get some other consciousness if the original one thought this vessel is dead and left.

>> No.2691604
File: 115 KB, 560x416, 1298332824441.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2691604

I think an essential part of consciousness is the sense of self. I'm positive that each clone would have a sense of individuality, regardless of how similar they are on a genetic level. I don't think consciousness works like a radio frequency. So, you are going to die. If they take your unconscious memories and download them onto a computer, then revitalize them with all of your memories, I still feel like it would be a different "I," even if that entity shared your personal narrative.

>> No.2691606

I think if computer drives were slowly integrated into your brain you could retain consciousness through out the process and then eventually have a fully computerized brain, this may just be wishful thinking though.

>> No.2691616

>>2691572
Philosophy isn't pointless, you are probably too stupid to understand it if you think so. Not trolling.

Philosophy is about putting our knowledge of the world into a context so that we can better grasp that knowledge.

>> No.2691629

>>2691606
>might be wishful thinking
If by wishful thinking you mean fucking impossible, yea, it's wishful thinking. Do you even realize how high the information density of the human brain is? A single human brain has an information density powers of 10 greater than that of the most advanced supercomputer on the planet. We could NEVER have a fully computerized brain.

>> No.2691631

>>2691616
No, philosophy is just a field and sets of beliefs and disciplines, nothing more. Only the pseudo-intelligent would believe it to be anything more than such.

>> No.2691635

>>2691572
>saging with a picture

>> No.2691640

>>2691616
Mabye so, but philosophy isn't a science.

>> No.2691654

>>2691616
It's because of pseudointellectuals like you that scientists hates philosophy students/majors.

>> No.2691673

>>2691631
That conclusion was made possible by philosophy, you are welcome, moron.

>> No.2691683

>>2691640
Did I say it was? No, I didn't.

>> No.2691690

>>2691654
It's because of pseudo-intellectuals like you that this board is filled with moronic bullshit.

>> No.2691696

this is literally something that has bugged me since i was about 8 or 9 and it still aggravates me

>> No.2691703

>>2691690
Your post is pure irony and hypocrisy.

>> No.2691704

>>2691673
Abstract thought is a product of (essentially) the frontal lobe. That conclusion was made possible by the frontal lobe. Not philosophy.

>> No.2691706

In all seriousness, philosophy has it's limitations, and no, this is not a philosophy board. Having said that, if you can't see any merit in philosophy, you are an idiot.

>> No.2691712

>>2691703
Funny, I thought the same thing reading yours.

>> No.2691730

>>2691706
>merit in philosophy
Give fifty separate, empirical, and modern examples of such; otherwise there is none.

>> No.2691735

>>2691477

Look what you did.

>> No.2691736

>>2691712
Then you're incapable of intellectually comprehending what irony and hypocrisy means and establishes.

(Nice primacy and anchoring effects, by the way)

>> No.2691740

>>2691704
Yes, the frontal lobe made it possible, but what it makes possible, is the activity known as philosophy.

>> No.2691749

>>2691730
Empiricism is a philosophical concept, there's one for you, Einstein. Be honest, are you still in highschool?

>> No.2691750

>>2691740
No, simple comprehension and experience makes it possible, not philosophy. Philosophy virtually has no effect on such.

>> No.2691756

>>2691749
But there is no empiricism in philosophy, so the "empiricism is a philosophical concept" doesn't count, nor is the "empiricism is a philosophical concept" accurate. You still have fifty to go.

>> No.2691758

>>2691730
why fifty?

>> No.2691761

>>2691736
There aren't many things more amusing than a retard wearing a monocle. Dance monkey, dance!

>> No.2691764

>>2691606
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12037941/ns/technology_and_science-science/

>> No.2691765

>>2691740
Listen to yourself. You are expounding upon the values of abstract thought turned into a "profession". Dolphins can think abstractly. Chimpanzees can think abstractly. I won't deny that philosophers have helped the world, but we are advancing to a point where simple abstract thought is no longer needed.

>> No.2691768

>>2691758
If philosophy is a common and active as it's claimed in the modern sense, fifty is an abhorrently small number of examples to give. One should be able to do two-hundred right at the top of their head.

>> No.2691775

>>2691735
didn't know people here would actually go nuts about philosophy.

>> No.2691782

>>2691761
Then you don't know what "a retard wearing a monocle" or "Dance monkey, dance!" Even means then.

>> No.2691788

>>2691756
Empiricism is a fucking philosophical position, you obviously know nothing about philosophy. Look, I think science is invaluable. I just can't stand by and watch an ignorant moron like you crusading for the truth when you are so obviously misguided. You don't have to shit on other academic disciplines like some mouth-breathing sports fan to validate yourself. If you can't find anything of worth in the study of philosophy, you are deficient.

>> No.2691789

Hard vs soft science is the only thing most people know about on this board. Most people here are retards.

>> No.2691795
File: 568 KB, 4000x3262, 8IB2.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2691795

This thread is why there needs to be a board for philosophy and religion, philosophyfags/religionfags just end up trolling and ruining threads like this with false and unempirical/invalid concepts like the ones presented in this thread. There's a reason why people keep science, religion, and philosophy separate from each other these days.

>> No.2691807

>>2691765

>but we are advancing to a point where simple abstract thought is no longer needed.

Explain this sentence, it seems nonsensical to me.

First, define what you mean by abstract though. I know what extract mean, but I want to know what you mean, and why you think it is no longer necessary.

>> No.2691813

Philosophy is pathetically useless. There's a reason Wittgenstein hated himself.

>> No.2691814

>>2691788
But philosophy has no empiricism (only science has that), there for it doesn't count as a philosophical position. And two, no one was comparing it to science until you did just now with "Look, I think science is invaluable."

>> No.2691818

>>2691788
I like philosophy AND sports, dick

>> No.2691831

>>2691629
...Anyways, getting back to the subject at hand, I find your comment in and of itself very unscientific. Saying that "we could NEVER" do something is completely arbitrary because the fact of the matter is we don't know enough yet to correctly gauge where our stopping point is technologically.

It's a possibility that we may redesign our brains to in fact be far more eloquent than what nature could ever conceive. This could occur 50 years from now, 100 years, a thousand, or ten-thousand years, we just don't know. To say never implies forever, and forever is a long ass time. In the end, our brains are just another form of evolution, and it wouldn't strike me as odd whatsoever if our brains evolved so that they could begin modifying themselves further to obtain even more mental capabilities than what they already possess.

>> No.2691839

>>2691788
Empiricism would require actual proof, verification, evidence, and experience of a concept and idea to use it. Philosophy is too subjective and argumentative to appropriately use such, therefore whatever empiricism it uses simply isn't true or valid.

>> No.2691843

>>2691768
If you are being serious with this post, then I have some bad news for you. You are not a smart person. Logical fallacy, this term you will learn.

>> No.2691851

>>2691768
http://ruccs.rutgers.edu/ArchiveFolder/Research%20Group/Publications/NEI/NEIPT.html
http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~stich/Publications/Papers/SemanticIntuitions.pdf
http://www2.gsu.edu/~phlean/papers/Surveying_Freedom.pdf
http://pantheon.yale.edu/~jk762/Nichols-Knobe.pdf
http://www.unc.edu/home/mphelan/Evidence.pdf
http://faculty.schreiner.edu/adfeltz/Papers/Know%20more.pdf
http://www.springerlink.com/content/v046t12463667676/fulltext.pdf
https://wfs.gc.cuny.edu/JBuckwalter/www/ESEE%20-%20Beebe_Buckwalter.pdf
http://wrightjj1.people.cofc.edu/philosophy/Folk_on_Knowing_How.pdf
http://pantheon.yale.edu/~jp677/Papers/A+C=P.pdf

Empirical enough for you?

>> No.2691852

>>2691789
>implying philosophy is science.

>> No.2691866

>>2691839
Think about what you just said.

The position of empiricism requires proof in order to validate it(which is the whole fucking point of empiricism in the first place).

You are literally talking nonsense.

>> No.2691882

Philosophy doesn't really have any real-world applications in a traditional sense. Its a way to try and make sense of ourselves as human beings and the world around us, an attempt to reach an answer to fundamental questions of existence and reality through mental gymnastics. If you don't think there's any merit to that, well, bully for you.

>> No.2691910

>>2691851
You've only applied 10 examples, but some of these articles aren't solid or valid for the most part, so they can't even make up 1/5 the requirement. So no, it's not empirical or valid enough.

>> No.2691928

>>2691866
>The position of empiricism requires proof in order to validate it(which is the whole fucking point of empiricism in the first place).
Therefore empiricism is not a philosophical concept and cannot be proven as such under the guise of philosophy. You just said it yourself.

>> No.2691930

>>2691807
Fuck man.
The more I think about it, the more I realize you are right. Philosophy is, in some aspects, the dissection of cultural norms and the rooting out of hypocrisies and wrongs within them. Relevant or helpful philosophy, anyways.
I hereby apologize on 4chan.
I'm still going to make fun of philosophy majors for being unemployed, though.

>> No.2691940

>>2691882
Like I said before, it's about trying to put our perceptions about the world into a larger context. For some people that question is irrelevant, but I'm sure they only arrive to readily at that conclusion thanks to the modern scientific paradigm which has been influenced heavily by philosophy.

>> No.2691941

>>2691843
And you just provided an ad hom. and primacy effect, there for the "lack of intelligence" claim only applies to the person making it.

>> No.2691953

>>2691765
>Chimpanzees can think abstractly.
No they don't.

>> No.2691959

>>2691928
What? You are talking gibberish. Am I being trolled?

>> No.2691967

>>2691953
As if you fucking know. What evidence do you have that they don't? They sure seem like they do.

>> No.2691968

>>2691910

My purpose was not to meet your ridiculous demands, but to demonstrate the existence of empirical philosophy. If you don't consider all those links to be 'valid', then I suggest you keep reading them until you understand what they are saying: All those studies are empirical tests of philosophical concepts, exactly what you claimed couldn't exist.

>> No.2691972

>>2691959
No I'm just giving you proof and arguments for why philosophy lacks empiricism, and how your statement helped proof the idea. If you can't understand it, it's your fault, not the person who wrote it.

>> No.2691976

>>2691968
Nah dude, if you can't meet his number of 50 examples, then that invalidates your point, regardless of the fact that his number is completely arbitrary and that he is too stupid to realize that.

>> No.2691988

>>2691968
Yet those "existing" examples of philosophical empiricism is not enough to prove that they exist in the first place and is easily cast aside as anecdotes. If you can't reach the benchmark, then it either doesn't exist, or you too little of the subject yourself.

>> No.2691992

>>2691910
your requirement of 50 examples is completely arbitrary and asking way too much of anyone who is just pissing away their time on 4chan. I wouldn't give you 50 examples of general relativity because I don't give a fuck.

>> No.2691999

>>2691972
Do I have to say it again? If you knew anything about philosophy, I'm talking intro philosophy, you would know that empiricism is a branch of philosophy. What don't you understand about those words? When you cite empiricism as proof against philosophy it is retarded for the very reason that empiricism is a philosophical position. Jesus H.

>> No.2692005

>>2691992
If philosophy is as in place of science and modernity as it's generally believed in this thread, even 200 examples is an atrociously small number of examples to give and anyone with simple intellect would be able to do it off the top of their head.

>> No.2692023

>>2691999
>What don't you understand about those words?
No one is not misunderstanding anything, it's just simply not true and mostly a fallacy, and there is no empiricism in philosophy because it would require actual proof and experience to validate it, something philosophy lacks. And just because it's a "philosophical position" doesn't mean philosophy itself has it, and even that is Phil101.

>> No.2692036
File: 211 KB, 4877x4500, sigh2.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2692036

boy, philosophy students sure like to use ad hominems and fallacies in their arguments. I can see why they don't belong on /sci/

>> No.2692051

>>2692023
So supporting empiricism is an invalid position because it is not empirical in itself? What, did you just imply that the scientific method is worthless, because it is not empirically justified?

ARE YOU LISTENING TO YOURSELF?

>> No.2692053

>>2691999
nice primacy effect bro

>> No.2692061

>>2692036
lol, god help me, I can't tell if this is a joke or not.

>> No.2692070

>>2692053
Nice ignoring my valid point effect breh.

>> No.2692088

THIS JUST IN FROM /SCI/ EMPIRICISM IS NOT EMPIRICAL

>> No.2692091

>>2692051
>So supporting empiricism is an invalid position because it is not empirical in itself?
In some ways, yes. Just because it has empiricism doesn't mean it's empirical at all. Just because A = B doesn't mean B = A, and that's a basic rule of philosophy.

>What, did you just imply that the scientific method is worthless, because it is not empirically justified?
No, since the scientific method itself is empirical and a major user of empiricism, it's valid.

>> No.2692099

>>2692070
You didn't even make a point, invalid or not; you just provided an ad hominem argument based on premise instead of an actual argument.

>> No.2692103

>>2692088
>this is what philosofags actually believe

>> No.2692129

>>2692091

>In some ways, yes. Just because it has empiricism doesn't mean it's empirical at all. Just because A = B doesn't mean B = A, and that's a basic rule of philosophy.

Be honest, are you trolling? That is a basic rule of philosophy? Where did you hear that one? Did it come out of your ass?

>> No.2692140
File: 1.00 MB, 4877x4500, sigh22.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2692140

>>2692061
>What don't you understand about those words?
>just pissing away their time on 4chan
>THIS JUST IN FROM /SCI/ EMPIRICISM IS NOT EMPIRICAL
>You are not a smart person.
>this board is filled with moronic bullshit
>are you still in highschool?

These are ad hominems, anchoring effects, grasping at straws, and fallacious and the proponents for philosophy are making in this thread, instead of actual debates or arguments. I can see why /sci/ doesn't like philosophy on this board, just trolling and attacking.

>> No.2692153

>>2692129
It's the most common rule of any philosophy, passed down since Ancient Greece, it's generally common sense; and the basic mindset and general rule of thought for philosophy students, you would not have had of read or take a class to not recognize it. The only field where that rule is invalid would be mathematics.

>> No.2692159

Empiricism: (philosophy) the doctrine that knowledge derives from experience

Oh, I guess that position is invalid when connected to the word philosophy, but totally valid when in the context of science, even though it IS THE SAME FUCKING POSITION because I am a knee-jerk moron who needs to slag off philosophy at any given opportunity to feed my unjustified genius complex.

I really hate you guys sometimes. And no, I'm not a philosophy major. This is what happens when morons get excited about science, they start touting it like some kind of mantra and completely betray their supposed ideals because they are fucking chimps.

>> No.2692162

>>2692129
For a proponent of philosophy, you sure know very little of it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality

>> No.2692167

>>2692153
Or in logic. You have no idea what the concept of "equals" means if you think A = B does not imply B = A.

>> No.2692169

>>2692140
Way to cherry pick all of the ad hominem attacks in order to prove your point, mr. hypocrite.

>> No.2692173

>>2692159
No, empiricism actually has proof and verifications in science and itself, which is lacking in philosophy overall, which is why it doesn't count in philosophy's case.

>> No.2692185

>>2692169
No one was making a point here or attempting at such, just listing examples to highlight an argument that can be made in this thread, not one that has been made.

>> No.2692191

ITT: Aspergers and the lives it blights.

>> No.2692193

>>2692169
You're just adding more ad hominems and primacy effects to the list, instead of making an argument or point. Which would make you the only troll in this thread.

>> No.2692194

>>2692167
Oh, it's more than obvious that he hasn't taken so much as a junior college critical thinking or intro to philosophy course, he is just spewing opinions out of his asshole. Anyone who thinks philosophy and science are antithetical are.

>> No.2692196

>>2692173
Empiricism in its purest form, i.e. "Experience is the ONLY source for proper knowledge" can be confirmed empirically, but the problem with this is that it is circular. We must first accept that empiricism is valid before we can use empirical evidence to support it. This doesn't mean empiricism isn't valid, only that it is more of an explication of an unfounded stance than a logical conclusion.

>> No.2692203

>>2692194
Again, this is just another ad hominem and primacy/anchoring effects instead of actual arguments.

>> No.2692215

>>2692167
>>http://www.google.com/search?&q=define%3Aequal
>be identical or equivalent to
>be equal to in quality or ability
>peer

>> No.2692221

>>2692203
There aren't a lot of "actual arguments" to contest the statement "A=B doesn't imply B=A." It's a fundamental and grievous break with the traditional concepts of how logic works, so we can't really make appeals to logic to try to disprove something like that. When logic cannot be used, the best course of action is to call you a fucking idiot.

>> No.2692229

>>2691383

>As we all know, death ends your consciousness.

Proof?

>> No.2692237

>>2692229
>Proof?
All evidence of existence of consciousness ends upon death.

>> No.2692244

>>2692221
>When logic cannot be used, the best course of action is to call you a fucking idiot.
Which would make it an ad hominem, thus an invalid and untrue argument. And we were talking about how poor the arguments are in this, not strayed off to the "A = B" and tangent. And if you want proof and arguments for such:

>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

>> No.2692265

>>2692203
Yes, we know, you know what the primacy effect is, and we think you are very smart for knowing that. OF COURSE, I am going to add childish insults into my drunken arguments on 4chan, but I do bring up some valid points in between the ad-hominem attacks, and if you can't address those,then fuck off.

>> No.2692267

>>2692244
The fuck are causality and "correlation does not imply causation" going to have to say about whether empiricism can derive validity from empirical means? What are you even talking about?

>> No.2692279

I have to say, the people arguing in defense of philosophy are coming off the more intelligent here.

>> No.2692285

>>2692265
If you're providing any ad hominems, anchoring effects, or primacy effects in your argument, it invalidates them as a whole no matter what point you make in it, good or bad they're automatically nullified.

>> No.2692296

>>2692279
They're the only ones in this thread attacking the credibility of their opponents and using straw-mens.

>> No.2692303

>>2692285
1. i can see things which are in front of me
2. you are a fucking faggot
3. your posts are in front of me
4. therefore i can see your posts

>> No.2692305

>>2692265
>Yes, we know, you know what the primacy effect is
Do you? Because anyone that does would not care if someone else was using it unless they inadequate for it.

>> No.2692308

>>2692237

/x disagrees with you.

>> No.2692321

>>2692303
Your arguments are still invalidated and nullified for using such effects and ad. arguments.

>> No.2692330

>>2692321
That's really interesting. How far away does my argument have to be from insults? Can they be in the same post, just a few lines down? Can they be in the next post? Or do they need to be in separate threads? What happens if someone says a universally verified fact and then calls you a faggot? Does gravity stop?

>> No.2692339
File: 200 KB, 800x678, 9moV9.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2692339

>>2692196
There's a profound realization(seriously, for a lot of people)

You must start from any point in a logical thought, with the presupposition that rationality is valid. WHERE IS THE EMPIRIC PROOF OF THIS!??!?!?!?

AARWREREHHHH

Seriously, philosophy will NOT answer all of our questions. Science will not answer all of our questions. Combined they will still not answer them all, but putting down philosophy just makes you sound like an asshole, the most basic reason being that all of those famous philosophers where so so so much more intelligent than your richard dawkins youtube video wathcing ass, and yet you can't fathom what anyone could gain from philosophy...what a fucking shocker...

Burn this thread to the ground.

>> No.2692346

>>2692237

Then how do you explain this?

http://www.ghostvideos.ws/

>> No.2692347

this thread reminds me of the song "clinically dead" by chad vangaalen.

listen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXDsmSpt3so

>> No.2692348

>>2692330
>That's really interesting. How far away does my argument have to be from insults?
Honestly? The complete of lack of them if you want to make a proper, intelligent argument. Or sneak them within the grammar in an allusive way like most journalists do.

>> No.2692355

>>2692265
you shouldn't be arguing or debating if you're drunk at the moment

>> No.2692363

>>2692330
>What happens if someone says a universally verified fact and then calls you a faggot? Does gravity stop?
their argument for or claim off it would, yes.

>> No.2692365

I like how one side is calling the other an idiot and then the other is just calling them idiots for calling them idiots WITHOUT EVER FUCKING ADDRESSING THEIR POINTS THEY JUST PRETEND THEY NEVER MADE ANY POINTS.

>> No.2692373

>>2692348
No, I don't want to seem intelligent. I just want such important people as first-year philosophy minors to not toss my conclusions out the window. Faggot.

>> No.2692374

>>2692355
Shut the mouth your father fucked, before I prove you wrong for the tenth time.

>> No.2692392

So let me get this straight, empiricism is an invalid position philosophically, but when scientists adopt that position, it is valid? That is what I've got out of this retarded thread so far, thanks guys.

>> No.2692396

>>2692373
Then you have no argument or reason to make such in this thread. You're useless and invalid and have no point.

>> No.2692404

>>2692373
>I don't want to seem intelligent
Then you're a retarded idiot that has no right to be here.
>>2692374
You've only been proving them right in this thread.

>> No.2692408

>>2692392
The argument was that there wasn't empiricism under philosophy, and the original argument for it was mostly false.

>> No.2692411

>>2692396
What? I have a point. In fact, I have two. 1) You are a faggot, and 2) The epistemological foundation of science rests on philosophical grounds
>>2692392
Empiricism is an invalid position philosophically, but it's a valid position empirically.

>> No.2692420

>>2692411
>The epistemological foundation of science rests on philosophical grounds
That doesn't make philosophy a science though, or that science is entirely (if any) dependent on philosophy.

>> No.2692426

>>2692404
Listen, I stopped taking this conversation seriously after he decided that empiricism as a philosophical position was somehow invalid although scientists adopting that position was critical to scientific progress...like...if I can't get him to acknowledge that huge gap in consistent logic then...I am just to lazy to keep trying.

>> No.2692436

It sounds to me like half the people arguing "against philosophy" are just ignorant of what it fucking means. Learn the definition of a word or idea before you bash it like a retard.

For example:
>In philosophy, empiricism is a theory of knowledge which asserts that knowledge comes via sensory experience.
>In philosophy

I stopped reading this thread half way through because of the incessant misinformed ramblings.

>> No.2692439

>>2692426
>I stopped taking this conversation seriously
Then you shouldn't be here.

>> No.2692440

>>2692411

>Empiricism is an invalid position philosophically, but it's a valid position empirically.

This sentence makes no fucking sense.

>> No.2692449

>>2692420
It depends what you mean by "dependent." Would science not exist were it not for philosophers? Yes, it would not exist. Does science need to make philosophical appeals in order to justify its methodology? Yes. Would science disappear if all philosophers died? No.

Philosophy is a science of a sort if you want to use the definitions of words. If you want to say philosophy is not an empirically verified body of knowledge with a coherent subject matter, then sure you're right, but you're not making a big point.

>> No.2692452

>>2692439
THEN ANSWER MY FUCKING POINT I BROUGHT UP IN THAT POST INSTEAD OF TYPING WHAT YOU JUST DID YOU FUCKING DIPSHIT .


holy shit!

>> No.2692463

>>2692452
I'm not going to answer it if you're saying you shouldn't be here. There is no reason to answer it.

>> No.2692480

>>2692449
>It depends what you mean by "dependent."
As in require it always.
>Philosophy is a science of a sort if you want to use the definitions of words.
Philosophy is a set of beliefs and disciplines, it's not a science. It doesn't even have any proof or evidence or empiricism or theories to make it such.

>> No.2692484

>>2692426
>>2692440
I'll answer both of these at once. When I say "Philosophically invalid" when speaking of empiricism, what I mean is that empiricism cannot be rigorously shown to be true by purely logical means (in fact, nothing can). When I say "empirically valid" or when other people say "critical to scientific progress" they are implicitly pointing out that despite empiricism's lack of rigorous logical support, it is consistent with how humans usually try to gain knowledge, and it is a fundamental component of our search for knowledge.

>> No.2692504

>>2692480
I'm telling you the question is a silly one. Depending on what you mean by a "science," philosophy can be one or it can not be one, but this isn't a very big point. Philosophy does have rigorous explorations of the implications of logical assumptions, and it DOES end up trying to find out what it is that humans naturally think about a variety of topics (which, guess what, is a mostly empirical search). It's not a coherent body, but that's a funny requirement for something to be a science.

>> No.2692535

>>2692484
Then you are denying the validity of the scientific method.

>> No.2692548

>>2692535
Yes, I am saying that inductive reasoning will not necessarily lead us to correct conclusions. Despite this, it is an important part of how we gain knowledge about our world, and if we conduct our searches extensively enough, it rarely turns out to fail us. "Philosophical validity" is not such a big deal.

>> No.2692550

Empiricism cannot be shown to be true, yet I rely on it for all the scientific claims that I feel invalidate philosophy!

Circular logic, much?

>> No.2692564

>>2692463
Learn to separate the message from the messenger, if you cannot do so, then YOU should not be here. Seriously...

>> No.2692579

>>2692548

>Yes, I am saying that inductive reasoning will not necessarily lead us to correct conclusions

I agree, but just understand that this statement is philosophical in nature.

>> No.2692588

>>2692579
Yes, I do understand that. That's my point.

>> No.2693175

>>2692504
>Philosophy does have rigorous explorations of the implications of logical assumptions
Where is the proof of them then? Where is the verifiable data and evidence for assumptions? If it doesn't have any, it's not a science.