/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.3014939]

How can atheist materialists explain these things:

-Time (what is it made of?)
-Eternal Laws of Logic
-Objective Morality (i.e universal human rights)
-Consciousness (dualism, mind and soul)

Without a divine intellect, how can you account for a realm of abstract, eternal, rules & entities?

God is an obvious answer, but what would you know about truth?

[Anonymous No.3014941]

>can't think of explanation off top of head
>must be god

Good logic.

[Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH No.3014940]

>>3014939
I don't claim to account for everything. That's your first mistake.

[Captain Olimar !!ooztLPjQLnv No.3014943]

troll thread please ignore

[Anonymous No.3014948]

You're talking about supernaturalism, correct?
Please, leave /sci/.

[Anonymous No.3014950]

What do you get out of having a clearly defined explanation?

[Anonymous No.3014956]

[Anonymous No.3014968]

>>3014956
>>3014940

wow, you can't form any coherent responses to OP's questions so you resort to trolling

>Time
>Consciousness
Dunno about those

Logic and Morals are really regularities of the human mind. They aren't really "out there"

[Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH No.3014977]

>>3014968
>wow, you can't form any coherent responses to OP's questions so you resort to trolling

You're implying that I was trolling with my serious reply to an obvious OP troll? Lols.

[Anonymous No.3014983]

>>3014968
And there is no use in arguing with me because I KNOW I am right and I KNOW you are wrong. I KNOW I am fucking batshit insane and I KNOW I am retarded.
But what's important is that you are EVEN MORE fucking batshit insane and EVEN MORE retarded than me.
What gets projected into my brain matters, not what comes into your brain.
I wouldn't give a flying fuck if your dog had diarrhea and dies and you become sad but Satan help if your dog shits on my car.

I am the creator of this universe. The reason YOU exist is because I CREATED YOU RETROACTIVELY. Show some fucking respect, faggot. I am FUCKING TIRED of people thinking I am some normal human rather than God Himself. Why can't everyone just give me all their money and kill themselves? Why? What's the point?

I hope a FUCKING heron flies into your kitchen and makes a MESS of your pots and pans.

I fucking hate you. Fuck off and DIE.

[Captain Olimar !!ooztLPjQLnv No.3015044]

>>3014983
Oh my god didn't we have this post yesterday

go away

[Anonymous No.3015365]

How can atheist materialists explain these things:

How can a theist explain this
Oh wait
MATERIALIST
SUDDENLY LOGIC, PHILOSOPHY, AND METAPHYSICS R NO EXISTENCES.

Time: Metaphysical Concept correlated with things on Earth like senescence (aging) and passage of events. (Coverage of distance and events)

Eternal Laws of Logic: ? These are only human-God can be loving, but are we so self-centered to think it is to us only?

Objective Morality: Evolved from concepts like pain, emotional pain, horror, fear, etc. giving us a definition of morality-"evil" doesn't exist-it is a manifest of its constituents like fear, etc.

Consciousness: See computer-science. Mind is a manifest and evolutionary tool that is located in the brain (materialistic analysis)

Soul: Define it? Emotion and everything else experienced by humans is located in the brain.....If you're talking about an afterlife, it is possible that it exists, but it is a non-personal, non-observability stance on it, however, things like evolutionary sequences of , "Good" can add things like hope, in which "Soul" is a extended manifest of that in the same practice love is a extension of care.

[Anonymous No.3015401]

>>3015365
>Consciousness: See computer-science.

>babies first 90's theory of mind

too bad we're in 2011 where computers are a shit analogy for consciousness

[Anonymous No.3015403]

>>3014939
Materialists have brainwashed themselves into believing that none of those things exist. (The irony of how they can believe something without consciousness is lost on them.)

[Anonymous No.3015411]

>>3014968
Plato would like a word with you.

[Anonymous No.3015417]

>>3015365

[Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH No.3015421]

>>3015403
Paraphrasing Dan Dennett: "But we do have a soul! It's made of millions of tiny robots [proteins]!"

[Anonymous No.3015437]

>>3015421

doesn't make any sense

awareness isn't a robot, the two are diametrically opposed entities, two totally different ontologies

it's like saying the image on the TV is 1:1, 100%, atom-for-atom, exactly the image in my brain...we aren't that fucken dumb any more

stop pretending we are

[Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH No.3015447]

>>3015437
I fail to see how it's not plausible that I am a robot, entirely the same as a piece of C++ software running on a very advanced piece of hardware.

[Captain Olimar !!ooztLPjQLnv No.3015450]

>>3015437
So where in the brain is that little Cartesian theater, anyway?

[Anonymous No.3015451]

>>3014939

that of which we cannot speak we must remain silent.,,

OP you cannot know god. As a human you know logic. God is outside of logic. You cannot even imagine him. Any language you use to express on him/her/it/? is without meaning.

just stop

[Anomynous No.3015462]

>>3015437
define awareness
define robot
define image

oh, wait, I'm on 4chan and you certainly won't bother specifically defining the terms and their usage in the context of your argument even if your whole argument lies on their definitions. Carry on then.

[Anonymous No.3015488]

>Time (what is it made of?)
Things flowing from areas of low entropy to areas of high entropy though nth dimensional space.

>Eternal Laws of Logic
I don't even. Grok or quine, man?

>Objective Morality (i.e universal human rights)
No such animal. And even if there were, how do we determine what is and isn't covered by this morality? By finding examples that most people agree on? Sounds like a vote to me.

>Consciousness (dualism, mind and soul)
Everything about human behavior can be explained by the actions of the brain, up to and including claiming to be conscious.

[Anonymous No.3015493]

>>3015447

#1 because you can't produce awareness with an algorithm or formula

y=x+2 is not aware, no matter how complex you make it lol so dumb /sci/ is the new /x/

#2 because a simulation isn't the thing itself
learn the difference.
I can't eat simulated fruit...it's not 1-to-1, it isn't the same thing.

[Dr. Qatarlona !!dyXzsE6DDeQ No.3015497]

>Today's science fiction is tomorrow's science fact.
>Science fiction is [partially] inherently prescient.

[Anonymous No.3015499]

>>3015462

Define meaning, then I will

We don't have to define pain to know what we are talking about.

In fact we can't define pain, and it's easier to talk about it that way.

[Anonymous No.3015501]

>>3015462
/sci/ where 98% of arguments are semantical

[Anonymous No.3015506]

>>3015501

>semantical

I think you mean semiotic.

[Captain Olimar !!ooztLPjQLnv No.3015508]

>>3015493
>y=x+2 is not aware, no matter how complex you make it lol so dumb /sci/ is the new /x/

I can't tell if you're stupid or just trolling.

[resident /sci/ college dropout No.3015514]

>>3015497
Where's my city in a bubble Bill Nye?
I WANT TO LIVE IN A BUBBLE!

[Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH No.3015516]

>>3015493
>#1 because you can't produce awareness with an algorithm or formula
>y=x+2 is not aware, no matter how complex you make it lol so dumb /sci/ is the new /x/

Why not? That is a falsifiable claim. I would be curious if you had any sources to refute it. I do know a thing or two about this, and it's my educated opinion that the human mind is an algorithm in the Turing computable sense.

[Anonymous No.3015532]

>>3015493

You can't even describe 'subjectivity'. But with a complicated enough program, you can get all the behavior and thought processes of the human being. That's what the brain is.

Subjectivity, we can argue about, but nobody has any data on what it is or why it feels like anything. But consciousness, or free-will, or the human mind, for that matter, these are fairly close to being solved problems.

[Anonymous No.3015544]

>>3015532

hello I'd like to show you my beetle but I cant

[Anonymous No.3015553]

>>3015506
>irony you has it

[Anonymous No.3015558]

>>3014939
> Time (what is it made of?)
It's not a substance, so it's not made of anything. It's a measure of change in the universe.
> Eternal Laws of Logic
Invented by humans from chosen axioms.
> Objective Morality
A myth.
> Consciousness
An illusion.
> Without a divine intellect, how can you account for a realm of abstract, eternal, rules & entities?
There doesn't seem to be any such "realm" so there's no need to account for pixieland.
> God is an obvious answer, but what would you know about truth?
If you take your own word for it and accept God as an answer? Probably nothing.

[Anomynous No.3015562]

>>3015499
As I said, this being 4chan you're unwilling to actually define and clarify ambiguities in your argument.

[Anonymous No.3015567]

>>3015558

again speaking nonsense outside of meaningful language just like op

[Anonymous No.3015594]

>>3015558
See told ya, it's easy.
1. Deny the existence of everything
2. Be free to believe in bullshit ideology.
3. ???
4. Profit

[Anonymous No.3015603]

Atheism is not a religion. It is a lack of faith. A lack of faith is not faith. Not collecting stamps is not a hobby. Atheism is not the Big Bang theory and it is not the theory of Evolution. Science is not a religion, it is a method for discovering new knowledge. Atheism is only a religion in the same way that not believing is Santa Clause is also a religion. The burden of proof lies on people claiming that a god exists. There is no purpose for our existence, only causes. Morality is independent of religion. Actions done under the belief that punishment awaits are impure. "Good" and "bad" are only human perceptions.
Religion is the epitome of ignorance, it is a deadly ignorance. It is an abomination and insult to reason. It is a political tool used to control large populations. It is a security blanket for those that fear death. It is a cheap answer to questions that science cannot at this time explain. It is the result of a lack of information. Religion is holding mankind from it's potential. It still exists because of tradition and an emotional reponse to reject harshness of reality.

[SAGE No.3015618]

>SAGE

[Anonymous No.3015626]

>>3015558
> Consciousness
An illusion.

Le Fullretardo.

[Anonymous No.3015639]

>>3015603

SOMEONE FINALLY SAID IT

I FUCKING THANK YOU

[Anonymous No.3015643]

>>3015626

Thank you. I'm sick of people always saying shit like that and, "pain is only a state of mind" LOL STFU, its a brain thing. Neurochemicals. Singals. In that case, everything is a, "state of mind" as its in the brain.

Inb4 state of mind = period of certain thought.

[Anonymous No.3015656]

>>3015643
Wow you totally do not get it. Take a philosophy class.

[Anonymous No.3015651]

>>3015603
Every intelligent scientist who ever lived would like to disagree with you.

[Anonymous No.3015668]

>>3015618
The Nazi doctors would like to talk to you about all hypotheses being tested

[Anonymous No.3015679]

>>3015668

as would the anthropology and sociology of science...

remember you are doing science as a socio/cultural process

[Anonymous No.3015697]

i recommend reading Joseph Schumaker's 'The Problem With Reality' and chapter 3 'The Last Wall to Fall' of Steve Pinker's book 'The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature'.

a good perspective of consciousness from a scientific pov is offered.

[Anonymous No.3015699]

>>3014939
Time isn't made of anything,

Eternal laws of logic? You speak of these as though they are things that were programmed into the universe before the big bang.
The Laws of logic are simply always true, 1+1 must equal 2. Nothing needs to create these laws. They're not physical constructs.

Objective morality does not exist.

Consciousness is a useful evolutionary trait that has helped keep us alive, it has helped us attain a higher intellect.

The soul does not exist.

[Anonymous No.3015701]

>Time (what is it made of?)
That is as relevant a question as "who was phone?".

[Anonymous No.3015707]

What you perceive as time is actually the slipping of all the dimensions through one another, each creating a perceptible cutout for the dimension below it. Entities are simply higher dimensional objects moving through lower dimensional plains. While the universe still expands, we know that dimensions are moving closer together. When it begins to shrink, we know that they have now started to pass through eachother and our time is running out. Fuck your shit.

[Anonymous No.3015710]

all the jokes aside, OP has a point

science is too retarded in the 21st century to tackle any of those

specially the nature of time / consciousness

[Anonymous No.3015720]

>>3015710
You see, science doesn't tackle anything, as science isn't a physical entity capable of knocking someone to the ground.

Scientists however, have quite successfully explained the nature of time, and consciousness.

[Anonymous No.3015723]

>>3015710

>the sum of human knowledge as of today cannot tackle these problems

>therefore stone age barbarians or superstitious navel gazers have the right idea

Which parts exactly? The nature of time, or of logic, or of subjectivity? Fine. But there is nothing to suggest objective morality, or a soul, or any such abstractions that exist outside our mind.

[Anonymous No.3015732]

>morality
no.

[Anonymous No.3015743]

>>3015651

[Anonymous No.3015760]

Atheist says: "There is no such thing as objective morality"

Next day on Faux News: "Atheists have no morals".

[Anonymous No.3015772]

>>3015760

Godbotherer says: There are certain objective moral truths. How do we know? Here's one, and MOST PEOPLE would agree with me.

Atheist says: I don't even.

[Anonymous No.3015795]

question, Karl Popper essentially stated science is developed through falsification right? wouldn't agnostic technically be the most scientific view? then when we die we can decide between religious/atheist? yes? who's with me? huh? aww yeah, let's do this!

[Anonymous No.3015805]

>>3015795
No, the agnostic view is unfalsifiable.

[Anonymous No.3015807]

>>3015795

Indeed. Not believing in a god until evidence is presented would be the most scientific way to do things.

[Anonymous No.3015818]

>>3015805

it is when we die.

what's our null hypothesis here anywho? there is a god or there isn't?

[Anonymous No.3015822]

>>3015805

Only if one is talking about a nebulous 'god' with no bounds or traits. Not the one that is actually held to exist by any religious people, it is the one that is used as a wedge to get rational people to admit there could be a god.

Any of the gods described, from the holy books or the various pantheons, are falsifiable. And have been falsified.

[Anonymous No.3015827]

>>3015795
Atheists don't say "there is absolutely no god", that is, except the stupid ones.

Everyone is agnostic, however, agnostic is a verb.

I'm an agnostic atheist.

[Anonymous No.3015837]

>>3015818
The agnostic view claims that there is not enough available information to determine whether God exists or not. That's not falsifiable ever; it just becomes moot when we die because our level of information may (or may not) change.

The theist and atheist views are both falsifiable after death, assuming we find out if there's a God after we die, although I don't know what that assumption is based upon.

[Anonymous No.3015839]

>>3015818

The null hypothesis is that unexplained phenomenon are the result of some unknown effect of the laws of nature, an impersonal, materialistic explanation.

Why? Because we have countless examples of this being shown to be so from throughout the history of empirical and rational inquiry. And we have zero examples of phenomenon being explained by some intelligent, universal agency.

[Anonymous No.3015841]

>>3015822
get out, retard.

[Anonymous No.3015847]

>>3015827

Not everyone. Most theists are gnostic. They think you can know, and they think they do know.

[Anonymous No.3015852]

>>3015795
Are you then unsure about magic, the easter bunny, ra the sun god, russels teapot, the invisible pink unicorn, the flying spaghetti monster?

That's a ridiculous way to view things, assuming they might exist. Be a sceptic, assume it doesn't until there is evidence to suggest otherwise.

[Anonymous No.3015859]

>>3015807
Not believing in economics would be the scientific way to do things until evidence is presented

[Anonymous No.3015861]

>>3015847
Yes, they're very delusional. I was speaking of people with all their faculties intact.

[Anonymous No.3015878]

>>3015859

Economics is a bad example, mon frere.

Effect can be so removed from cause in economic systems that most ideas about what makes what happen are nothing more than superstition. And those who do understand it on some level cannot properly articulate this understanding, so it is an art, not a science.

[Anonymous No.3015884]

>>3015852
>quotes southpark for intellectual discussion. ;)

>>3015837

true, i was somewhat appropriating the concept to simply being a middle ground taking neither side.

[Anonymous No.3015893]

>>3015884
Did I? I don't watch south park. Even if it is from the show, the question still stands.

Not answering the question by deflecting shows that you don't have a very good answer.

[Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH No.3015896]

>>3015827
>uses 4 quandrant bullshit
>misuses verb for adjective
Get out.

[Anonymous No.3015948]

>>3015878
Ok ok.

Now, how does economics work when you remove the study of economics?

If monkies existed somewhere with no conceptual idea of economics, would their economic system be stable and unchanging?

In other words, if our economic theories change the structure of economics, how can you demonstrate a test of economics that hasn't been rigged to a predetermined outcome?

[Anonymous No.3015949]

>>3015893

no, i don't believe in those things. but if you honestly applied your reasoning throughout scientific development, well it wouldn't have developed so much.

do you honestly believe in the easter bunny, ra the sun god, russels teapot, the invisible pink unicorn, a round earth?

you're applying simplified logic beyond it's suitable purpose. the above are analytical truths of fiction (excluding Ra i guess).

[Anonymous No.3015950]

>>3015884

Points about agnosticism regarding any unseen, unknown entities are valid.

'God' gets a special consideration because of the amount of people who hold to it, not because there is conflicting data on the matter.

[Anonymous No.3015958]

>>3015948

It's an absurdly complex system. That is my point.

Computers can already get a better handle on it than most economists.

[Anonymous No.3016024]

>>3015958
But we're dealing with non-linear systems. We know our weakness is imprecision. The entire economic system of knowledge is based on vagaries around the idea of value.

As such, theres nothing in economics that is a priori and should not be believed.