/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.5770857]

In your opinion, is reincarnation plausible?

[Anonymous No.5770863]

no

[Anonymous No.5770877]

Why would it be?

[Anonymous No.5770884]

To reincarnate what

[Anonymous No.5770900]

Not only plausible, but possible.

You see, when you die, you rot and turn to dust. You have no "soul" that flies around to magically inhabit a new host. HOWEVER, because of the fact that we are all inextricably linked, you will inhabit a new sentient entity somewhere in the universe. You will be "born" as something else, because to say that you will "experience nothingness" when you are dead is paradoxical and makes no sense. Think of it like this: consciousness is a bubble. It is possible to split the bubble into smaller bubbles and it is possible to pop bubbles, but because of the fact that there is still a membrane to be shared, the bubbles exist. You are a bubble and when you die, your bubble will pop.. but surely there will be new bubbles that form. Fear not death and enjoy your bubbly journey!

[Anonymous No.5770901]

>>5770857

There is no objective evidence what so ever that it happens. As such, no.

[Anonymous No.5770910]

Consider the following: There have been hundreds of billions of people (conscious, self-aware entities) who have lived and died. The odds that you should be one of those who has died and is currently "experiencing the nothingness of death" is far higher than the odds of you being alive right now, so clearly something is amiss.

[Anonymous No.5770916]

>>5770910

This.

[Anonymous No.5770917]

The job of science is to quantify observable phenomena.. no more and no less. You are talking about an event that is inherently unobservable, so science has nothing to say in the matter. As such, anyone who throws in a definitive assertion in the matter is simply guessing.

[Anonymous No.5770920]

>>5770900
Define consciousness.

[Anonymous No.5770924]

Isn't the number of living people in the world constantly getting larger?

Isn't this proof that reincarnation isn't possible.

[Anonymous No.5770923]

>>5770920

That thing that makes you feel like a living self-conscious being.

[Anonymous No.5770925]

>>5770920

Well.. your printer isn't conscious and you are. What are the differences between you and your printer? I'll give you some time to work that out.

[Anonymous No.5770926]

>>5770923
That's not a proper definition. What are its observable effects?

[Anonymous No.5770930]

>>5770923
dat word in its own definition

[Anonymous No.5770928]

>>5770924

See

>>5770900

In the strict sense that one soul floats to one new body, sure, reincarnation seems unlikely. That's why the bubble analogy makes sense. :DD

[Anonymous No.5770929]

>>5770925
>and you are

How so? What observation suggests this?

[Anonymous No.5770931]

>>5770924

It isn't bigger than all the people that ever lived.

Also, there are other living self-conscious beings.

[Anonymous No.5770937]

>>5770901
>ITT: /sci/ fails babby tier philosophy
There is no objective evidence that you have free will. And yet you can choose to lift your arm up or leave it resting on your desk.

[Anonymous No.5770940]

We got here once already. What's to say this all doesn't happen again, exactly the same way?

[Anonymous No.5770942]

>>5770937

[Anonymous No.5770943]

>>5770923
i.e. something not physical that capnnot be proven.

[Anonymous No.5770945]

>>5770863
I have evidence. I won't show it to you though.

[Anonymous No.5770950]

Ok /sci/ riddle me this: how do you explain all the young children that remember their past lives in excrutiating detail?

Just one example, there are literally tons of them:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1209795/Reincarnated-Our-son-World-War-II-pilot-come-life.html

No evidence? Or ignorance in spite of good evidence?

[Anonymous No.5770957]

>>5770937
But you don't choose to do it, you do it as a result of chemical interaction in your brain. So no free will for anyone.

[Anonymous No.5770958]

>>5770928

This is all bullshit. You just morph your theory until you get something cool that you can sound pretentious with.

Classic teapot between mars and earth theory.

[Anonymous No.5770959]

>>5770950
Mental illness is not an evidence

[Anonymous No.5770960]

>>5770957
Right, as soon as you simplify everything so that it fits into your materialistic box.

Your reasoning is exactly what's wrong with your reasoning. Recursive nonsense.

[Anonymous No.5770961]

>>5770950
2spooky

[Anonymous No.5770965]

>>5770950
>dailymail

[Anonymous No.5770967]

>>5770960
But there isn't any evidence of anything existing outside of that materialistic box

[Anonymous No.5770970]

>>5770960
>doesn't understand the scientific method

Why are philosophy majors so ignorant?

[Anonymous No.5770971]

In your opinion, is science about opinions?

In your opinion, is this thread about science and math?

In your opinion, how old is the OP?

[Anonymous No.5770974]

>>5770967
Just take my previous example. There is no physical evidence of free will. And yet we're conversing freely.

Your argument stands on very shaky ground. It's just sad that you're not able to see it.

[Anonymous No.5770977]

>>5770970
By the way, I'm studying computer science. I study philosophy as hobby.

[Anonymous No.5770982]

>>5770965
>killing the messenger and not the message

[Anonymous No.5770984]

In the sense that the universe is constantly recycling itself into new compositions of matter and energy, some conscious, some not, yes.
Not in the sense that your essence is reborn.
When you die, you're reincarnated as gases, decomposers, that then become higher organisms as their energy is ingested and transferred into their being.
There is not eternal soul, that's just you're fear of death getting in the way and wishing for you to go on when there is no reason to.

[Anonymous No.5770979]

>>5770974
If you want to believe in untestable nonsense without evidence, do it on >>>/x/. /sci/ is for the discussion of science and math.

[Anonymous No.5770987]

>>5770977
Oh wow, that's pretty much the only major less intellectually demanding than philosophy.

[Anonymous No.5770988]

>>5770979
Oh yeah. You won this argument. You got me good. Any other brilliant advice, doctor?

[Anonymous No.5770985]

It is. Imagine after the end of our universe it restarts again, every atom of matter that formed your brain can be rearranged in different ways in the new universe, this will give you the possibility that you're reincarnated in a plant, an animal, a rock or anything that is composed of matter. You won't notice it, though, since you would require a brain. This explains why we can't remember anything from when we were not born yet. You may feel you only live once, but you're actually coming to life many times through the millenia. It's just like travelling in time!

[Anonymous No.5770986]

>>5770974

you are the one that asserts we are conversing "freely". that doesn't make it true. if op hadn't posted, we wouldn't be conversing, and if 4chan didn't exist, op wouldn't have posted, and without the internet, 4chan wouldn't exist. It seems to me like causality is why we are talking, not because we wished this conversation into existence

[Anonymous No.5770991]

>>5770986
Causality doesn't imply free will. Rocks float around all the time, but they can't choose if they want to float towards the left or towards the right. Sentient beings can.

[Anonymous No.5770996]

>>5770991
There are no "sentient" beings. Your spiritualism hogwash has no observable effects and no scientific basis. All biological organisms obey the laws of physics.

[Anonymous No.5770993]

>>5770987
Way to reply to "by the way" you mook.

[sage No.5771001]

moot really needs to rename /sci/ - science and math to /sph/ - stoner philosophy

[Anonymous No.5770997]

>>5770984
(cont.) Because there is no true division between what the observer and the universe it witness, just a reimagination of itself to perceive itself in this point in time. The idea of an eternal soul implies there is something separate from the physical universe, when there is not, and, in my opinion, is a much more comforting fact: that I am no outsider thrust into the world, simply something that comes out of it.

[Anonymous No.5771004]

>>5770993
I don't know what a "mook" is and the "by the way" part was the only statement in your post. It isn't my fault that you can't express yourself properly.

[Anonymous No.5771006]

>>5770996
Ok whatever. Enjoy your materialistic utopia. Meanwhile I'll be here thinking about my thoughts about my thoughts about my thoughts.

[Anonymous No.5771009]

>>5771006
Sounds like a vicious cycle that leads nowhere but how far you think it does, in my opinion.

[Anonymous No.5771007]

>>5771001
But "sph" already stands for "small penis humiliation".

[Anonymous No.5771012]

>>5771006
>implying I care

Go ahead and waste your time with quisquilious twaddle but don't bother /sci/.

[Anonymous No.5771014]

>>5771012
>quisquilious twaddle

[Anonymous No.5771017]

Sure you'll be reincarnated in hell! Or heaven of course.

[Anonymous No.5771018]

>>5771009
If you're not stupid it tells you that you're not your thoughts. But this is 134deep347sci so I'll leave it at that.

>>5771012
I don't care if you care or not. I just think your argument is shaky and repetitive. I have presented 3 examples supporting my argument and all you have done is repeat a single dull argument of causality which in your world somehow implies materialism. Your worldview is a dogmatic one. That's what I'm saying. What are _you_ saying?

[Anonymous No.5771020]

>>5771018
>I have presented 3 examples supporting my argument

No, you didn't. You made baseless assertions without evidence. Apply Hitchens' razor.

[Anonymous No.5771021]

>>5771018
If that's what you think, sure. I think I am my thoughts in the same way I think I am my body, or even the ground I'm standing on. I place no division, unless it's for social intercourse.

I don't think you're as enlightened as you think you are.

[Anonymous No.5771023]

>>5771020
Apply Hickam's dictum.

[Anonymous No.5771024]

>>5771006
The problem is that you are implying we are somehow free from the laws of physics. So you will have to present evidences that we are if you want to convince me.

[Anonymous No.5771026]

>>5771021
Never said I am. But I sure do think about these things.

>>5771020
Let's just agree to disagree. I forgot what we're even arguing about.

[Anonymous No.5771031]

>>5771026
You don't have to outright say when it's obvious in the way you string sentences together, which carries an air of "these people aren't as spiritual as me, I must enlighten them" for... whatever purpose you think there is to do so.

[Anonymous No.5771032]

>>5771024
No, I'm implying that people should get their heads out of each others butts and smell the air. We never knew everything and to assume that now somehow we magically know everything and can make ridiculous assumptions such as "there is reincarnation" or "there is no reincarnation" is foolish, ignorant, and completely self-absorbed. The correct answer is: "we don't know". The bad news is that almost no one understands this and chooses to instead cling on to some form of a worldview, not realizing they're just acting like sheep.

Think about deep things freely, but don't be so foolish as to make assumptions. Then you become a self-righteous ass and you spread your ass-ness whereever you go.

[Anonymous No.5771035]

>>5771031
That's peoples' tendency to... um, over-hype the joke of enlightenment, like it's big and important or something, and something you MUST attain or something bad may happen if you don't.

[Anonymous No.5771036]

>>5771031
Stop this faul projection you're doing. I never implied anything like that. I'm a scientist by heart and I love the logical side of things. But I for one don't just ignore the psychological side of things and I don't assume to have all answers. If that makes me spiritual, so be it. But you're just making things up on spot.

[Anonymous No.5771037]

>>5771014
had me laughing aloud

[Anonymous No.5771038]

>>5771036
>people should get their heads out of each others butts and smell the air.
>foolish, ignorant, and completely self-absorbed
>not realizing they're just acting like sheep.
>Then you become a self-righteous ass and you spread your ass-ness whereever you go

>But you're just making things up on spot.

Ehhhh, not entirely.

[Anonymous No.5771041]

>>5771023
because we are totally speaking i a medical context
>correct my fellow M.D.'s?

[Anonymous No.5771043]

>>5771032
This is becoming some kind of atheist vs theist argument.
But if the universe can work well without something, why should we hypothetise its existence ?

[Anonymous No.5771044]

>>5771038
Did you even read my posts or did you just copy/paste lines out and pretend it makes sense?

What I was saying was very clear, and the only correct answer to OP's question: "we don't know".

Whoever says otherwise is arguably a self-righteous ass, yes.

[Anonymous No.5771046]

>>5771043
>why should we hypothetise its existence?
Not the same guy.

That kind of gets into the idea of "Why should we contemplate anything?" it does only so much good/has as much purpose as humans want it to.

[Anonymous No.5771049]

>>5771032

ohhhhh i see what you mean now! Its kind of like, we don't know unicorns do or don't exist with 100.00000000000000% certainty, so we should just say 'we don't know if unicorns exist' and all be enlightened like you, amirite?

or maybe you should just accept the scientific method, ockams razor, rational thought, etc

[Anonymous No.5771051]

>>5771044
Jeez, you're so aggressive, and it's just backing you up further into a corner that you have to claw at everyone to compensate.

I'm saying you carry the same air as you accuse other people of having.

Nobody thinks their shit don't stink, as it were.

[Anonymous No.5771053]

>>5771051
Which makes you... a hypocrite, right. It's whatever, so is everyone, but damn, accept it.

[Anonymous No.5771057]

>>5771049
When has scientific method ever worked for philosophically profound questins?

I dare you to answer the following questions in a scientific, rigorous manner:

Who are we?
Where do we come from and where are we going?
What is consiousness?
What are emotions?
Why do we dream?
Why do we accept love and resent hate?
Why does the grass grow?

>>5771051
Again with projection. I'm just going to quit posting unless someone actually makes a good case for me to respond back.

[Anonymous No.5771060]

>>5771057
Well, okay. I'm going to let you stew in your own ball of frustration until you wake up to the fact that you're own mentality is proving counterproductive to whatever you're trying to accomplish here.

[Anonymous No.5771063]

>>5771060
Probably true and the first thing I agree with in this thread.

[Anonymous No.5771076]

>>5771057
This is a science board. This is not the place to discuss hackneyed philosophy mumbo jumbo,.

[Anonymous No.5771078]

>>5771076
Is that what you always do when confronted with an argument? Throw a subtle tantrum?

[Anonymous No.5771085]

>>5771078
You didn't present any argument. You are intentionally posting off-topic content. When I come to /sci/, I want to see science and math and not retarded philososhit. Get the fuck out.

[Anonymous No.5771086]

>>5771078
No, he's kind of right. You're presenting arguments that can not be answered scientifically, and therefore, have no place on this board.

>I dare you to answer the following questions in a scientific, rigorous manner:

It's a matter of appropriate location, not of intellectual competency.

[Anonymous No.5771092]

>>5771085
> When I come to /sci/, I want to see science and math and not retarded philososhit.
Well go cry somewhere, what can I tell you. This is a free board and until I'm banned from it I'm going to post whatever I want on it, regardless if you like it or not. There's a "-" button at the top left corner of every thread, try using it.

>>5771086
Well you see that's just it isn't it. You're just derailing my entire argument, or you're not even thinking about what my point is. What I'm saying is simply this:

1. We don't know everything (we actually know fairly little)
2. Science is a tool that gets the job done, it's not your saviour so stop clinging to it like a tick

[Anonymous No.5771091]

>>5771076
Though the manner in which he came at you is a bit inappropriate, as if all philosophy is mumbo jumbo, when in reality almost every facet of our mental existence is a form of philosophy.

It's just not science, but hey, neither is painting.

[Anonymous No.5771099]

>>5771091
>neither is painting.

Unlike philosophy painting at least can have intellectual quality.

[Anonymous No.5771107]

>>5771099
lel xD AM I EDGEy OR WUT??

[Anonymous No.5771108]

I'm a scientist and yes it's definitely plausible

[Anonymous No.5771111]

>>5771092
Assuming you're OP, you started a thread that isn't scientific, and can't be proved or disproved through scientific means.
Just because something isn't scientific, it doesn't make it stupid or not worth contemplating about. Personal morality or existential thought isn't something that can easily be found out through the scientific method, so it doesn't belong here.

That's it. It doesn't belong here, in the same way I wouldn't post video games on /lit/ trying to make the argument that video games are a form of literature. It belongs on video games, and you can make the argument there.

[Anonymous No.5771112]

>>5771092
>we actually know fairly little

"WE CANNOT KNOW NUTHIN"

[Anonymous No.5771110]

>>5771108
/thread

[Anonymous No.5771117]

>>5771107
Go color this, you dumb child.

[Anonymous No.5771123]

>>5771111
I'm not OP. I'm simply advocating thinking about things rather than accepting whatever your favorite dogma happens to be.

[Anonymous No.5771121]

>>5771117
You're very bitter about your social inadequacy and falsely perceived intellectual prowess, aren't you?

[Anonymous No.5771122]

>>5771117
Why do you feel so mad? Is everything ok in your life?

[Anonymous No.5771126]

>>5771117
>saging with an image on a board that crawls along at 1MPH

[Anonymous No.5771129]

>>5771123
And I totally agree, man, but there's a time to appropriately address it. Plenty of other people who visit /sci/ don't just visit /sci/.

[Anonymous No.5771127]

>>5771121
>projecting

>>5771122
I am rightfully annoyed by anti-intellectual shitposting on my science and math board.

>>5771123
You are promoting anti-intellectual bullshit on /sci/. GTFO the fuck out.

[Anonymous No.5771131]

>>5771126
Is this you with your engineering boyfriend? Do you even lift?

[Anonymous No.5771133]

>>5771057

We are modern descendants of apes following a long evolutionary line of life forms that started in the water with fish-like creatures

where do we come from? female humans give birth to more humans

where are we going? when we die the component parts of our bodies (atoms, molecules, elements, etc) will break down and eventually become fertilizer for some plants to grow in or something as the universe is constantly recycling

what is conciousness? a made up term for the illusion of being a separate ego

what are emotions? your brain and body interacting

why do we dream? because our brains stay awake at night and do stuff

why do we accept love and resent hate? what the fuck kind of question is that?

why does the grass grow? according to the laws of physics...clorophyll takes in sunlight and converts to energy, water and nutrients are also required, so animals that eat grass can survive, etc.

i dont see the point of these questions. They all have extremely simple answers. Just because theres no magical mystery behind them doesn't mean you shouldn't accept that the world is the way it is

[Anonymous No.5771135]

>>5771127
So that's a yes, you are bitter about your social inadequacy and falsely perceived intellectual prowess.

Okay, keep saging like it makes you look like anything other than a raging neckbeard with no friends.

[Anonymous No.5771138]

>>5771127
>GTFO the fuck out
>get the fuck out the fuck out

[Anonymous No.5771139]

>>5771131
Obviously not, there are no boys on /sci/.

[Anonymous No.5771144]

>>5771135
Your projection is hilarious. Is this what you consider insulting? It tells us more about your person than about mine.

[Anonymous No.5771147]

>>5771133
Thanks for actually answering, it's an interesting read. But you really didn't answer anything, did you? How do your answers help me understand myself?

And before you even start answering, know that whatever you answer is wrong. It is philosophically unsound.

Let me give you an example in the form of thought experiment. We have person A and person B. Person A spends his entire life studying pain and at the end of his life, he knows (rationally) absolutely everything there is to know about pain, but he or she has never experienced it. Person B is hit in the head with the stone. Who has the better understanding of what pain is?

[Anonymous No.5771151]

>>5771147
>But you really didn't answer anything
What do you expect? You asked irrelevant and pointless philosophy questions.

>know that whatever you answer is wrong
And this is why philososhit is retarded. Will you please shut the fuck up now?

[Anonymous No.5771150]

>>5771144
You don't see how this is going both ways, with both parties only thinking they're in the right, do you?

[Anonymous No.5771155]

>>5771150
The big difference is that I am right and you are wrong.

[Anonymous No.5771158]

>>5771155
And that's where you become a poor troll.

[Anonymous No.5771164]

>>5771158
I am not "trolling". Everything I said ITT is correct. lrn2science and take your philosophy claptrap somewhere else. It isn't my problem that you are lacking rhetorical skills as well as logical reasoning.

[Anonymous No.5771163]

>>5771147
Not the same guy.
>It is philosophically unsound.
Why aren't the questions themselves scientifically unsound?

Don't both just have separate, but fundamentally equal understanding of pain?

[Anonymous No.5771167]

>>5771164
Yes, keep mustering up your rage like anyone gives a shit. I'll keep deigning you with responses.

[Anonymous No.5771165]

>>5771163
philosophically* unsound

[Anonymous No.5771170]

>>5771167
Don't waste your time. I'm sure you have important philosophical questions to think about (huehuehue). You shouldn't be on /sci/ right now.

[Anonymous No.5771171]

>>5771170

But I am, and may just stay solely to cause you much more delicious frustration.

[Anonymous No.5771174]

>>5771171
>I are le e/b/in master trole

How old are you? 12?

[Anonymous No.5771175]

>>5771164
Also
>rhetorical skills
>logical reasoning
>both a result of philosophical ponderings.

lol

dumbass

[Anonymous No.5771176]

>>5771151
Why do you feel the need to shout obscenities at random anons? You literally contributed nothing with your post, you just made yourself angry. Me, I'm feeling peachy and ready for debate. You're obviously here just to show-off your self-righteousness.

>>5771163
No, they don't have equal understanding of pain. Person A knows everything there is to know about pain because he/she has studied it. But Person B has first-hand experience with pain. So if I'm ever wondering about pain, I'd give my money on Person B.

[Anonymous No.5771172]

>>5771147
My apologies. I answered your questions as briefly as i could while being scientifically accurate. Was there some part you did not understand? My point is that any question can and should be approached with a skeptical, scientific, and rational approach, from "is reincarnation possible" to "is there a magic teapot in between earth and the moon" to "why does the grass grow". All of those questions, and all of the questions you can ask do have an answer that is simple and agreeable with current scientific understanding. what those answers mean to you, how (or if) you understand them is irrelevant.

So again, I answered all of your questions. Saying "you didnt really answer anything" is false because I answered everything you asked. How my answers (which would be consistent if you were to ask anyone who had information on such topics) help you understand yourself is entirely irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.5771177]

>>5771174
And a half, mister man. Calm yourself.

[Anonymous No.5771182]

>>5771176
>You literally contributed nothing
I guess for a philososhit debate that's a pretty big contribution.

[Anonymous No.5771183]

>>5771006
>Meanwhile I'll be here thinking about my thoughts about my thoughts about my thoughts.

"A person who thinks all the time has nothing to think about except thoughts. So he loses touch with reality, and lives in a world of illusion."

Get your head out of your ass.

[Anonymous No.5771184]

>>5771172
also, I will not take part in your imaginary thought game. I am concerned with what exists, what is falsifiable, and what can be observed. what does that even have to do with the topic at hand?

[Anonymous No.5771190]

>>5771183
This man knows his Watts.
All of you must follow suit.

[Anonymous No.5771186]

>>5771176
I suppose, but that isn't always such sound reasoning. What Person B has is more a subjective interpretation of pain, subject its own biases, and possibly even faulty coping mechanisms. (assuming the pain was not just physical) Whereas Person A has a more objective, second-hand understanding, and would be more appropriate to your situation if you were trying to understand pain, since if you went to person B, you would have a secondhand experience as well.

[Anonymous No.5771187]

>>5771172
What I meant by "you didnt really answer anything" is that your answers, whether relevant or not, povided me useful yet dry facts, and I am nowhere closer to uncovering the truth of my existence.

What I was trying to convey is that answering philosophically profound questions with science is much like trying to fix your car by shouting at it. You feel like you're doing something, but there is no effect.

[Anonymous No.5771188]

>>5771177

>>>/global/rules/2

[Anonymous No.5771195]

[Anonymous No.5771193]

>>5771188
Keep trying.

[Anonymous No.5771199]

>>5771195
>All philosophies in of themselves.

[Anonymous No.5771197]

>this thread survives but when I ask if consciousness is discrete it gets 404'd

[Anonymous No.5771202]

>>5771183
It was a metaphor.

[Anonymous No.5771206]

>>5771147
>And before you even start answering, know that whatever you answer is wrong.

Good to know how your mind works.

[Anonymous No.5771210]

>philosophy

[Anonymous No.5771207]

>>5771155
0/10

[Anonymous No.5771213]

>>5771210
>I'm insecure and uncertain with my outlook on the world and am not sure why.

[Anonymous No.5771215]

>>5771210

[Anonymous No.5771216]

>>5771202
If you say so.

[Anonymous No.5771218]

>>5771187
i understand your analogy. However you have to understand that the "truth of your existence" isn't some magical answer. you got squeezed out of a vagina, your purpose is to consume and reproduce, and you will die eventually. thats really all there is to it and if it doesn't make you feel speshul and warm and fuzzy.....sorry bro don't know what to tell u

[Anonymous No.5771219]

>>5771213
>>5771215

[Anonymous No.5771220]

>>5771206
You do realize it was a figure of speech, right?

[Anonymous No.5771221]

>>5771219
"I can't understand it with my dogmatic worldview, therefore it's useless!"

[Anonymous No.5771222]

ITT: young man discovers solipsism and thinks he's breaking ground

[Anonymous No.5771223]

>>5771210
>infinitesimal cartoon

[Anonymous No.5771231]

>>5771221
Tell me what's the starting salary for philosophers.

[Anonymous No.5771227]

>>5771218
Then why do I feel love? And hate? Surely if I was only a robot like you seem to imply, I would have no need for these things. Why do I think about thinking?

Oh, and another little nugget of entertainment: why can't we recreate intelligence? Isn't that just a tad strange? I'm just saying.

Before someone accusses me of spreading dualism, you should just think these questions through. Because if you can't see how deep they go then you're really missing out on something big.

[Anonymous No.5771234]

>>5771231
>PhD in Philosophy
>Teach at any university I want
>800k starting

[Anonymous No.5771236]

[Anonymous No.5771242]

>>5771236
>>5771231
>>5771219
>>5771215
>>5771210
>>5771195
>>5771155
>>5771112
>>5770970
>>5770942
>>5770863
Back to /r/atheism please

[Anonymous No.5771243]

>>5771222
>young man

[Anonymous No.5771250]

>>5771242
Back to r/fuckingphilosophy please.

[Anonymous No.5771251]

>>5771231
>caring about salary and not man's internal struggle
Stay pleb.

[Anonymous No.5771256]

WILL ALL OF YOU JUST SHUT THE FUCK UP ALREADY HOLY GOD ALL OF YOU COME OFF AS POMPOUS TWATS OVERCOMPENSATING FOR THE SELF-ESTEEMS YOUR OWN INCOMPTENCY AND IGNORANCE OBLITERATES TIME AFTER TIME AGAIN

[Anonymous No.5771258]

>>5771251
>caring about childish crap like qualia
>not caring about science and math

What are you doing on /sci/?

[Anonymous No.5771261]

>>5771250
>i'm so kewl and logical xDD
Do you have a fedora too?

[Anonymous No.5771266]

>>5771133
simple answers. fair enough

now , humans are made of atoms, why atoms exists? who put them in here?

[Anonymous No.5771263]

>>5771258
I study science and math with great passion. But unlike you, I'm able to expand my mind on a purely philosophical level as well.

[Anonymous No.5771270]

>>5771261
No, fedora sucks. Debian is best linux.

[Anonymous No.5771273]

>>5770857
Its possible because your atoms get recycled, but the many things using the elements of you dead body wont be "you". So in the hurr durr consciousness way no its not possible, but in the materialistic way, yes.

[Anonymous No.5771275]

>>5771266
Well, we have to look at the implications behind the questions, first off.
>Why do atoms exists?
Does there have to be a "Why?"
>Who put them in here?
Well, that implies there was intent, someone placing them, and that "here," being the universe is actually a definable area.

To you fucks who think we have defined the size and shape of the universe, shut the fuck up, we haven't yet,

[Anonymous No.5771276]

>>5771263
There is no intellectual merit in toddler level trash like "muh qualia" and "muh free will". Grow the fuck up.

[Anonymous No.5771281]

>>5771276
So let me get this straight. You tell me to grow up and in the same breath you casually insult me, implying your own worldviews are somehow superior to mine in every way? Can you be any more self-righteous?

Oh yeah and saging doesn't work on /sci/. Lurk more.

[Anonymous No.5771282]

[Anonymous No.5771287]

>>5771281
>are somehow superior to mine in every way?
Factually they are.

>saging doesn't work on /sci/.
It does. I'm doing it right now.

[Anonymous No.5771291]

I find it amusing how many scientists say they are uninterested in philosophy while employing some kind of rigid epistemology. Some of them don't even understand the basis of science.

[Anonymous No.5771290]

>>5771287
>Factually
Oh then please mr. brilliant, present me your glorious facts. I'm all ears.

[Anonymous No.5771292]

>>5771290
lrn2science

[Anonymous No.5771299]

>>5771275
no , no have to be a why, or an intent.

is just a simple question, that we cant asume the answer is "just because".

[Anonymous No.5771300]

>>5771291
The scientific method is the only epistemology we need to know. Irrelevant metaphysics garbage is unnecessary and superfluous.

[Anonymous No.5771298]

>>5771292
You sure do have all the answers. Maybe you should write a book?

[Anonymous No.5771303]

>>5771300
You need to define it properly

[Anonymous No.5771308]

>>5771299
But we also have to look at the purpose of certain questions, like a loaded question being one where you're damned if you do or don't answer, and based upon unsound, usually biased, premises.

[Anonymous No.5771306]

>>5771298
Yes, science has all the answers. Stay mad, philososhit. Your edgy hipster degree is useless.

[Anonymous No.5771312]

>>5771306
Science may have some answers but who has the questions?

[Anonymous No.5771313]

>>5771303
It has been done. Your stupid "hurr we cannot know nuthin" is not a valid objection.

[Anonymous No.5771314]

>>5771290
>I'm all tears

[Anonymous No.5771309]

>>5771300
>only
So you enjoy limiting yourself and reducing your potential as a human? Doesn't seem very wise.

[Anonymous No.5771319]

>>5771313
That's not what I said though is it?

How do you 'know' things?

[Anonymous No.5771317]

>>5771306
I didn't ask if science has all the answers. I mockingly implied you seem to have all the answers.

Let me make this simple for you - you respond with a witty one-liner again and I simply ignore you. How's that for a deal?

[Anonymous No.5771322]

But most of you /sci/fags hate certain sciences like psychology.

Is it because you don't like being called asspies?

[Anonymous No.5771323]

>>5771317
You talk science and math or you get the fuck out. How's that for a deal? Philososhit is not welcome on /sci/.

[Anonymous No.5771324]

>>5771319
He doesn't. He just puts faith in what he has been told.

[Anonymous No.5771329]

>>5771317
you fall for this troll.

This is the third thread I've seen this faggot, is always like this "muh scientific method", "muh observable shit" "go to /x".

dont waste your time.

[Anonymous No.5771332]

>>5771322
I suspect it's because the mean age of /sci/ducks is around 16. It's like reading my former self. But I grew up, I'm sure they will too.

[Anonymous No.5771340]

>>5771319
Knowledge is information physically stored in the brain. lrn2neuroscience

>>5771324
>he

>>5771322
I guess so. Most of /sci/ has no idea what psychology is. Ironically the same cretins take bullshit like MBTI serious.

[Anonymous No.5771337]

>tfw deep down you hold the smallest hope that the "consciousness" part of you is reused in the same manner that your constituent atoms will be

I'll never admit it though.

[Anonymous No.5771338]

>>5771329
Yeah, I know. I'm ignoring him from now on though. And he makes it easy since he sages every post.

[Anonymous No.5771341]

>>5771337
Research near death experiences for shits and giggles

[Anonymous No.5771343]

>>5771329
You don't like science? Then stay away from /sci/.

>>5771337
>feel maymay spam
Go back to your containment board.

[Anonymous No.5771345]

>>5771340
>Knowledge is information physically stored in the brain.
How do you know this is how information is stored in yours? How do you know you even have a brain?

[Anonymous No.5771350]

Ok I give up
It's like trying to get colourblind people to see red and green as distinct

But I will be back some day, and mark my words I will make you aware of how much you trust your senses

[Anonymous No.5771351]

>>5771345
Because science. Seriously, stop posting infantile blubbering and finish high school.

[Anonymous No.5771352]

>>5771350
shut up faget

[Anonymous No.5771354]

>>5771352
Thank you, how constructive

[Anonymous No.5771356]

>be me, 18
>all alone in my room
>smoke a hit salvia 60x extract
>nothing
>smoke another hit
>still nothing
>put the pipe down
>strange sound comes from left
>zzzzzzZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzz
>now the sound is everything
>purpleblue aliens appear
>they stab me with pure energy through and through with a circular motion
>fall deeper into the void
>patterns, talking patterns everywhere
>direct experience of the underlying matrix of reality
>giant alien entity tells me all the secrets of life
>i now believe in reincarnation
>gain incredible passion for science
>never do drugs again

[Anonymous No.5771353]

>>5771343
>Go back to your containment board.
but anon

this IS my containment board.

[Anonymous No.5771360]

>>5771353
/sci/ is the science and math board. Post science and math or GTFO.

[Anonymous No.5771362]

>>5771351
Why do you insult people? Does that science rely on you gaining knowledge via your senses? How can you trust them?

[Anonymous No.5771363]

>>5771360
i'm going to stay here shitposting

and there's nothing you can do about it.

[Anonymous No.5771368]

>>5771362
>How can you trust them?
Because I do not have any neurological conditions affecting their function.

[Anonymous No.5771365]

>>5771354
bitch nigga u stupid shut up

[Anonymous No.5771369]

>>5771363
I support this because I really dislike the sage she-troll.

[Anonymous No.5771371]

>>5771368
How do you know? Were you tested?

[Anonymous No.5771372]

>>5771368
How do you know?

Inb4 circular logic

[Anonymous No.5771373]

>>5771368
>Because I do not have any neurological conditions affecting their function.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

No, wait

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Anonymous No.5771380]

>>5771369
Your emotional bias is more important to you than scientific facts? How immature!

>>5771371
>>5771372
I have been tested by a professional. What's next? Are you gonna say neurology is flawed?

>>5771373
>infantile spam
gb2>>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.5771381]

>>5771380
>I have been tested by a professional.
How did he provide you with your results?

[Anonymous No.5771383]

>>5771380
>Alpha mode activate.

SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT BEING IMMATURE YOU BITCH

AND GO MAKE ME A SAMMICH

>Alpha mode deactivate.

[Anonymous No.5771384]

everyone here gay n dumb
go away
the girl sounds like a ugly cunt that isn't smart as she thinks she is
and the guys sound like bitchy shemale twats.

[Anonymous No.5771387]

>>5771368

[Anonymous No.5771386]

>>5771380
And the professional? Was he also tested? And the person who tested him?
You see the problem yet?

[Anonymous No.5771392]

>>5771384
/thread

[Anonymous No.5771390]

>>5771368
point at this man

point at this man and laugh

[Anonymous No.5771396]

>>5771381
Verbally.

>>5771383
That's not alpha. That's beta as fuck. If you weren't a basement dwelling virgin, you'd know that.

>>5771386
>You see the problem yet?
Yeah, I see. The problem is that you're a pseudo-intellectual kid and think you're deep for questioning the scientific method. How about you grow up and educate yourself?

[Anonymous No.5771394]

>>5771390
It's a girl

[Anonymous No.5771398]

>>5771396
bitch u dumb
shut up

[Anonymous No.5771399]

>>5771396
>Verbally.
You perceived the results of a neurological examination through your senses, which you have not demonstrated are reliable.

[Anonymous No.5771402]

>>5771390
>>5771387
>>5771373
It's true, they dont, they orientate the correct sequence and put it into play, the only fact thats dissuading their ability to be exact is the need for reinterpretation, so effectively you all just dissed yourself by the nature of considering using terms inadequate... that or you're so advanced you're pathetically stupid

[Anonymous No.5771400]

>>5771396
This one does not know when she's been trolled to the maximum. Stay mad.

[Anonymous No.5771401]

>>5771396
>grow up

Great response, you must be very proud

[Anonymous No.5771405]

>>5771399
The result was that they are reliable.

>>5771400
>infantile cartoon

>>5771401
You should take my advice.

[Anonymous No.5771406]

>>5771396
You know what's funniest about you, she-troll? It's the fact by shitposting in this kind of threads, you're actually indirectly bumping it to the top. Because for every shitty reply you make, there are 10 anons out there that will take you on it. So if you truly wanted this thread to die as soon as possible you would know that the way to do this is not to fucking sage but to fucking shut your whore mouth.

[Anonymous No.5771407]

As of now, there is insufficient data to suggest the existence of the human soul or the independence of a part of the human person from material death, so there is nothing suggesting reincarnation is plausible

/thread

[Anonymous No.5771408]

>ITT

[Anonymous No.5771409]

>>5771405
>Bugs Bunny
>infantile

[Anonymous No.5771413]

>>5771412
10/10

[Anonymous No.5771411]

>>5771405
>The result was that they are reliable.
You're begging the question.

[Anonymous No.5771412]

>>5771405
>>>/adv/

[Anonymous No.5771416]

>>5771408
More like pic related.

[Anonymous No.5771418]

And here we can observe the native neckbeard in it's typical habitat when presented with a female observer

Let's continue to observe, and see if the fallback function of the creature of 'tits-or-gtfo' will need to be enacted

[Anonymous No.5771417]

>>5771407
Bravo, sir. Bravo.

[Anonymous No.5771420]

>>5771418
Go hug a stingray, shit for brains.

[Anonymous No.5771421]

>>5771409
Cartoons are for children. I hope you know 4chan is 18+.

>>5771411
You are ignorant of science.

>>5771407
Nice way of repeating the very first post ITT.

>>5771412
No, thanks. I prefer to discuss science and math. /adv/ is a containment board for feel shitposters.

[Anonymous No.5771422]

>>5771417
>

[Anonymous No.5771426]

>>5771420
>shitforbrains
>a constant available function is an absolute function

[Anonymous No.5771423]

>>5771421
u jus mad cuz no one wants u stanky puss

[Anonymous No.5771424]

>>5771421
>You are ignorant of science.
And you are ignorant of basic human decency. Fuck off.

[Anonymous No.5771429]

>>5771421
>Cartoons are for children
Is a claim with philosophical bases.

u still a dum-dum bitchzilla

[Anonymous No.5771430]

>>5771421
>You are ignorant of science.
How? Please objectively verify that your senses are reliable. Until you do that we can safely assume you are psychotic and delusional.

[Anonymous No.5771435]

>>5771430
No, we can assume that anyway. One could do a psychoanalysis based on her posts and it would be paintfully obvious.

[Anonymous No.5771433]

>>5771421
Seinfeld is like 60 and he still enjoys Bugs Bunny. Screw you and your stereotypes.

[Anonymous No.5771434]

>>5771426
no u

[Anonymous No.5771439]

>>5771435
You are only perceiving the results of said psychoanalysis through your senses, which you have not demonstrated are reliable.

[Anonymous No.5771441]

>>5771439
>which you have not demonstrated are reliable
I'm not supercunt, but can you read the words I just typed on the screens?

[Anonymous No.5771443]

>>5771429
No, just stating facts.

>>5771430
Go ahead and diagnose me. Might be fun to see you failing at psychiatry.

>>5771433
>appeal to authority

>>5771435
>psychoanalysis
Nice pseudoscience you got there. And I highly doubt you even know its contents.

[Anonymous No.5771444]

>>5771430
>I cant poke myself with them
The fact that one can alter their own senses is proof of our function over them, this along side the Cerebral Cortex being the one issuing the commands gives you the ability to call yourself and everything around you a Lie.

The fact being that that is true, relativity as it is by the time something experiences something it is long gone and truly is a Lie, now the point being that it's not a matter of the senses, it's a matter of you dont exist at all and you want to think you do.

Would you like me to counter argue this using the material supplied in it? Or is the truth to scary for Miss Dijective

[Anonymous No.5771445]

>>5771443
opinions = facts
bitch u so ugly it makes me want to shit on your face

[Anonymous No.5771446]

>>5771443
Seinfeld is an authority? Authority on what? Laughter?

[Anonymous No.5771449]

>>5771443
>psychoanalysis
>psuedoscience
Because you can't stand behind 'simplest objectivity' even when you argue for it.

Bravo. Bravo.

[Anonymous No.5771450]

>>5771445
Yeah, she's really digging her own hole right now. It's kind of painful to watch but considering how bad of a troll she has been for the last few months, I'd say she deserves it.

[Anonymous No.5771451]

>>5771441
Why should I trust anything you've written?

>>5771443
>Go ahead and diagnose me. Might be fun to see you failing at psychiatry.
Not my burden of proof. I asked you to prove your sanity.

[Anonymous No.5771453]

>>5771451
Because you've just articulated an adequate response based on the conceptual models you derived from their composition, and vice versa.

[Anonymous No.5771454]

>>5771443
I'm 25 and I still enjoy Bugs Bunny. Appeal to myself?

[Anonymous No.5771457]

>>5771453
cuz physical light being wavelengths beamed into yo brain, becomin' observashuns, and then interpretations, and responses.
nigga.

[Anonymous No.5771460]

>>5771444
>everything around you a Lie.
Lie groups and Lie algebras are cute but not eveything can be described with them.

>>5771445
3edgy5me

>>5771449
>psychoanalysis
>objective
top kek

>>5771451
By default I am sane unless a professional diagnoses me.

>>5771454
Not your blog. Go be a manchild somewhere else.

[Anonymous No.5771461]

>>5771457
muh wavelengths

[Anonymous No.5771462]

>>5771460
forgot my sage

[Anonymous No.5771465]

>>5771460
>by default I am sane unless a professional diagnoses me
dis bitch jus went full retard

[Anonymous No.5771466]

Ey yo

This lady is either trolling you all or earnestly trying to engage in a discussion about solipsism

Well, solipsism is all well and good as a viewpoint on life, but if you want to engage in scientific discussion, it can't really be part of it - science by nature requires a number of assumptions to be made, many of which are very agreeable to most people. Solipsism is an interesting point of view that strips away many assumptions until one is left with one's own subjective viewpoint. Naturally, solipsism and investigation into the nature of existence through scientific method do not co-exist comfortably. If you want to investigate with scientific method, assumptions will have to be made - whether or not you are willing to make those assumptions is up to you.

[Anonymous No.5771470]

>>5771466
stfu, no one asked you about ya bullshit

[Anonymous No.5771472]

>>5771465
>projecting

>>5771466
Solipsism belongs on >>>/x/

[Anonymous No.5771473]

>>5771453
What does it mean for something to be adequate?

>>5771460
>By default
Why would you assume anything without evidence?

>unless a professional diagnoses me
How would you obtain the results of the diagnosis?

[Anonymous No.5771474]

>>5771460
>Not your blog.
Same goes for you, sugar.

>Go be a manchild somewhere else.
Oh so watching Bugs Bunny immediately makes me a man-child? I suppose all the animators at Disney are man-children as well? Heck I guess everyone who enjoys any form of art is a man-child as well?

Seriously, I don't even care what you're on about but you sound like an adolescent teenager that is overly angry at the world. I like Bugs Bunny, now fuck off. Go rub your vagina or do something productive for a change.

[Anonymous No.5771471]

Philosophic materialism is the most horseshit concept I have ever seen.

Scientists regularly use non-material concepts. Math.

There is no matter or energy behind math; numbers are not material. Yet scientists accept its existence every time they solve an equation.

To accept materialism is to reject math.

[Anonymous No.5771477]

>>5771466
I agree. You sir are a gentleman and a scholar. Unlike those other barbarians in this thread.

[Anonymous No.5771478]

>>5770957
A chemical interaction in my brain caused by the orders of "me". Whatever "me" is.

[Anonymous No.5771479]

>>5771473
It's rather vague, but I think we can infer some sense of rationality to it by neither of us responding to the other with incoherent garble.

Example:
"Hi, how was your day?"
"das moon es of cheese, no bueno?"

[Anonymous No.5771480]

>>5770970
>science
>not based on logic, in other words philosophy, because of the fact of math

[Anonymous No.5771481]

>>5770985
True. Eventually, in an infinite timeline, I will be alive again an infinite number of times, in an infinite number of ways, and I will be myself again infinite times.

[Anonymous No.5771488]

I really enjoy this thread. Nothing beats watching so-called scientists sweat and argue with one another over simple philosophical constructs.

[Anonymous No.5771483]

>>5771473
This is the 4th time you are using that smiley face. >>>/global/rules/13

>Why would you assume anything without evidence?
I don't.

>How would you obtain the results of the diagnosis?
By means of auditory or visual perception.

>>5771474
>I suppose all the animators at Disney are man-children as well?
Yes.

>Heck I guess everyone who enjoys any form of art is a man-child as well?
Childish scribblings are not art.

>>5771480
Logic is math and not philosophy. Philosofags only use a dumbed down version of logic and even that's too hard for them.

[Anonymous No.5771484]

Holy shit, where do these new masses came from? I've never seen such a pathetic trolling of a sage-not-a-boy.

[Anonymous No.5771496]

>>5771483
Maybe you should try drawing animation once.

[Anonymous No.5771498]

>>5771483
>Logic is math and not philosophy
Logic stems from philosophy. Please go back to kindergarten.

[Anonymous No.5771499]

>>5771483
Could you name non-infantile cartoons? Otherwise calling cartoons infantile is redundant.

[Anonymous No.5771503]

>>5771460
>Lie groups and Lie algebras are cute but not eveything can be described with them.
Err... deary it's known as constant further function, Lie & Truth are irrelevant, you really need to brush up

[Anonymous No.5771504]

>>5771488
>I love to watch on high from my ivory tower, proud in the knowledge that I am King Shit of Turd Mountain. I just thought that I'd let you all know this, for I am so majestic and beautiful

[Anonymous No.5771506]

>>5771499
Anything on comedy central after 9, with the exception of southpark

[Anonymous No.5771505]

>>5771478
Why should I trust in something vague?

>>5771483
>This is the 4th time you are using that smiley face. >>>/global/rules/13
How do you know that rule exists?

>I don't.
You assume your sanity without evidence.

>By means of auditory or visual perception.
Which are derived through your senses, which you have not demonstrated are reliable.

>Philosofags only use a dumbed down version of logic and even that's too hard for them.
How do you chose which logic to use?

[Anonymous No.5771515]

>>5771506
>arbitrary distinctions

[Anonymous No.5771517]

>>5771498
Humans evolved from monkeys. Do you think we should behave like monkeys? Well maybe YOU do so, but us civilized people know that appeal to tradition is a fallacy.

>>5771499
>is redundant.
No, it's a figure of speech. Hendiadys.

>>5771505
>How do you know that rule exists?
Because I read it. I just linked to it, you illiterate plebeian.

>You assume your sanity without evidence.
Ockam's razor.

>which you have not demonstrated are reliable.
As a professional confirmed, they are reliable.

>How do you chose which logic to use?
Depending on context.

[Anonymous No.5771520]

>>5771504
Thanks for making my argument so poetic.

[Anonymous No.5771526]

>>5771517
>blah blah blah my vagina is squishy and smells of fish and I need to vent on /sci/
Are you done yet?

[Anonymous No.5771528]

>>5771517
>Because I read it. I just linked to it, you illiterate plebeian.
How can you trust your vision?

>Ockam's razor
Doesn't apply. There is only one assumption. You are either sane or not.

>As a professional confirmed, they are reliable.
You're begging the question.

>Depending on context.
How do you determine the context?

[Anonymous No.5771529]

>>5771517
>Hendiadys.
I don't think it means what you think it means.