/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.4389688]

>that feel when i have to use language to understand the nature of language
>the nature or matter
>the nature of 'thinking'
>that feel when

shit is pretty fucked up

that feel when even the 'intellects' keep this shitshow running by unwillingly reflecting their existential angst and all despite the fact that there is no real "self" which makes doing anything pretty questionable

[Anonymous No.4389715]

>>4389688

You had me up until
>no real "self"
>makes doing anything pretty questionable

What a strange conclusion to come to considering you haven't killed yourself yet and are clearly interacting and doing plenty with the universe at the moment. Just because there isn't a way to crawl outside of our own heads doesn't mean you're self and development of self is flawed and useless?

[Anonymous No.4389719]

>>4389715

Got anymore newage homosex to spout?

[Anonymous No.4389725]

>>4389715

>*your self
>*the development of self

lawl whoops.

>>4389719

What?

[Anonymous No.4389743]

>>4389688

Who is that in pics?

[Anonymous No.4389768]

>>4389688
In other words, OP is saying that thought is limited to the scope of language.
That is terribly wrong. Language is a signpost for feeling. I'm sure OP has, many times, had a feeling or thought about something that is unexplainable by language, and hence, difficult to communicate.
Because we have become so accustomed to using language and decoding feeling through language, feeling and thoughts unrepresentative by language become difficult to understand by our conscious brain.
I'm sure through some strenuous brain exercises, one is able to overcome this.
The free-will of the mind can never be trampled on entirely. It can only be masked and clouded but never full erased. It takes intense thinking to regain ones sense of free-thought after the conditioning that society has imposed on us.

>inb4 there is no free-will

this was discussed on an earlier thread. It is plain ridiculous to come to that conclusion

ta-ta

[Anonymous No.4389775]

>>4389715
This
>>4389768
and That

Op has been analised
/thread

[Anonymous No.4389785]

>>4389768
This is also why feeling and thought is expressed through abstract forms and visual imagery (such as art)

[OP No.4389801]

>>4389768

How can there be free will if your ego(brain) is only the result of your enviorment and genetics?

problem? Who is this magical "you" you are talking about with "your" "free" will

[Anonymous No.4389808]

>>4389801
>implying one can never change

> Who is this magical "you" you are talking about with "your" "free" will

what?
if you are asking what the meaning behind "you" is, it is relative to the person who is being addressed

as for the rest, whathefuckamireading.jpg

[OP No.4389813]

>>4389808

clearly 2deep4u i'm not gonna even bother

[Anonymous No.4389815]

op, seems like you just have come out of the anal. See you in the alps.

Also, define language. It's possible to convey meaning or information without any abstract form of representation, especially 'language'. Anything else is academic nonsense or nonsense.

ALso
>>4389688
>>4389768
>feeling
>"self"
>free-will

Go back to /lit/ or /adv/ at best.

[Anonymous No.4389817]

>>4389813
>clearly retarded
>clearly can't explain himself properly
>clearly has to grammar
>clearly is a faggot

Cya

i gave up on you a while ago

[OP No.4389822]

>>4389815
Do not understand

[OP No.4389827]

>>4389817

[Anonymous No.4389829]

>>4389768

>this was discussed on an earlier thread. It is plain ridiculous to come to that conclusion

Can someone summarize? Or is this faggot talking out of his ass?

[OP No.4389832]

>>4389817
>>4389822

[Rollan No.4389833]

>>4389815
>does not provide any useful information
>says go back to /lit/ or /adv/ at best
>at best
>implying he shouldn't go back to /b/

well done

[OP No.4389835]

>>4389832

[Anonymous No.4389839]

>>4389829
different anon
It actually was discussed, iirc

[Anonymous No.4389842]

>>4389839

Yes I'm sure it was discussed but what is that faggot talking about when he says

>It is plain ridiculous to come to that conclusion

?

[Anonymous No.4389844]

>>4389833
>name
>dubs

this is now a dubs thread
clear off faggots

[Anonymous No.4389848]

>>4389768

I think you'll find this interesting then. Its from a BBC Horizon episode, and shows that language vastly influences the way things are perceived. Though isn't limited by the scope of language, but it certainly is altered, and vastly so.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4b71rT9fU-I

[Anonymous No.4389850]

>>4389848

>*Thought isn't limited by the scope of language...

Apologies, I'm having spelling issues today it seems.

[Anonymous No.4389852]

>>4389815
>>4389827
>>4389844>>4389808
>>4389775

also, all you guys should really go back to /b/
none of you add anything useful to the conversation
not sure but from what I read from the thread yesterday, the conclusion on a lack of free-will was flawed

also
>calling people "faggots"
how /sci/ of you

[Anonymous No.4389858]

>>4389850
say something useful or don't say anything at all. If you disagree, state why. Being derisive is just a form of protection for ignorance

[Anonymous No.4389863]

>>4389852
/sci/ has gone to the shits lately. all retarded anons making wild assumptions with no basis and calling others "faggots" for opposing it.

it's not worth anyones time anymore. the math threads are all that are left

[Anonymous No.4389870]

>>4389852
>>4389863
Here, here!

[Anonymous No.4389877]

wow, op. youre retarded

[Anonymous No.4389881]

>>4389858

Excuse me? I linked to an entirely relevant video on the influence of language on thought, which is what this thread seems to be about. I can only assume you accidentally replied to the wrong post.

[Anonymous No.4389885]

>>4389881
yes, i did. sorry

[Anonymous No.4389889]

>>4389885

My apologies as well then good sir.

[Anonymous No.4389891]

>>4389889
No need to.

Also, thanks for the video. Will bookmark, kind anon.

[OP No.4389896]

>>4389817
>>4389877

[Anonymous No.4389899]

>>4389852
>>4389848
>>4389768
>>4389688

Only posts worth reading. The rest s typical /b/ faggotry

[OP No.4389900]

Yeah, the bbc horizon video was really interesting to see. Thnx for the link also

[Anonymous No.4389904]

>>4389896
lol op. youre definately retarded. its k, whateva helps you sleep at night

[Anonymous No.4389915]

Looks like OP is having a conversation with himself.

>takes samefag radar out

>>4389899
>>4389896
>>4389842
>>4389835
>>4389832
>>4389829
>>4389827
>>4389822
>>4389815
>>4389813
>>4389801
>>4389725
>>4389719
>>4389688

[OP No.4389917]

>>4389904

[Anonymous No.4389921]

>>4389917
Really, OP
?
How old are we? 5?

>>4389904
same goes for you

Christ, we need some moderation on this board. Too many newfags or /b/tards

back to /b/, please

[Anonymous No.4389928]

>>4389921
I agree, fellow anon.
I thought OP was leading on to something intelligent. Boy was I wrong. Always am on /sci/, i guess. Just keep lurking the math threads guys, the rest is plain retardation

[Anonymous No.4389929]

>>4389822
Sorry for being too cryptic.

Wittgenstein was a philosopher that tried to understand the 'nature' of language and meaning. He basically realized how idiotic and futile it was to attack the issue from a philosophical standpoint, wrote a cryptic book about it and left philosophy/academics and fled to the alps.
Makes any more sense?

This has of course not much to do with the other theological discussion proposed.

Either op is high or I've missed something, because I probably don't understand what this thread is about.

[Anonymous No.4389933]

>>4389929
OP, this thread and 80% of the replies are retarded.

Anyway, I will have a conversation with you. Why did he find it pointless to attack the subject-matter from a philosophical point of view?

[Anonymous No.4389939]

>>4389933
No OP you are the retard
>>>/b/

seriously fuck off

[Anonymous No.4389945]

>>4389939
>implying im OP
>implying you are not OP

why would I denounce myself?

[Anonymous No.4389951]

>>4389945
good point.... fuck you

[OP No.4389954]

>>4389939
>>4389945

[Anonymous No.4389957]

>>4389939
>>4389951
lame

[Anonymous No.4389962]

>>4389945
>>4389939
>>4389951
>>4389954

all OP. why are you bombing your own thread?

[Real op No.4389967]

>make thread
>go away 30min
>see this

[Anonymous No.4389968]

urrgh..
what a terrible thread.
waiting on these two
>>4389933
>>4389929

otherwise, /thread

[Anonymous No.4389970]

>>4389933
First of all, I'm not very knowledgeable about Wittgenstein. But my take is that he, first of all realized hes first theorem (§1 in the Tractatus) with full force, "The world is everything, that is the case".
Being in a discourse as he were, he tried to make a solid point about how representations (eg. language) can't infer knowledge on anything about the world, but having to do so using discourse he was in (wich he was refuting).
He gave it a good try anyway, and stating lastly: "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."
Upon he left the annals and went to the alps.

[Anonymous No.4389971]

>>4389801
>>4389954
>>4389967
>>4389688

what bull shit. dont run away from your retardation.

[Anonymous No.4389973]

What a fucking train wreck.

[Anonymous No.4389979]

>>4389970
Thank you for that. I am very interested. Will research more.
Thank you again.

Also, /thread

[Anonymous No.4389993]

>>4389979
Careful, the philosophy of language is for some people what lines are to chickens.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M268UccYVCE
Nonsens
Also. Thread

[Anonymous No.4390006]

>>4389993
Wow, wtf!?

Why are they hypnotised by lines? Shit, what if we are similarly hypnotised by certain things and do not know it. What about the maths involved behind attraction? What if we are hypnotised in that regard? Need to know more. As long as OP stays far away

[retarded op No.4390014]

>The first point wasn't not really about language per se but about the paradox of... how can you comprehend the nature of matter/language/feelings if you are forced to use the very thing you are trying to explain.

[Anonymous No.4390031]

>>4390014
you could have said that originally, instead of being a /b/tard about it

anyway, i understand your paradox. I think, within all things, there is an essence of self-explanation.
That's all I can really say.
It's the same as saying, using your human body to understand your human body. Well, we can. Because a lot of it is self-explained. It is finding that explanation that is the hard part.

>inb4 a /sci/ fag calls me retarded without providing any rationale

i await your reply, good sir

[Anonymous No.4390046]

>>4390014
>self reference
>godel's incompleteness theorem

you're welcome faggot

[Anonymous No.4390078]

>>4390014
That's interesting then, but my point is probably that if you'd like to understand it, by understanding it being able to talk about it 'with your own words' as you learn in school, you couldn't. And if you couldn't you shouldn't.

I first of all think that there's great ways to understand and thus interact with your surroundings, even very abstract surroundings like language without having to annalise it. But that's my personal feeling about 'understanding' stuff. Take math as an example, you don't really understand it by listening to a voice in your head talking about it, do you?
There's loads of other ways to try to understand/model/experiment and represent your thoughts on the matter to other people, but not necessarily using spoken/written language only.
Problem is that the system of 'papers' in academia rarely shares this notion.

>>4390006
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXUeO3auRZg
Chickens are awesome in many regards. This video is great as an elementary reference thinking about 'the loop'. Was it Otto Neurath that coined that phrase? Nm.

[Anonymous No.4390176]

>>4390078
But... what hypnotises them? Are they in a state of intense thought on the shape of a line? Or are they, in fact, hypnotised by it? Their mind in a lulled and blank state.
What's going on?