[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 26 KB, 240x240, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8221454 No.8221454 [Reply] [Original]

When you think about it we actually have no way of knowing whether or not anything other than ourselves actually exists. We get all of our information from our senses, which are inherently flawed, the universe is little more than an illusion. When will the world of science realize this?

>> No.8221507

Somebody studies philosophy.

The reason I do science and Engineering is because I personally find it fun and interesting. Plenty of people talk about how science is for the "advancement of humanity" but me and my colleagues agree that the only reason we have the careers that we do is because it's just something that we find interesting. Humans are hard wired to like finding out new things.

>> No.8221529

>>8221454
This is what Descartes was trying to establish when he said "I think there for I am." The only thing we can be certain of is that we exist, everything else is mere speculation. With that being said, I think Descartes was trying to weed-out all the bullshit, and establish a line of reasoning behind philosophy and mathematics, establish the basis of our knowledge, which we then built on

>> No.8221647

>>8221529
Then Nietzsche came and Descartes reasoning was completely BTFO with epistemological refute.

>> No.8221681

>>8221454
>We get all of our information from our senses
you know this only because your senses told you that

>> No.8221685

>>8221529
>implying the self isn't an illusion

>> No.8221737

we can observe and follow patterns even if we don't know at a mathematical level that what we see is real

>> No.8221747

>>8221454
That would be in line with solipsism, but I think it can be taken a step further. I don't think we can prove our own existence even.

>> No.8221748

>>8221529
Neitzsche said something along the lines of
"How can you be sure the you are the one doing the thinking?"

Thinking sounds like an active thing, as if you are the one doing the thinking. Neuroscience revealed that we are not thinking but are experiencing thought.

>> No.8221771

>>8221647
Descartes' reasoning cannot be BTFO. The mind and the senses are the most base irreducible layer of any logical framework. They cannot be further reduced without using themselves, thus becoming circular reasoning and a self referential truth.

This cannot be reconciled. Accept it and move on.

>> No.8221773

>>8221771
Also:
>>8221748
All aspects of scale and origin are irrelevant. It doesn't matter if the original of our mind is actually a collective feature, or if we're being beamed down from a distance galaxy instantaneously.

>> No.8221775

>>8221773
>if the original
origin*

>> No.8221798

>>8221773
The point was that we are not in control of our thoughts to the degree some of us would want.

In this light you could reason that the origin doesn't matter but I would beg to differ.

It wouldn't have a great impact on the freedom of our thoughts, knowing the origin that is,but it would have a great inpact on our worldview if we knew that it was beamed down from another galaxy.

>> No.8221805

>>8221798
>In this light you could reason that the origin doesn't matter but I would beg to differ.
I don't mean that it doesn't matter at all, I just mean in the context of Descartes' capacity to be BTFO, it's irrelevant.

Beyond that, I agree. I posted in another (garbage) thread about how scale is arbitrary, and the delineation of body and environment is hazy. It cannot strictly be said that thought is generated by the brain alone, as it's using a spectrum of external stimuli as well. Some of that stimuli, interestingly and obviously, is capable of spurring certain systems to more greatly ignore their inputs. So it's all intertwined.

Here's my shitty post in that shitty thread.
>>8221190

>> No.8221980

>>8221454
>our senses, which are inherently flawed
speak for yourself, mine aren't flawed

>> No.8224135

>>8221980
how many fingers am i holding up?

>> No.8224172

>>8221454
Science does realize this.

>> No.8224324
File: 2.86 MB, 300x225, 1433870954575.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8224324

>>8221454
>Science is done from observations
>Hellen Keller was deaf and blind; so she could not make visual or audible observations
>Therefore optics and acoustics are simply creations of the human mind
>Science BTFO XDDDDDD

You do realize this is why people make fun of philosophers right? Your position is un-ironically and in full seriousness called anti-realism analytic philosophy.

>> No.8224332

>>8221529
Uh... how exactly can we be so certain that we exist?

>> No.8224477

>>8224135
yes

>> No.8224480

>>8221454
>When you think about it we actually have no way of knowing whether or not anything other than ourselves actually exists.
And you know this how exactly?

>> No.8224491
File: 126 KB, 480x608, chemicals.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8224491

>>8221454

>> No.8224514

>>8224491
>dog
That's a platypus