/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.4126617]

If i try explain ethics, politics, existence, and other elusive and arbitrary concepts basing on science, like evolutionary biology and physics etc.

Is this philosophy or science?

[Anonymous No.4126627]

> explain ... arbitrary concepts
it's bullshit

[Anonymous No.4126635]

>>4126617
No. Philosophy of science isn't where you try to answer popular philosophical questions with science. Philosophy means to study and analyze. Philosophy of science is where you study and analyze concept of science. What is science? Why does it follow the rules it does? What are its implications? Why has it been so successful? Why do so many people distrust scientific evidence? etc.

[Anonymous No.4126638]

>>4126617
You're using science to explain issues of philosophy and sociology, so it's applied science.
But I don't know how you would apply science to many of those.

[Anonymous No.4126640]

>>4126635
Sorry. I fucked up and read your question as: "Is this philosophy OF science?". I need to clean the semen off my monitor.

[Physics Guy No.4126643]

>>4126617
If you are actually using science to back up your claims...you are doing science.

If you use concepts with no scientific basis to back up your claims, yet you have internal consistancey, a heavy proof system, axiomatic reasoning, and minimal axioms, then you are doing math or logic.

If you use concepts with no scientific basis to back up your claims, internal consistency, a lax proof system, and some axiomatic reasoning then you are doing philosophy.

If you use concepts with no scientific basis to back up your claims, no internal consistency, no proof system, no axioms, no logic, and little if no reasoning, then you are doing religion.

[OP No.4126648]

>>4126638
Well, for example- ethics; according to neuroscience and evolutionary biology ethics are subjective, the rules that make them up can be summed up by other functions of the brain.

So i think this explains a "philosophical" question.
The problem is that some people say am a philosopher, i dont see it like that, i dont make hypothesis based on a personal experience and wishful thinking.

But am kinda confused, when an idea/hypothesis/theory/whatever scientific and when philosophical.

[OP No.4126664]

>>4126643
They way you describe it, it seems their validity follows this:

1-Math
2-Science
3-Philosophy
4-PseudoScience
5-Religion

So you're saying deductive reasoning is logical thinking (no science or philosophy) and inductive reasoning is philosophy.

[Anonymous No.4126709]

You're doing philosphy.

Science is about proving with SCIENTIFIC method, you're using data from science but not proving anything, therefore its not scientific.

[Anonymous No.4126718]

>>4126664
There is no such thing as deductive reasoning outside math.

[Anonymous No.4126724]

>>4126648
Ok, in that example that you gave, it would sociology backed up with science, as the thing you're showing is that ethical norms are relative, but are influenced by our brain chemistry and evolutionary biology.

There's no empirical system of ethical norms, so there's no quantitative system you're working within. Not strictly science, but sociology using science as evidence to back up a claim.

If you were describing the philosophical worth or sense (a shitty phrasing) of each norm in relation to others, that would be philosophy.

[Anonymous No.4126728]

>>4126643
>>4126643
Reasoning is fundamentally axiomatic.
Logic is axiomatic.
Everything in the universe can be described with math/logic.

Yes its fun to say "hurr we're just humans, our understanding is limited" but its not really true.
If we can do the basic logic calculations then everything is falls in.

[Anonymous No.4126736]

>>4126724
Whats the difference between logical reasoning/deductive reasoning and Philosophy?

Science has proved certain things about the brain,evolution,etc, and real life fits the pattern and you can describe behavioral patterns with the info science gave you.

You're saying that a scientific hypothesis is a philosophy.

[Anonymous No.4126741]

>>4126736
>You're saying that a scientific hypothesis is a philosophy.
How so?

Or did you mean that to >>4126728?

[Anonymous No.4126759]

Philosophy is the grandaddy of Science.

Philosophy = Love of Wisdom.
This can go inside you (rationalism) or external to you (natural philosophy which is investigation of "nature").

Natural Philosophy (also related to the word physikos) slowly became the Natural Science (science is latin that means "to know").

The notion of science is now broader than our current defintion of philosophy, but it still claims its origin from it.

In the end, you're still doing philosophy, as science stems from it.

[Anonymous No.4126762]

>>4126741
No, that went to you.

The example i gave you was scientific "deduction-ism".
So you could just say "casual" logic.

[Anonymous No.4126778]

>philosophy
>in MY /sci/

[Physics Guy No.4126800]

>>4126728
>>4126617
Math is like the "print" on the "menu", in the "restaurant" that is the universe.

You can use it to describe everything the universe has to offer (science), and even some things the universe simply doesn't serve (pure maths).

Sometimes the menu has nonsensical stuff on it thrown in with the math and science, crazy foreign symbols we call "philosophy". We are not sure if these even mean anything or are complete nonsense, but they seem to have some sort of structure similar to some of the pure maths.

Sometimes, a child scribbled on the menu, we call this religion and general nonsense.

[Anonymous No.4126804]

>>4126762
>Whats the difference between logical reasoning/deductive reasoning and Philosophy?
Logic is a branch of philosophy, but extends into math, which extends into physics....and on. So I guess there's no difference, or rather there's a fair bit of overlap and dependence on context, but bear in mind that a lot of philosophy isn't rigorously logical.

>You're saying that a scientific hypothesis is a philosophy.
A hypothesis is a testable prediction that's based on data, so yes, it's a form of casual logic, but many times the systems that are being observed are so complex that strict logical systems aren't easily applied.

>>4126778
But it's how much overlap it has with science, so it's alright.

[Anonymous No.4126813]

>>4126800
\thread

[Anonymous No.4126826]

>>4126617
fucking pikey's trying to science.

[Anonymous No.4126832]

lol those kids are faggots, we should allow hate language to continue and only regulate after maturation

[Anonymous No.4126840]

>>4126800
>>4126813
No, samefag.

[Anonymous No.4127127]

>>4126804
Am sorry but i cannot agree with logic being a branch of philosophy.

Before anything, human mind is capable of logic.
He builts everything on that logic, rigorous logic, faulty logic etc.

Philosophy is a tool of logic, just like science.
Saying logic is a branch of philosophy is equal to physics is a branch of chemistry.

[Anonymous No.4127132]

>>4127127
You don't understand philosophy then.

[Anonymous No.4127134]

>>4127127
Logic

1. Definition. Logic is the study of reasoning --- the nature of good (correct) reasoning and of bad (incorrect) reasoning. Its focus is the method or process by which an argument unfolds, not whether any arbitrary statement or series of statements is "true" or accurate. Logicians study and analyze arguments, premises, inferences, propositions, conditional statements, and symbolic forms.

As a "branch" of philosophy, logic is often broken down into many subsets: for instance, modal logic, many-valued logic, modern logic, symbolic logic, formal and informal logic, deductive and inductive logic.

See also logical fallacies.

[Anonymous No.4127137]

>>4127134
Then philosophy is branch to what?

[Anonymous No.4127138]

>>4127127

>Philosophy is a tool of logic, just like science.

How old are you?

[Anonymous No.4127139]

>>4127137
What?

[Anonymous No.4127143]

>>4127137

>Then philosophy is a branch to what?
>branch to what?
>to

What?

[Anonymous No.4127144]

>>4127138
22
Philosophy is a mental tool, its purpose is to solve problems.
>>4127139
You say that logic is branch of philosophy, then who's branch is philosophy, what is philosophy part of?

?>philosophy>logic

[Anonymous No.4127146]

>>4127137
Are you asking what larger grouping philosophy is a subset of?

[Anonymous No.4127147]

>>4127143
That sentence is grammatically and comprehensively valid.
Is english your native language?

[Anonymous No.4127149]

>>4127146
ye

[Anonymous No.4127152]

>>4127144
The subset of existence itself probably. So perception.

[Anonymous No.4127153]

>>4127152
What?
Can you elaborate?
It sounds too vague and arbitrary as you say it.

[Anonymous No.4127156]

>>4126643
The most nihilistic thing i have heard all week. You make me smile

[Anonymous No.4127157]

>>4126759
Science has changed a lot since it split from philosophy. In fact, most science today is a form of statistical quackery. It's abusing statistics to find some "significance" which is ultimately based on convention.

This is what most people forget, that our maths are basically conventions, not facts of nature, and so scientific method itself works to produce results which are meaningful in this framework of conventions. So our "scientific laws" aren't really the shape the universe gave them, they are just useful approximations expressed in conventional symbols to simulate the dynamics from physical reality.

[Anonymous No.4127159]

>>4127153
Well there is no such thing as an empirical reality, so we study perception of what we perceive as reality, and get our logic from what we perceive is empirical. For example, a computer will have a limited perception but its logic will work within itself but our perception is "higher" than it so we can say its logic is bounded.

[Anonymous No.4127160]

i like how the chav gets called scum. none of the others have descriptive adjectives attached to their racial epithets

[Anonymous No.4127163]

>>4127144
>Philosophy is a mental tool, its purpose is to solve problems.
Sure, in the way that science is a tool to let us understand the world around us.

>You say that logic is branch of philosophy, then who's branch is philosophy, what is philosophy part of?
Philosophy is just reasonable thought, although "reasonable" is a muddy word. The axioms, rules, and methods vary by school, but the group that philosophy is a part of is probably just all thought, whereas philosophy is, like you said, thought leveled at some problem and systemized in some way.

[Anonymous No.4127165]

>>4127144
>philosophy
>purpose is to solve problems

[Anonymous No.4127166]

>>4127157
Well said.

[Anonymous No.4127167]

but chavs are scum.
They're not a race, they're not even human. They're just scum

[Anonymous No.4127168]

>>4127147

>That sentence is grammatically and comprehensively valid.

Incorrect.
Preposition "To" doesnt express origin.

>Is english your native language?

Depends which English you refer to.

[Anonymous No.4127172]

>>4127166
Well this supposes we as humans are separate from what is ultimately happening. This is highly controversial, i still agree with you though.

[Anonymous No.4127173]

god i hate this board so much. there's more intelligent discourse on youtube

[Anonymous No.4127174]

>>4127144

>22 Philosophy is a mental tool, its purpose is to solve problems.

Thats incorrect.
It is a study of Universal/General/Fundamental problems.

[Anonymous No.4127175]

>>4127159
Wait, your saying that we built our logic based on empirical evidence of reality?
I disagree, logic is something innate.
The study of logic may be a part of philosophy, but everything else comes from logical thought.

[Anonymous No.4127178]

>>4127173
>mfw I get banned from /lit/
>mfw I go to /sci/ and there's a philosophy thread a-waiting
>mfw welcome to /lit/ part two: electric boogaloo

[Atwill !kelPcGZQlE No.4127179]

This is why we need a separate board for philosophy. On a separate site. On a separate internet. On a separate planet.

[Anonymous No.4127180]

>>4127174
Studying is done in the first place to solve the problem.
I think you take the word 'problem' too casually.

Having a question about existence and whatnot is a problem and philosophy that tries to answer those questions.

[Anonymous No.4127183]

>>4127179
It's been mentioned, but the thing would be that it would be dividing an already slow board into two tortoise-slow boards. We're talking viscosity of glass slow.

[Anonymous No.4127185]

>>4127175
Where does logic come from?

[Anonymous No.4127186]

>>4127175

>Wait, your saying that we built our logic based on empirical evidence of reality?

Exactly.

>I disagree, logic is something innate.

How exactly is it "Innate"?

>The study of logic may be a part of philosophy, but everything else comes from logical thought.

What else?
And which "Logical Thought" if philosophy doesnt develop it?

[Anonymous No.4127187]

>>4127175
Well innate to what? Causality, time, etc are all perceptive. Think about schrodinger's cat, the double slit experiment, etc.

To say logic is something that is always correct is always going to be wrong. What might be logical in our perception might be the opposite in another. Does this change anything ? No, not for us. But this just further proves my point.

[Anonymous No.4127190]

>>4127185
Logic doesn't come from anywhere. Logic is following the rules of argumentation to arrive at some conclusion. It's a process.

[Anonymous No.4127192]

>>4127185
Logic is innate in the universe.
We derive from a replicating molecule that got complex, which being in our universe, obeys the laws of physics.
We are physics=we are math=we are logic

Thats how i see it.

[Anonymous No.4127193]

>>4127187
Quantum physics can be fully describe by mathematics= logic.

You are confusing human intuition with actual logic.
Logic is universal and cannot change.

[Anonymous No.4127196]

>>4127180

>Studying is done in the first place to solve the problem.

Studying the cause of your broken arm wont fix the bones.

>I think you take the word 'problem' too casually.

Explain.

>Having a question about existence and whatnot is a problem and philosophy that tries to answer those questions.

Having a question about existence and whatnot arent the only problems that philosophy has covered and is covering now.

[Anonymous No.4127198]

>logic is empirical

Somebody needs logic 101

[Anonymous No.4127203]

>>4127196
>Studying the cause of your broken arm wont fix the bones.
And studying apples won't explain oranges.

[Anonymous No.4127204]

>>4127193
Human intuition? When did I ever bring that up, you think that science is not resultant from human perception itself? It's funny you use the term universal because it directly implies for our universe. And to say that our universe is the entirety, the absolute, is pretty naive in my opinion.

[Anonymous No.4127207]

>>4127193

>Quantum physics can be fully describe by mathematics= logic.

Mathematics isnt equivalent to logic.

>Logic is universal and cannot change.

Incorrect.
Human Modes of Inference and Reasoning are neither universal nor static.

[Anonymous No.4127208]

>>4127196
>Studying the cause of your broken arm wont fix the bones.
It will fix our curiosity.
Again you are taking the word 'problem' casually even i explained how i meant it.
>explain
See above
>Having a question about existence and whatnot arent the only problems that philosophy has covered and is covering now.
What? i said existence and whatnot, which shows i meant almost everything.
I dont see how that sentence serves me or you or anything at all.

Also, how old are you?

[Anonymous No.4127210]

>>4127192
>Logic is innate in the universe.
No, logic is a manmade construction meant to describe philosophical truth, which is also manmade.

>We derive from a replicating molecule that got complex, which being in our universe, obeys the laws of physics.
Physics is not logic. Our theories and models of describing them are constructions, but are not logical because they don't deal with finding philosophical truth, only with describing behavior observed in the world.

There's no "correct answer" to observe in nature, it's humans who give value to one conclusion over another.

[Anonymous No.4127211]

Oh philosophy, why won't you just rest in peace? You're only torturing yourself by trying to keep up with a world that doesn't need you anymore.

[Anonymous No.4127209]

>>4127203

>And studying apples won't explain oranges.

Point being?

[Anonymous No.4127212]

>>4127207
Wrong.
Mathematics are absolutely based on absolute rules.
Call it however you want, it is logic.

And if you can describe everything with absolute rules then everything follows absolute rules which means everything has a pattern, law, logic.

[Anonymous No.4127213]

>>4127211
I think you're thinking of theology.

[Anonymous No.4127217]

>>4127210
see:
>>4127212
Which explains why logic is innate.

[Anonymous No.4127218]

>>4127217
The question is: Do the rules of mathematics extend into the rules of existence?

[Anonymous No.4127219]

>>4127208

>It will fix our curiosity.

How does "Fixing your Curiosity" fix your broken bones?

>Again you are taking the word 'problem' casually even i explained how i meant it.

How did you mean it?

>i said existence and whatnot, which shows i meant almost everything.

Then you are incorrect.
Not all problems that Philosophy covers can be solved just by stuying them.

>Also, how old are you?

Is your inability to concentrate to the topic caused by ADHD?

[Anonymous No.4127221]

>>4127212
You can also describe everything without rules.
Try it.

[Neuroscientist No.4127222]

>>4127207
Absolutely false.
Everything in the universe runs on absolute laws.
Mathematics is exactly that.

Mathematics,Physical Laws, Logic are what is this universe made of.
Philosophy doesnt exist.

Philosophy exists as much algebra exists.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZED4gITL28

[Anonymous No.4127223]

>>4127218
not necessarily. (pure) math is simply about deriving the logical consequences of a given set of axioms.

[Anonymous No.4127225]

>>4127222
Sure, but is the universe the only logic?

[Anonymous No.4127227]

>>4127223
So then either existence is illogical or logic is something else.

[Anonymous No.4127229]

>>4127222
are you implying that algebra isn't math or did i miss something

[Anonymous No.4127228]

>>4127212

>Call it however you want, it is logic.

Define "Logic".

[Anonymous No.4127230]

>>4127227
Existence is the precondition of logic.

[Anonymous No.4127233]

>>4127230
So then mathematics is not the only logic.

[Anonymous No.4127234]

>>4127227
existence is logical but logic can be applied to things that don't exist (e.g. deriving physics for a set of made up laws, like letting f = m*a^2). so logic is more general in some sense

[Anonymous No.4127235]

>How does "Fixing your Curiosity" fix your broken bones?
You dont get it do you? I said philosophy fixes your curiosity, and you said how does it fixes bones, how does that make sense with what i said?

>Then you are incorrect.
>Not all problems that Philosophy covers can be solved just by stuying them.
What? Are you trolling? That doesnt make sense, you dont counter any of my point or even advance your own with that sentence.

>Is your inability to concentrate to the topic caused by ADHD?
Really, state your age because i get this feeling that am talking to a 15yo, cause you reply with nonsense, and believe me am not being sarcastic, if i was you would knew it.

[Anonymous No.4127236]

>>4127222

>Mathematics,Physical Laws, Logic are what is this universe made of.

Incorrect.

>Philosophy doesnt exist.

Then why does it exsist?

[Anonymous No.4127237]

>>4127234
So logic is relative, and not absolute?

[Neuroscientist No.4127239]

>>4127229
What the video and use the analogy.

[Anonymous No.4127240]

>>4127222
>dat related video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MaK1_WDKBV8

[Anonymous No.4127242]

>>4127239
i watched the video. he doesn't say anything about algebra not existing. you simultaneously claim mathematics makes up the universe but algebra doesn't exist?

[Anonymous No.4127243]

>>4127234
Existence isn't logical, existence is itself.
But logic can be applied to existence.

[Neuroscientist No.4127244]

>>4127236
I explained my points, you should try the same otherwise you're good as a theist.

Why philosophy doesnt exist?
Poor naive little child.

[Anonymous No.4127245]

Stay useful.

[Anonymous No.4127248]

>>4127245
This.
This is the high horse of philosophy.
Philosophy today exists only to say that sentence.
Science prevailed in every other aspect.

[Anonymous No.4127249]

>arguing about whether philosophy exists
is this like that tree falling in the forest thing

[Anonymous No.4127251]

>>4127228
Rules.

[Anonymous No.4127252]

>>4127248
Care to falsify it?

[Anonymous No.4127253]

>>4127235

>I said philosophy fixes your curiosity, and you said how does it fixes bones, how does that make sense with what i said?

Its doesnt which implies that you are illogical.

Here is why:

(Yours)Philosophy is a mental tool, its purpose is to solve problems.

(Mine)It is a study of Universal/General/Fundamental problems.

(Yours)Studying is done in the first place to solve the problem.

(Mine)Studying the cause of your broken arm wont fix the bones.

(Yours)It will fix our curiosity.

(Mine)How does "Fixing your Curiosity" fix your broken bones?

(Yours)You dont get it do you I said philosophy fixes your curiosity, and you said how does it fixes bones, how does that make sense with what i said?

I do get that you are an idiot, thats for sure.

[Anonymous No.4127255]

>>4127248
Philosophy explains science. Science brings "empirical" findings to philosophy. Philosophy brings concepts to science. Science disproves certain philosophical concepts.

They are not separate entities, nothing is.

[Anonymous No.4127257]

>>4127251
Define rules.

[Anonymous No.4127258]

>>4127257
Define define.

[Anonymous No.4127259]

>>4127252
No, and why would I want to? I'll just ignore it like all normal people

[Anonymous No.4127260]

>>4127251

>Rules.

Incorrect.
All your Arguments are invalid as they all rely on your fallacious definition of logic.

Logic (from the Greek λογική logikē)[1] is the formal systematic study of the principles of valid inference and correct reasoning

Now kindly get the fuck out my /Sci/, Phailosopher.

[Anonymous No.4127263]

>>4127258
Itself, an idea.

[Anonymous No.4127264]

>>4127253
Let me help you understand then.

Me: philosophy is a tool to solve problems
You: It is a study of Universal/General/Fundamental problems.

Me: Studying is done in the first place to solve the problem.

You: Studying the cause of your broken arm wont fix the bones.

Me:It will fix our curiosity.

You:How does "Fixing your Curiosity" fix your broken bones?

So.
I say: it will fix your curiosity
You: but how it will fix the bones?

IT WONT.
I never said that.
Thats why i asked you age before and i ask again because you fail simple logic let alone to explain the nature of logic and philosophy.

[Anonymous No.4127266]

>>4127259
Thats fine, just understand everything you believe to be true is based on faith.

[Anonymous No.4127267]

>>4127260
Rules.

[Anonymous No.4127272]

>>4127266
A meaningless tautology, and not sufficient justification for all the money philosophy professors get paid

[OP No.4127273]

>>4127257
Rules definition on universal laws:
That everything in the universe acts accordingly to rules.
If you follow the rules you will only get one answer in the universe.

>inb4 Quantum Mechanics
When i say one answer i mean one possible outcome.
No matter how you do it, quantum mechanics follow the rules and act accordingly.
Entanglement, Duality aren't magical, they are follow set of rules.

The universe and us are made of those.
math, logic. physical laws, everything are governed by the RULES, laws, however you wanna call them.

Sure there isn't an objective frame of reference, and since outside of human thought is impossible and pointless to argue we accept that the rules as everything shows that rules are absolute.

[Anonymous No.4127279]

if you combine Math and Logic you get =Magic (MAth+loGIC)

AMIRITE HAHAXDDD

[Anonymous No.4127280]

>>4127272
You didn't get the meaning of that. Let me reiterate.

Everything you believe is true is based on you believing it to be true.
Believe what youd like.

[Anonymous No.4127283]

>>4127273

>That everything in the universe acts accordingly to rules If you follow the rules you will only get one answer in the universe The universe and us are made of those math everything are governed by the RULES

Mathematics is inconsistent.
Your Argument is invalid.

[Anonymous No.4127284]

>>4127273
It seems like you just said that everything must follow rules, but we don't actually know that, we just accept it.
Am I right?

[Anonymous No.4127285]

I was a modernist once, I thought I could experience mathematical law. Now I'm pretty sure we invented mathematics to help perceive phenomena. But where did phenomena come from?

[Anonymous No.4127289]

>>4127284
Thats what i said.
Because it is impossible to think outside of the human scope we observe things as we see them.
We accept things as we see them, and we see everything follows a set of rules.
And we notice that we too follow set of rules.

Anything else is meaningless.
Sure there could be a giant tortoise being a cheerleader doing backflips in super-extra-position but thats completely irrelevant.

Science understands more about philosophy than philosophers themselves.
If you understand the nature of reality you can better acknowledge the nature of truth.

[Anonymous No.4127292]

>>4127283
I'll disregard the idiotic comment and proceed to ask:

So you're saying universe doesnt follow rules?
How so?

[Anonymous No.4127293]

>>4127285
We didn't invent mathematics.
We merely invented the symbolism but the underlying mechanism is innate.

[Anonymous No.4127297]

Philosophy can say only one thing:
Truth is subjective.

Scientists know that and also know thats irrelevant.
Philosophy right now is a pile of garbage.

Empirical thought> Philosophy

[Anonymous No.4127298]

ITT: /pol/

[Anonymous No.4127300]

>>4127298
get out.

[Anonymous No.4127301]

>>4127292

>So you're saying universe doesnt follow rules?

Which rules?
And how is that relevant to your assertion that Mathematics, if you follow the rules, will have only one answer?

[Anonymous No.4127304]

>>4127300

Can't say I'm not right.

>>>/pol/ that way.

[Anonymous No.4127308]

>>4127289
I agree understanding nature of reality is important.
But trying to describe what may be outside oure perception isnt going to do that, we need to observe the nature of perception itself, since that is what we have of reality.

[Anonymous No.4127313]

>>4127301
The physical laws.

As a math graduate you should listen to my advice:
Logic for Dummies

[Anonymous No.4127325]

>>4127308
Are you this guy?
>>4127174

[Anonymous No.4127329]

ITT: semantic wars.

99% of philosophy is that.
Thats why no one respects it.

[Anonymous No.4127333]

>>4127325
No

[Anonymous No.4127334]

>>4127313

So you cant prove your argument and you resort to appeal to some random authority.
Pathetic.

[Anonymous No.4127350]

>>4127334
I had entire post that explained.

You just throw one liners.
Which made me lose respect to you.
AKA you're like a monkey that wears a human suit.

[Anonymous No.4127356]

>>4127333
>But trying to describe what may be outside oure perception isnt going to do that
Exactly what i said.

>we need to observe the nature of perception itself, since that is what we have of reality.
Um, ok?

[Anonymous No.4127369]

>>4127356
I'm saying science doesnt help you understand the nature of reality, just different observable pieces of reality.
The only way to understand the nature of reality is to understand the nature of yourself.

[Anonymous No.4127372]

>>4127293
Mathematics is innate? Could you bring some evidence to support this statement?
It's not clear right now if there's any innate element in language acquisition and which if any, and you claim mathematics is innate...

[Anonymous No.4127457]

>>4127372
Kant would argue that its a priori, because no matter how hard we try, we cant imagine that 3+3 isnt 6.

on the other hand Hume said that the relation between cause and effect is empirical and not a general rule, the only reason we think so is because of habituation.

[Anonymous No.4127466]

ITT people not realizing that science is just a philosophy

[Anonymous No.4127534]

>>4127369
>2011
>people still using terms like "reality"

If one took a step back and look at how one even formed the concept of reality, one would see it's utter INADEQUACY in the face of experience and the projection of a limited set of experiences in a limited frame of history as an internal model of ALL POSSIBLE EXTERIOR PROPOSITIONS.

Otherwise, one is just being mentally lazy. I mean look at this shit
>The only way to understand the nature of reality is to understand the nature of yourself.

Because after having OBSERVED THE ENTIRETY OF THE UNIVERSE IN THE ENTIRETY OF ITS TIMEFRAME, the "only way" to understand the possible set of exterior propositions is to understand the "nature" of "yourself".

Can we please kill such MENDACIOUS and LAZY people off this board?

[Anonymous No.4127541]

>>4127534
Is there perception right now?
There you go- reality.

[Anonymous No.4127551]

>>4127541

WOW HOLY SHIT THAT JUST EXPLAINED EVERYTHING!

No really, explain how the concept of "reality" is actually USEFUL other than as wank material for people who want to do science on the cheap aka analyzing propositions taken away from their material context.

Now maybe you meant to imply that our knowledge can be modified by our perception which is fine but it doesn't lead arise to a concept of reality unless one is such a psychologically disabled fuck as to try to possess the set of all exterior propositions by imposing a model that is supposed to surpass all "perceptions".

[Anonymous No.4127559]

>>4127457
3 and 6 are conventions. By convention we agree there are "three" "objects" in the world which satisfy the abstract condition of being countable.

As I said, mathematics is not an empirical science based on observation, it's an abstract field based on convention and logic. If we agree what is countable, we also agree what the result would be within this framework. Mathematical "truths" are tautological, but mathematical equations can model how we perceive the world and express that in formal statements.

[Anonymous No.4127561]

>>4127551
The concept of reality is arbitrary. Understanding the nature of reality isn't understanding a concept, its reality.

[Anonymous No.4127571]

>>4127561

I like how "reality" still wasn't defined in more than circular terms.

>Understanding the nature of reality isn't understanding a concept, its reality.

The behavior of generating propositions about experiences and making propositions about objects we haven't seen yet and experiences we haven't experienced yet isn't a proposition in of itself, it's a behavior.

Oh my god, I didn't have to use that muddled term "reality" at all. And I was even FAR CLEARER about what I was actually talking about than the use of EMPTY LAZY TERMS.

[Anonymous No.4127583]

>>4127156
>derp

[Anonymous No.4127622]

>>4127571
Reality- what is.
Clear enough for you? I doubt it.
The problem being something which is outside of concepts cannot be understood conceptually. But you can and do experience outside of conceptions, and that can be understood (but not conceptually).

[Anonymous No.4127653]

>>4127622
And all that remains is silence...

[Anonymous No.4127722]

>>4127622

WOW. MORE OBFUSCATION. JUST FUCKING GREAT. I'M REALLY SURPRISED THAT A PERSON OF YOUR INTELLECTUAL STATURE WOULD REFUSE TO BE ACTUALLY EDUCATED AND CONTINUE TO USE THE LAZIEST METHODS OF DEDUCTION IN ORDER ASCERTAIN KNOWLEDGE ABOUT EXPERIENCES AND SITUATIONS.

>The problem being something which is outside of concepts cannot be understood conceptually.

THAN WE CANNOT EVEN COMMUNICATE ABOUT IT YOU DUMB DUMB SHITHEAD. IT WOULD BE LITERALLY POINTLESS. UNLESS YOU EXPERIENCE SOMETHING CONCEPTUALLY.

So STOP TRYING TO COMMUNICATE YOUR "BEYOND CONCEPTS" BULLSHIT WHICH DOESN'T EVEN MAKE SENSE.

EVEN MORE INFURIATING IS YOUR ATTEMPT TO MAKE SENSE OF IT BY USING FEATURES OF INDO-EUROPEAN LANGUAGES TO MAKE BLANKET STATEMENTS ABOUT ALL POSSIBLE SETS OF THIS "NON-CONCEPTUAL" EXPERIENCE.

FUCK.

>>4127653

BECAUSE I HAVE A 24/7 JOB IN THE MILITARY THAT REQUIRES ME FROM TIME TO TIME TO PERFORM DUTIES THAT REQUIRE ME TO ACTUALLY INTERACT WITH MATERIAL REALITY AND TO HAVE TO UNDERSTAND IT, OUTSIDE OF EXAMINING FEATURES OF INDO-EUROPEAN LANGUAGES, BY TRIAL AND ERROR AND EXPERIMENTATION.

Is there no sense of intellectual SHAME in these children?

[Anonymous No.4127848]

>>4127722
Youre right, it can't be communicated, just as every experience can't truly be communicated.

I noticed you didn't actually address my point, all you've said is that it can't be communicated (irrelevant), something about indo-european language (irrelevant), and called me names (pointless). Please, if you actually see an issue, adress it.
Otherwise, try stepping outside the bounds of conceptualization and you might see what I'm saying.

Military eh? I used to be in the USMC, thats a shitty job.

[Anonymous No.4127860]

[Anonymous No.4127877]

>>4127860
rly

[Anonymous No.4128762]

Philosophy is a guess.
Science and logical reasoning are the nature of reality.

[Anonymous No.4128770]

>>4127217
No, logic is not innate. It's a human concept.

[Anonymous No.4128772]

>>4127217
No, logic is not innate in the universe. It's a human concept and construction.

[Anonymous No.4128774]

>>4128772
Define logic.

[Anonymous No.4128782]

>>4128772
No. If humans were not here, the laws of logic would still apply.

[Anonymous No.4128786]

Science is actually a part of philosophy. It even used to be called natural philosophy 200 years back.

Every scientist is technicaly a philosopher.

[Anonymous No.4128793]

>>4128786
Every scientist is a philosopher but not all philosophers are scientists lets keep reminding those Faggot philosophy faggots of that.

[Anonymous No.4128799]

>>4128774
>>4127134

>>4128782
No, they wouldn't, as there are no " laws of logic" that exist in the universe. The application itself of those rules is a function of human minds capable of formulating those axioms and rules.

[Anonymous No.4128822]

>>4128799
Fullretard
How old are you and what is your major?

Because it seems you dont understand what logic is.

[Anonymous No.4128833]

Logic is causality.
The process that governs action and reaction.

There is nothing man made in logic.

[Anonymous No.4128835]

man I fuckin hate yids

[Anonymous No.4129001]

>>4126617
Fuck, that Pikey is kinda hot. She seems like a valid 18 year old.

[Anonymous No.4129080]

>>4127722
ad hominem

[Anonymous No.4129628]

LOGIC IS NOT EMPIRICAL.

logic 101

[Anonymous No.4129745]

>>4129628
Well, there are different kinds of logic, it is empirical.

But the basis of logic, which is to follow a set of rules is absolute.
The different kids of logic just follow different set of rules.
Rules are absolute.

[Anonymous No.4129774]

>>4128833
Causality is a man made concept, its never actually experienced.

[Anonymous No.4129823]

>>4128822

And you don't seem to understand that logic is based on the application of the human behavior of creating symbols and transforming them via various operations into other symbols.

You turn human behavior into a platonic entity with all the cunning of a liar.

[Anonymous No.4129857]

>>4129774
woopity doo.

Everything is "man made" because everything we experience is through the human brain.

Trying to be profoundly edgy?

We must take it grated, our experience is an axiom.

And we see that causality happens and thats that.

Also read this:
>>4129745
There are always rules to follow.
Thats the essence of logic.


Everyone here mystifies "philosophy" like its something beyond logic.
Philosophy is a tool for human reasoning, our logic.

[Anonymous No.4129872]

>>4129823
You're a dog.
We dont deal animals with words, we just punish them.

You're an animal, you dont get it.

[Anonymous No.4129921]

>>4129872

Wow I'm a dog for pointing out how twisted your reasoning is for turning human behavior into a conceptual ghost haunting its mind!