In the past, science and philosophy weren't separated and were largly indistinguishable. However beginning in the 19th century, the rise of the scientific method created a schism in academia. Modern philosophers often not only are ignorant of science but even openly oppose it. I'd like to know why. Why is philosophy dominated nowadays by people who have no interest in, or even contempt for science? Shouldn't philosophy be more productive if it embraced scientific results?
The only notable contemporary exception I can think of is Sam Harris who is both a scientist and a philosopher. And (coincidentally?) he is one of the most intellectual philosophers of our time.
>>1134231
>that quote
Philosophy is the pursuit of truth. Science is the pursuit of confirmation bias.
pic vaguely related
>>1134231
Lel that quote
>the only way to think about something is what it's made of even though we experience reality qualitatively and not purely quantitatively
>>1134236
What's wrong with the quote?
>>1134231
It baffles me. I did physics at university and I got in a discussion about something (can't remember what) with a guy doing philosophy and he told me I was wrong because science came from philosophy so therefor his philosophical reasoning trumped any argument I had based of scientific evidence. I don't know what they teach people in uni philosophy but I haven't had good experiences with the students of it.
>>1134251
Where is this quote from? A search of Ratzinger brought up a few people, and I'm dumb.
>>1134261
this MUST be bait
Joseph Ratzinger, also known as Pope Benedict XVI
Tribalism makes people dumb.
>>1134284
Bruh you see anyone thinking water is, no, two molecules of arsenic and one of helium or something? Just who exactly are you talking about? Just sounds like you're butthurt that some people still decide to treat water symbolically or as being more than the sum of its parts
>guise i solved ethics
>it's just utilitarianism
>but-but SCIENCE!
>it's just "common sense" that you ought to desire pleasure over misery for other people!
>>1134284
>No wonder he's arguing to consider his imaginary bullshit just as real as anything observable.
if you believe so much in empirical evidence, you should know there is empirically no argument in your reply
>>1134251
>Philosophy is the pursuit of truth.
How many truths has philosophy actually caught up with?
>>1134443
The fact that you cannot know nuffin
>>1134301
The fun part is, everything you are trying to make fun of there is actually true.
So.. thanks for making it obvious you have no counterarguments of any substance.
>>1134231
Is this a bait or you're just utterly ignorant on the subject?
>>1134231
Atheist here. Philosophy is useful.
Science is a philosophy. Particularly, it's an empirical method for interpreting and logging carefully-collected information about material phenomena. It is a very useful philosophy, but not the only useful philosophy.
We also need philosophies of ethics, governance, and economic to decide what sort of information scientists should pursue, how well-funded the scientists should be, and how the information science collects should be applied.
Philosophies of economics, governance and ethics should use scientific results to make the best decisions possible, but at the end of the day, some decisions are separate from the information (for example, whether to apply physics to create an atom bomb is not a question that can be answered by the scientific method, because the scientific method only exists to gather objective statements about physical phenomena.)
Pic related. How could the scientific method, as useful as it is, ever address a statement like the one on the left? There is no means of proving or disproving it. It comes down to a philosophy of ethics.
>>1134231
"Philosophy" does not reject science. Some branches may, but not the whole of philosophy does. Not even a majority of it does, I would say.
I hate these STEM autists vs Philosophy druggies threads. Both have their place and are connected in many ways.
>>1134507
Look at the people in this thread
>>1134457
So zero then?
>>1134231
Philosophy doesn't "reject" science, that would mean rejecting a part of itself. It knows that it is a part of itself, that science is a subset of philosophy, and therefore does not have ALL the answers.
>>1134251
>religion isn't an even worse case of confirmation bias
You aren't doing your side any favors
>this fucking entry level thread
>>1134512
1. This kind of thread will draw out the retards.
2. This board hardly represents Philosophy as a discipline.
>>1134493
You might be talking about academical research. Thats not all of science.
Science is about anything that can be reliably confirmed as true, and the information collected by these methods.
Philosophy is about concepts, and how to meaningfully distinguish and talk about concepts.
"Should we build an atom bomb" depends on what net damage/profit it will bring to anything that can expirience damage/profit. Thats an objective measurement.
Since, in theory, we could simulate/predict the impact of developing an atom bomb, its a scientific question like any other.
>>1134539
>Philosophy is about concepts
Truth, logic, and value are concepts. Presuppositions, which science, like anything else, rests on, are based on the assumption of the existence of certain concepts, or on the faith of their inherent value — in science the presupposition is in thinking that truth is valuable to us and that logic is a viable means of understanding the world. All in all, this makes science a subset of philosophy.
>>1134231
Because of evolution.
Philosophy mostly deals with questions of how things should be, while science asks if those things are even possible. When the theory of evolution came around society started to be looked at as an organism that evolves. With it came the realization that it has a will of its own, so to speak, and that individuals cannot change the collective - that evolution will run its course and that there is nothing one can do to stop it. From a scientific point of view, this made philosophy a pointless task since it mostly dealt with things out of the realm of possibilities - e.g. the ideal state. And philosophy that dealt with things that were in fact possible and happening was integrated as social sciences, cultural studies and the like.
However philosophy did keep its function within society in the same way religion kept its function after the era of enlightenment. However since science destroyed the premise of philosophy (that things can be changed) in the same manner as the premise of religion (that there is a god), philosophy went on to reject science and evolution in the same way as religion does.
>>1134522
we were comparing philosophy and science.
Religion is on a different level. Religion is the pursuit of God. Christianity is God's pursuit of man.
>>1134610
A study of languages and words doesn't make languages and words subsets or offshoots of that study.
The other day in a thread about free will we had someone who actually studied biology in a university talking about neurons and anons just told him to read some 18th century philosophers
philosofags are clueless, kek
>>1134678
we were comparing philosophy and science.
Water Dowsing is on a different level. Water Dowsing is the pursuit of watery goodness. Dowsing Rods are Water's persuit of Man.
>>1134672
>>1134681
This is why STEMlords need to have Philosophy of Science in their curriculum.
Philosophy doesn't reject science. Philosophers reject science.
So many fags are just butthurt that everything has, is, or will be explainable physically if we follow the same trends that we have been for the last few centuries.
It's not philosophy that rejects science, because science is a subfield of philosophy. It's nuts to reject part of oneself. It's those in other fields, the people, who reject the notion that everything has a physical explanation.
>>1134681
Failure to consciously acknowledge the philosophical foundation of something doesn't detach it from its roots in philosophy. Science is essentially the "philosophy that truth is more valuable than untruth" in application — it does not consciously value it, it has ALREADY assumed its value, and is past the point of discussing these values. In this sense it is definitely a part of a subsection of philosophy.
>>1134231
>However beginning in the 19th century, the rise of the scientific method created a schism in academia. Modern philosophers often not only are ignorant of science but even openly oppose it. I'd like to know why. Why is philosophy dominated nowadays by people who have no interest in, or even contempt for science? Shouldn't philosophy be more productive if it embraced scientific results?
[c i t a t i o n n e e d e d]
Why do Dawkins and the lot reject philosophy?
>>1134701
I see that you have no argument besides your edginess. It does not matter how much you reject truth, you'll never change it
>>1134493
>questions of ethics, a construct created by philosophy, can only be answered by philosophy
yeah no shit science cant answer ethical questions. it doesnt want to nor does it need to
>>1134742
I don't think they reject it, they just misinterpret what some philosophers say about it. When someone like Nietzsche defends the usefulness and progressiveness of science while also exposing how it will lead us to the last man if not properly kept in check, because it has the tendency to create intellectual and philosophical bigotry, they for some reason think he is demonizing and shitting on the entire field of science.
>>1134732
>Science is essentially the "philosophy that truth is more valuable than untruth" in application
but thats wrong
science is the philosophy that some things are more true than others
>>1134539
>"Should we build an atom bomb" depends on what net damage/profit it will bring to anything that can expirience damage/profit. Thats an objective measurement.
>depends on what net damage/profit it will bring
Ah, yes. But the idea that we should be preventing damage and bringing in profit is itself a philosophical conclusion. A correct one, in my world view, but still.
You came to the conclusion that we should be preventing damage/ bringing in profit without the aid of science.
Truly objective statements, like "A is composed of B and C" is something that can be confirmed through scientific inquiry.
Statements like "We should build A because we stand to gain B and C" while able to be supported by scientific data, are not themselves scientific conclusions. They are informed by a philosophy of some sort, in which certain outcomes are rendered "desirable" and others "undesirable."
>>1134744
>>christianity
>>truth
lol
>>1134786
It's also that. But why be concerned about what's more true, like science is, if you don't also value truth over its opposite in the first place?
>>1134301
>omg Sam Harris wants to kill people, how can you agree with this immoral kuffar
>revolution is the only way to change a society for the better
What do you fags imagine a revolution to look like?
>the idea that science is in any way logical
>>1134810
irrelevant for the question of what science is
you can be a scientist and value untruth more than truth. where to put your values is an ideological question and does not define science
>>1134865
>you can be a scientist and value untruth more than truth
That would make the person a scientist and a philosopher then. The scientist alone, however, can't think that. It goes against the very first step of all scientific investigation and study.
>>1134878
im just following what you said and you said that science is a philosophy, which makes every scientist a philosopher by default
How does science deal with morality? Philosophy and Science exist in two completely different realms of discussion, and melding them these days is pretty silly.
Can we please stop propagating this meme. Krauss and Hawking were talking out of their ass on a subject out of their field and now we have this stupid notion that philosophy and science are somehow rivals.
>>1134889
Science is a subset of philosophy in that it rests on philosophical presuppositions but scientists don't philosophize in the same sense. Science =/= the scientists. Kind of like how politicians often put certain philosophies into application, but their act of politicizing under this application does not mean they are philosophizing. To philosophize means to create new values, not apply ones created by others.
>>1134231
>Sam Harris
See theres your problem.
>>1134909
>To philosophize means to create new values
who told you that?
>>1134924
Philosophy did. It started with the pre-Socratics, who each created their own value systems. All philosophers hitherto have done this.
>>1134932
>>1134893
My niggas
Positivism is terrible. If our knowledge is limited to our empirical perceptions, then that's all our knowledge is: A perception. The Heavens appear to be a massive universe that can be measured and charted with scientific tools, but what if this is merely an illusion? Not to mention that positivism rejects any possibility of a spiritual world. It's entirely materialistic and decadent.
https://youtu.be/Yh4lNGKEUfE
"Science—in the sense of real, positive and empirical knowledge—can only subsist in what is physical; and that in the non-physical there can be no science, so that the scientific method neglects it and abandons it, by lack of authority, to belief, to the dull and arbitrary abstractions of philosophy, or to the “exigencies” of sentiment and morality."
>>1134805
>still no argument
lol
It doesn't though. In fact, the only justifications for science can be achieved through philosophy.
philosophy is an outdated method of attempting to understand the world
however like any group of people finding themselves increasingly less relevant they do not go quietly and try any and all methods to perpetuate their existence up to and including unwarranted attacks on its replacement
>>1135128
reminder that ethics are an unfalsifiable concept just like the idea of god is and the question if something is good or evil is the same thing as asking if god has a beard or not
>we need philosophers because muh ethics
is literally the same thing as saying
>we need priests because muh god
and btw the question if something is good or evil can very easily be answered by science, namely by unveiling the structure of the categorization in the given societal context and its function
inb4 any fedora tipping
>>1135160
Epistemology is a branch of philosophy, science is just a tool.
>>1135087
>implying you made an actual argument
lol
>>1134744
This image is the fucking definition of slander
>>1135160
Philosophy isn't a "method" and it certainly isn't outdated. A philosophy is a value system, and to philosophize means to create new values. So are you saying that we are beyond all valuing? Then we don't exist. To exist means to do valuing.
>>1134457
How can you know that then?
>why does philosophy reject science
Because there's gotta be examples of good vs bad philosophy if anyone is to know the difference.
>>1134257
Let me guess.... You were arguing philosophy with him?
It doesn't matter how absolute your own subjective paradigm seems, others will find it wanting no matter what.
The quote.
>I define reality as objectively empirical and logical though I can provide no evidence that this is the case I am still going to use this as a premise for everything I say and then decry you for not sharing this subjective idea
>>1135160
thank you for the basic bitch yellow bastard opinion
>>1134471
counter to what?
Counter a point that hasnt been made?
If the thesis is incoherent in its translation of its idea then the anti-thesis must be equally so of this nature.
probably.
>x is true
maybe, prove it
>x is true because x is true
now that's just redefining x
>NO, THATS NOT A COUNTER ARGUMENT!
>>1134471
>actually true
Read Dostoevsky
Not all men are as soft as you.
Besides, you want a refutation of utilitarianism?
There is no such thing as 'moral' utilitarianism.
It throws away morality in favor of subjective opinion. We can no longer hold eachother to laws beyond us. Rather it is all arbitrary.
>>1135227
I did actually, and you didn't. Stay mad.
>>1134672
>the premise of philosophy
>(that things can be changed)
This is the most idiotic thing I have ever read in this board.
And that's saying something.
>>1135210
> issues like safety, equality, education, power are unimportant because some statements made about these things are unfalsifiable tripe.
Ok
>>1134756
Right.
Which means that when humans, for instance, discover a new vaccine, through science, deciding how to manufacture, transport, and distribute that vaccine are all ethical decisions that are still incredibly important, but not able to be dealt with by science.
Ergo, philsoophy is not useless.
That is what I set out to explain, as many people do not feel that way.
Reminder that Sam Harris BTFO'd Chomsky.
>>1136121
Even shit tier philosopher like Foucalt dick slapped Chomsky.
>>1135210
>the question if something is good or evil can very easily be answered by science, namely by unveiling the structure of the categorization in the given societal context and its function
but that doesn't answer the question you stupid fuck.
>>1135354
Thats.. idiotic. And if you have a point to make, make it. "I can't talk good but this book exists so I'm clearly right" don't cut it.
Nothing about what harris said is arbitrary holy fuck.
Thats like saying "math is arbitrary, you can never say its REAL math, you just cadefien this as math, so all math is subjective!"
Whether a certain state of the universe is subjectively more, less or equally pleasurable for more people than another is still an objective statement.
I have yet to read something against harris that isn't meme-tier moronic horseshit like your post or >>1135341
If you think you have anything better than assertions, give it a go.
>>1136227
*define, not cadefien, jesus
>>1134231
personaly know a hydro engineering guy and hes rather a experienced proffesional with lots of major state projects behind him, and i could guarantee with a high degree of certainty thats not how he would ''choose to think about water''
in fact in his line of work the fact water has a certain molecular setup is next to meaningless, by necesity he must ''choose to think about water'' in completely different ways
certainly a fuckton of rational and educated people would be presented with a riddle if you ask them - how do you chose to think about water? - and apparently the only right answer turns out to be #H2O motherfucker!
some contemporary science, mostly in america, rejects philosophy, not realy the other way around, its more like some scientists today somehow deciding to call philosophy stupid cauze it cannot into whichever particular field of study they spent their lives working in, where its usualy about differences in oppinion on totaly meta shit like states of consciusness or free will, or theories of everything, that one scientist or another cant differ from scientific findings as such
and besides sam harris is somewhat of a moron
anyone who thinks science and philosophy are either in opposition or somehow make each other redundant simply does not have a understanding of what one or the other is about
its kind of like saying if you measure and analise a piece of wood you have no more ways or reasons to think about that wood
among other things philosophy is exactly about how to ''choose to think'' about something, and crude scientific fact, like the fact that water is two parts hydrogen one part oxigen, are not always even remotely meaningfull, which is why it is necesary to develop ways of thinking things, which are meaningfull in these or those contexts, and this is called philosophy, without this entire societies get stuck in mass intelectual autism and fail to percieve forms of bullshit so blatant it hurts to hear them spoken out loud
>>1135541
Is that chris-chan in the background?
>>1134231
In real life the Philosophy of Science is one of the most important subjects in most Philosophy departments in the western world. Plenty of modern philosophers not only embrace science, but have made contributions it with their theorizing.
>>1134827
>What do you fags imagine a revolution to look like?
>theres lots and lots of blood and bodies but this time around its the right ones
lots of people just realy dont like the fucker that rule them, lots of people have good reasons for this
but realy revolutions work in lots of ways, usualy the goals are missed and often the practicaly same fucks end up being in power
>>1136270
His h2o example is not about thinking about water in a completely different context or scale, its about saying its h2o, its just two hydrogen and three tiny red gnomes and some ether because your faith tells you it is so.
What you discribed is modelling water on a specific scale and a specific system, based on simplifications and abstractions of the h2o molecule interactions. Its not redefining h2o as something else. Its taking the implications of that fact and modeling just the needed parts, not denying them.
Its hard to imagine you actually misunderstood this, but I'll assume you have and are not just trolling.
>and besides sam harris is somewhat of a moron
Right. Could you specificly point to something harris said that is moronic.
>>1135306
If you think it's subjective you can shoot yourself in the head and see how subjective it is. People who don't accept reality on reality's terms are beyond conversation, not above it.
>>1136337
>People who don't accept reality on reality's terms are beyond conversation
What did he mean by this?
>>1135354
actualy youre wrong, if 'moral utilitarianism' is ever accepted what youd get is a kind of official '''''''scientificaly confirmed'''''' objective morality as the basis for everything, which means you might as well be living under religious law from that point on
>>1136346
He meant that muh solipsism morons should fuck off to the hole they came from and quit pestering people with their spooks.
>>1135453
You made no argument, you just said that you're right. That's not an argument, that's tiresome preaching of which we have numerous threads that have metic fucktons of it.
>>1136121
>Chomsky
>Philosopher
hes a fuckin linguist... he is as much philosopher as that hack Molyneux
And, for the record
>Foucoult
>Philosopher
hes a fckin maverick historian
>>1134231
IS OUGHT IS OUGHT IS OUGHT IS OUGHT IS OUGHT IS OUGHT IS OUGHT IS OUGHT IS OUGHT IS OUGHT IS OUGHT IS OUGHT IS OUGHT IS OUGHT IS OUGHT IS OUGHT IS OUGHT IS OUGHT IS OUGHT IS OUGHT IS OUGHT IS OUGHT IS OUGHT IS OUGHT IS OUGHT IS OUGHT IS OUGHT IS OUGHT IS OUGHT IS OUGHT IS OUGHT IS OUGHT IS OUGHT IS OUGHT IS OUGHT IS OUGHT IS OUGHT IS OUGHT IS OUGHT IS OUGHT IS OUGHT IS OUGHT IS OUGHT IS OUGHT IS OUGHT
>>1134231
If science has solved philosophy, why don't we harvest the mentally disabled for organs?
>>1136142
are you mentally retarded?
Contemporary philosophy is opposed to science as an *idol*, to justify values, morals, politics, and so on.
>>1136227
I'll spell it out in babby language for you, since you appear to dense.
We can measure the amount of pain a certain action inflicts. This is true. But philosophically, it is trivial. The problem with Harris is that he makes the jump to "and therefore we must adopt [value system or policy] that minimizes measured suffering."
That's not solving philosophy, it's just begging the question. It blindly assumes that some sort of low state of suffering or higher state of enjoyment across an arbitrarily defined group is always preferable. But that's just a subjective opinion.
TL; DR: science can tell us what happens, not whether we should want it to happen.
>>1136465
are u?
>>1136321
see, you dont get it
who cares what the molecule of water is made of, yes ofcourse its made of 2 hydrogen 1 oxigen, but what does that fact mean? what way is that to ''think about water'', whats the meaning of that? hydrolisis, hidrogen fuel, what?
its the same thing with most other such examples, whatever branch, neurology, biology, astrology, scientific knowledge about anything tells you loads of facts, logical conclusions can be derived from these facts, beyond that the rest of the human population now needs to deal with the thing that is described, they now have more knowledge available, practicaly this is a great thing, and helps them understand it technicaly, but cant tell them what or how to think of it, or what to do with it
in fact philosophy cant tell them that either, but thats the problem philosophy is about, ideas, knowledge, truth, interpretation, definitions, and so on, so it can definitely help around how to ''choose to think about'' and why
the moment either science or philosophy or any combination of the two start explicitly telling people these things its ideology
things like the notion of a viable scientificaly derived objective morality realy read a lot like ideology, and if harris cant see or accept that whole problematic that makes him kind of stupid
>>1136478
Too bad, homes. It do.
>>1136482
>TL; DR: science can tell us what happens, not whether we should want it to happen.
And the moment you admit that morality is only relevant as it relates to conscious suffering, you've agreed with his premise.
>>1134493
>philosophies of ethics
Friendly reminder that philosophy has never solved an ethical problem. Friendly reminder that "ethics" is a matter of subjective preference and that philosophy holds no authority over it.
>>1136535
neither does science tho
>>1136547
Science actually solves shit, regardless of whether you think it has any authority.
>>1136534
>morality is only relevant as it relates to conscious suffering
Prove it.
Because the only thing I see is your subjective opinion.
>>1136553
what has solving shit got to do with it, science is supposed to solve shit, thats practicaly what it operatively is, a universal logical shitsolving method, thats why its succesfull, it solves shit
what has that got to do with ethics?
>>1135212
Can't spell epistemology without STEM.
>>1136571
>Prove it.
I don't even have to, it's a matter of definitions and how people use words. I said "the moment you admit" this, you implicitly agree with everything Harris said on the matter.
Now, if you don't, I'd be glad to hear your conception of what morality is and what relevance it has to the conversation we're having.
>>1136578
>ethics does not contain problems to be solved
Heyoooo, spooker-man. It's not as nebulous as muh special snowflake morons like you seem to think.
>>1136297
>In real life the Philosophy of Science is one of the most important subjects in most Philosophy departments in the western world
You are delusional. Please seek psychiatric help. Literally nobody, neither in philosophy nor in science cares about the so called "philosophy of science". It's an autistic circlejerk despised by both fields. In reality the most important subjects in modern philosophy departments nowadays are gender ideology and leftist politics.
>>1136440
There is no "ought" because we have no free will.
>>1136553
What does that have to with ethic though
>>1136522
How? How for instance, can science tell us whether we ought to value ourselves, our family, or our business associates foremost?
>>1136596
so name a recent example of science solving shit and how this effects the field of ethics
>>1136609
>How? How for instance, can science tell us whether we ought to value ourselves, our family, or our business associates foremost?
>Can economics tell me which specific field I should specialize in? Oh, it can't? Sham!
There are broader questions than overspecific nonsense like this science can and does provide answers to in relation to morals and politics, and you know it.
>>1134251
It's been 2,500 years and we are still asking ourselves the same questions. There are no conclusions in philosophy.
>>1136631
>figure out how life works on the micro scale
>understand the basics of how consciousness arises
Voila, we just solved the issue of abortion. Free abortions for everyone before the 16 weeks when the fetus starts exhibiting brain function.
>>1136634
A: Economics is not a natural science. If economics is a science, so is social theory.
B: Economics of today doesn't have a theory of value, it has an anti-theory of value, stating the source of value is not a concern of economics.
>>1136631
so name a recent example of philosophy solving shit and how this effects the field of ethics
>>1136587
For the sake of argument:
You cannot suffer if you don't exist. If you could extinguish all life at the push of a button, this would be the most moral action.
Why is science not working on a painless method of mass killing yet?
>>1136646
how does that logicaly follow?
why would the walue of human life be contingent on momentary brain function and whats microbiology got to do with it? how does that solve the ethical problem of abortion?
>>1136652
>Economics is not a natural science. If economics is a science, so is social theory.
Sure. Shitty science is still better than the kind of shit you believe.
>Economics of today doesn't have a theory of value, it has an anti-theory of value, stating the source of value is not a concern of economics.
And?
>>1136670
>how does that logicaly follow?
>how does understanding the way consciousness work affect our judgement on moral issues
Hmmm.
There is no ethical problem, dunceboy. Just as there isn't an ethical problem with kicking over rocks.
>>1136667
It's not just about minimizing suffering, it's about maximizing well-being.
>>1136677
>Sure. Shitty science is still better than the kind of shit you believe.
Our spiritual knowledge is heavily peer-reviewed, so to speak.
>And?
Economics can't tell us which to value, since that is no longer the function of economics. Furthermore, value is hardly just economic.
>>1136701
>Our spiritual knowledge is heavily peer-reviewed, so to speak.
Well memed, my friend. Come back when you have something resembling a process for your "knowledge".
>Economics can't tell us which to value, since that is no longer the function of economics.
Economics is barely precise enough to allow large conglomerate processes work with frequent crashes, the fact that it can't tell YOU what to value is exactly what I pointed out and you seem to be missing the point. On large scale levels, it provides plenty of things to value.
>>1136502
>see, you dont get it
I.. I told you how it was meant, why you missed the point, you just repeated yourself in twice the length. Why?
Him saying "choosing to think about water" is mimiking what faith-people say whenever they are contradicted by scientific findings. "I just choose to not think about it like that" when presented with a clear definition that doesn't involve their favourite metaphysical nonsense.
>realy read a lot like ideology
fucking why? Thats exactly what he meant by "think about it like that", I just choose to say that this is an ideology! You can say that, but its not, because thats not what the word ideology means. You didn't understand anything that was said, like, even a little bit. You even missed the topic of what was being discussed.
Again about the water thing, h2o was chosen here as a basic example of a value-free well established fact about reality. And its about faith-people contradicting clearly established facts, like that water is made up of molecules with 3 atoms, 2 hydrogen atoms and one oxygen. "Well I see defining water molecules as h2o as pushing your ideology, because my worldview is that its made up of tiny water element particles, because I choose to believe in the four element model. -> so i choose to not think about water like h2o, because that contradicts my faith. Your atomic model is false and based on faith just like my model. Stop dictating to me what to think!" etc.
He means specificly that type of idiocy, that is impervious to evidence that atoms actually are real and exist, because they "choose to think" about it differently.
>>1136502
2/2
That relates to morality thusly: you can say that your morality has nothing to do with consequences for anything that can expirience consequences, but you'd be an idiot and disqualify yourself from the conversation. You could say "i choose to think about morality as whatever my moral god, thor, tells me to do! It must be moral, because thor is moral, and without thor you'd have no objective measurement of morality!" That would be retarded, and needs not be taken as a serious problem, just like saying that water is not h2o and atoms are fake needs not be taken seriously. Its not a problem for chemistry and doesn't undermine chemistry or make it subjective that some people choose to believe chemistry is actually about the four elements and their metaphysical properties. They're just not talking about chemistry, even if they say they are. They're talking nonsense. Thats not ideology, just like saying that water is h2o is not ideology. It is h2o. That statement is just true, given the definitions we use. You can choose to think its a false statement, but that just makes you retarded. If you morality is only objective if it is externally dictated by a deity, thats also retarded, and just doesn't need to be taken seriously in a discussion about actual morality.
while perhaps philosophy has its use, I wonder if anyone could possibly argue for the existence of a dedicated philosopher
>>1136716
>Come back when you have something resembling a process for your "knowledge
What is 2000 years of comparing of experiences and insights of the Church Fathers?
>On large scale levels, it provides plenty of things to value.
In a purely describe sense, not a normative sense. It says what is valued, not what ought to be valued.
>>1136734
*descriptive
>>1136734
>What is 2000 years of comparing of experiences and insights of the Church Fathers?
A bunch of made up horseshit then?
>>1136729
>>1136718
Not that Anon, but you missed the point entirely. The point isn't people denying that causality exists, the point is that knowing the consequences of an action tells you absolutely nothing about what consequences you OUGHT to pursue.
Sam Harris [and you] try to push an ideology under the aegis of Science by ignoring all other ideologies.
There are dozens of moralities, most of which have nothing to do with gods, that are NOT utilitarianism, and are no less 'scientific' than it.
Sam Harris' morality is not scientific in that science proves it [science can't prove a morality, see Hume], its merely scientific in aesthetic. Like most other autists, Harris thinks science means Truth and that by binding something to a scientific framework that automatically makes it true, which is the only reason he could get away with so ridiculous an idea as the concept that proving pleasure is objectively detectable in the brain proves a morality based on the greatest pleasure for the greatest number.
>>1136769
>what consequences you OUGHT to pursue.
Meaningless question because we have no free will.
>>1136734
>What is 2000 years of comparing of experiences and insights of the Church Fathers?
A bunch of bullshit that only has any credence because of religious people's emotional incontinence.
>It says what is valued, not what ought to be valued.
It describes what is valued, and in that sense informs other things to value. I like buying shit, being employed leads to buying shit, therefore I value employment. This is how any knowledge works and is basic stuff mate.
One does not begin in some tabula rasa state and then use logic to derive values. That's not how this works and not how it ever worked. We begin with some values, and then adjust them and add others as our worldview widens.
>>1135541
DEAR SWEET FUCKING LORD DAT ASS
>>1136697
I'll let you move those goalposts, you can use the exercise.
But let's take well-being. If something causes me a scientifically measured 2 well-being and you 1 well-being, all else equal, I should always receive that thing. I mean, two is bigger than one. I trust you donate to beggars; even if they buy drugs, I assure you, it's a very pleasurable experience to do drugs, and not getting them while addicted sure does cause suffering.
And looking forward, we should use advanced gene technology to create in a petri-dish a bacteria (or minimally-capable-of-experiencing-well-being-creature) that derives the maximal amount of well being from a minimal amount of energy, and then convert all the earth's biomass into this creature.
All we need to do is to establish a measurable "well-being", and efficiently maximize it. Science will allow us to do all these wonderful things.
Are you euphoric yet, or are you going to bolt on more ad-hoc arguments for not arriving at perfectly logical conclusions?
>>1136769
It's like you're not even fucking aware of his argument. The existence of multiple peaks on his conception of a moral landscape is enough to make anyone with half a brain understand that only one of those peaks is utilitarianism.
So many spooks ITT
>>1136734
Jesus is in all likelihood a made-up figure, your whole shtick is based on a myth. But of course, you can't even entertain the idea, because its just faith(tm).
What you think the "fathers" found, is found in every other religion in the world, and you can't all be right, but you sure can be (and are) all wrong.
If you want to go by measuring time-length of a particular cult, theres still people about praying to thor, or egyptian gods, or the pagan allmother. Even buddhists outrank you there. This is why you need method, and standarts, to establish what is reasonable to believe as true. "I choose to believe the chruch fathers above all other religious figures who have exactly the same expirience" does not cut it.
>>1136803
>I'll let you move those goalposts, you can use the exercise.
Did you honestly think anyone would describe morality as mere reduction of suffering?
>Are you euphoric yet, or are you going to bolt on more ad-hoc arguments for not arriving at perfectly logical conclusions?
Do you think any of what you just said was remotely clever?
> If something causes me a scientifically measured 2 well-being and you 1 well-being, all else equal, I should always receive that thing. I mean, two is bigger than one. I trust you donate to beggars; even if they buy drugs, I assure you, it's a very pleasurable experience to do drugs, and not getting them while addicted sure does cause suffering.
Short term suffering and well-being is not the only part of the equation, I'm sure you'd agree.
>bacteria nonsense
Bacteria don't feel anything, cretin.
>>1136697
>There is no ethical problem, dunceboy. Just as there isn't an ethical problem with kicking over rocks.
how is that tho? how do you get that conclusion from observing fetal brain function and microbiology?
>>1136440
I never understood how this was supposed to be an argument
>>1136831
I believe you.
>>1136827
>how is that tho? how do you get that conclusion from observing fetal brain function and microbiology?
We associate morality with consciousness. Early fetuses are unconscious as there's nothing going on in their heads. There is no moral problem with early abortion.
The only way to invent a problem there is do what religious people do and posit some spooky soul that makes no sense even in principle, and then say that that spook is the injured party.
>>1136838
seriously, how is saying "there ought to be a creator" supposed to mean anything?
cant you just say "there isn't because there ought not to be?"
>>1136812
>What you think the "fathers" found, is found in every other religion in the world
Obviously not, since they aren't the same religion.
>Even buddhists outrank you there.
And they don't come to a consistent truth, they come to cacophony.
>>1136850
I see you have no idea what the Is-Ought poblem is.
>>1136825
>Bacteria don't feel anything, cretin.
they are capable of reacting to stimuli, exactly the same as all our feelings
>>1136840
>We associate morality with consciousness.
Prove it.
>>1136769
>but you missed the point entirely
The fuck I did. he was talking about his uncle dick or whatever working in a waterplant, who thinks about hydrodynamics and engineering, all without denying the fact of water being h2o, and still thought thats on topic somehow.
>There are dozens of moralities
There are also dozens of ways to do chemistry, for example, you can believe in alchemy instead, and call that chemistry. Or you can call cooking the true chemistry, and define a periodic table by taste. But you can also go fuck yourself in that case, because you are not talking about chemistry at that point.
Same with morality.
It doesn't matter what the fuck some people think morality is. And it doesn't matter what hume thinks can or can't be done.
If our expiriences are defined by our brainmatter, and nature folows laws, an objective morality can be defined. If you grant that wellbeing depends on the state of the universe, then its not an arbitrary mesurement.
Please, at least try to read up on what harris actualyl said, don't just repeat the is ought shit like i magicly absolves you from engaging with the argument.
>>1136850
I said I believed you, no need to demonstrate your ignorance.
>>1136857
>Arguing with stemlords is unsatisfyingly easy.
Glad to know you have no response. You can either accept that I omitted the well-being part for terseness, or pretend to have a high ground where you don't.
>>1136860
>they are capable of reacting to stimuli, exactly the same as all our feelings
Our feelings are a product of complex brain patterns, not mere reaction to stimuli. A photographic paper "reacts to stimuli" when exposed to light.
>>1136865
I already responded to this epin response earlier. Here you go mate. >>1136587
>>1136855
>they come to cacophony
lel, yeah ok, christianity on the other hand is perfectly consistent, and there are no sects or disagreements whatsoever. Thanks for disqualifying yourself from a reasonable debate, get your shit in order.
"singing and talking to myself makes me get feels, therefore i must be right"
>>1136850
Managed to be the most uninformed post in the whole thread. That in itself is an accomplishment.
>>1136855
>Obviously not, since they aren't the same religion.
And they have to be the same religion why? Your quality of rebuttals has seriously dropped in the course of this thread. Don't tell me you just have "I'M RIGHT YOU'RE WRONG" as an assumption.
>And they don't come to a consistent truth, they come to cacophony.
Are you for real, dude? How many denominations of christards are there? How many "truths" have your pedophiles in dresses already gone back on, ready to be infallible all over again?
>>1136906
Please, enlighten me about it. I beg you.
>>1136896
None of the sects actually compare a consistent tradition over 2000 years, only the Orthodox do that, so not really comparable.
>>1136718
>>1136729
who is that even supposed to apply to, creationists from utah, isil members, amazonian tribesmen?
the whole thread is about the relation betveen philosophy and science and youre showing why its being discussed
the quote specificly says ''choose to think about'', i dont know why he chose that exact formulation, i dont know who he means by that, i dont care, knowing water is h2o doesnt tell you how to think about it, and knowing something does not mean you negate the fact, negating a verified fact simply makes you crazy, and even so knowing water is h2o doesnt tell you how to think about it, this kind of logic is exactly the thing the discussion is about
>>1136852
I'm sure you can pull up a list that proves moses was real too?
Even though he was completely made up as well?
I'm not trusting scientologists on whether thetans are real, mormons on whether their evidence for magic tablets is solid, and christians on whether their made up magic space messiah is made up.
>>1136895
>Our feelings are a product of complex brain patterns
and our complex brain patterns are the result of simple brain patterns working in unison, which in turn are the result of singular specialized cells reacting to various stimuli.
In turn the more bacteria we introduce to a colony the more complex their behavior, when looked at from a sufficient distance, will appear
>>1136915
>And they have to be the same religion why?
Because the religions are mutually exclusive.
>How many denominations of christards are there?
Only one that places consistent witness as paramount, which predates all denominations.
>>1136926
I'm not asking you to trust it, I'm asking you to look at the argument.
>>1134231
Because no one gives a fuck about what is. The more important question is why it is and science will never find an answer to that. Philosophy is and thinking is more important anyhow.
>>1136884
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem
>>1136924
"That's not how I choose to think about it" is meant as a denial, not merely the difference of perspective.
>>1136934
Not even in your own words? I'm offended, professor.
>>1136926
thetans aren't real but L. Ron sure was, same with magic tablets and Joseph Smith
I don't think, if there was no factual Jesus at some point in history, christianity could have endured as far as it did
was that person the son of god? likely not. Was he anything like he's presented in the bible? just as likely he wasn't
>>1136921
if only there was some sort of search engine that you could use to find information about a question
>>1136927
>and our complex brain patterns are the result of simple brain patterns working in unison, which in turn are the result of singular specialized cells reacting to various stimuli.
It's a "one molecule of water can hardly be called wet" kind of thing. Some things require volume. Things like fluid dynamics, consciousness, or, hell, even time. By analogy, time is something that arises from interaction of completely timeless particles. That doesn't mean that a photon experiences time.
>In turn the more bacteria we introduce to a colony the more complex their behavior, when looked at from a sufficient distance, will appear
I'd be extremely curious to see how you would justify this. Seems to me that you'd much more likely see noise from any large distance.
>>1136951
No, I'm in Iraq and google is illegal.
And I can't ask jeeves because he also embodies western degeneracy and is haram
>>1134231
but for real
sam harris is a complete idiot and everything he's ever written has been a complete pile of shit. including his fucking dissertation.
>>1136924
..I know what he meant, and the context he meant it in, because i don't just talk shit but actually read up on what this is about.
I literally tried to explain to you what the quote implies, because you seemed to lack that understanding. But apparantly you're impervious to new information, and instead just repeat yourself like a parrot.
> negating a verified fact simply makes you crazy
Thats what the quote is about. People who then say "but i choose to think about it differently, 2+2=5 for me because my holy text says so".
Or "morality is about souls and hell and tiny demons".
It exemplifies a move you can do in a conversation that can't countered, and that this move doesn't actually reflect in any way on the strength of the thesis thats being discussed.
>>1136944
You should be offended. We are all treating you like an idiot. That would've been obvious to most.
Do you see now how your post could be interpreted as a sign of stupidity?
>>1136929
>Because the religions are mutually exclusive.
Yes, and from this you get that specifically your conception of christardianity is true?
>Only one that places consistent witness as paramount, which predates all denominations.
Consistent retardation is still retardation, even if I accepted your fatuous claims.
>>1136895
I hope you are eating your oats to go with all the functional strength you're getting from moving those goalposts.
First it was minimizing suffering, then minimizing suffering and maximizing well-being, then something about long term versus short term, then an undefined relation to consciousness.
Should we maximize consciousness? How does that even work, do we add acid to the drinking water?
None of these terms you defined, by the way, despite being confident we can measure them.
Steelmanning: if well-being can be measured, it can be quantified. Your distinction between long term and short term becomes just a matter of how much over what length of time. Small amounts over a near-infinite timescale will blow anything we humans can experience out of the water. Hence, better to just breed happy bacteria.
But you want consciousness. You are confident it can be externally observed, I take it. Science can crack it! All that's left then is to build an AI that is conscious, thanks to science, can only be happy, and just maximally replicate it while euthanizing all humans, who would otherwise just suffer inefficiently.
Or alternatively, just drug everyone into eternal meaningless bliss.
Or do you wish to add more arbitrarily chosen criteria?
Why can't we just maximize suffering, anyway?
>>1136840
still doesent make sense, how does the fetus being unconscious solve the ethical problem of abortion
because it cant feel or dont know or because its not a person yet? i dont get it
>>1136971
We all ask questions to learn, professor.
True idiocy would be to never ask at all, and if I just googled it I wouldn't have the pleasure of talking to you~
>>1136955
the effect of bacteria on earth's atmosphere and litosphere is well documented and highly complex as well as clearly distinguishable from noise
>>1136948
And thats a good starting point, but as I said, moses was confirmed entirely fictional, and that did no damage whatsoever to any religion.
PhD historian who speaks ancient greek and latin looked at the evidence, jesus and christian claims just don't hold up: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUYRoYl7i6U
>>1137001
oh my god and you actually linked to richard fucking carrier. is there like some kind of script you get as a new atheist when you go on the internet?
>>1136970
but who does that even refer to then, the creation ministries? schizophrenics, who?
>>1137001
to be fair though, moses isn't nearly as critical to its faith as jesus
that said, the question if jesus was real or not is not as important as people make it out to be, even if he was real he would be so completely unlikely any of his biblical portrayals his true nature would likely affect nothing
>>1136980
>First it was minimizing suffering, then minimizing suffering and maximizing well-being, then something about long term versus short term, then an undefined relation to consciousness.
What kind of moron expects something that requires a book to go through in any detail to be done in one line? Points are expounded, deal with it faggot.
>Should we maximize consciousness? How does that even work, do we add acid to the drinking water?
I don't know. We already have it though so no need to switch the topic.
>acid to the drinking water
Is this a joke? Can't tell.
> if well-being can be measured, it can be quantified.
Sure. In principle. Are you implying I'm supposed to give you an answer to everything right here and now?
>another reference to bacteria
Do you even read my responses to this asinine shit?
>Or alternatively, just drug everyone into eternal meaningless bliss.
Fails to account for the fact that different forms of pleasure are valued differently. Personally, I'd much rather spend 10 seconds actually proud of a personal achievement, than an entire day orgasming.
>Why can't we just maximize suffering, anyway?
Who said you can't?
>>1136995
Effect <> behavior.
>>1136981
There is not anything that can expirence suffering if the abortion is in the first trimester. Thats why its like "kicking rocks", there is no harm done to anything that can expirience harm. And in any case, if its a person, the personhood of the mother is still in effect. If you are not ready to force people to give their organs to others (as that would cause basicly riots and shootouts with organ collectors i assume, and cause suffering from just living in a society like this) you can't force one person to donate their body for months to another person.
>Morality = X.
>We can measure X.
>Maximize X.
>Philosophy is solved guys! We scientists sure are a smart bunch.
>real philosopher: why X?
A whole thread of ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME ensued.
>>1136981
Again, to go back to the very beginning. It depends on your conception of ethics. If you think it only has to do with conscious beings, then there is no problem. If you don't, as asked several times before, I'd love to hear your conception of ethics purely for sport.
>>1137024
>i-i-i-it's a meme
So is your retarded religion, bubby.
>>1137035
I've never heard of an actual solid scientific paper outlining morality. Do you know of one? The most related I've seen was a pretty stimulating presentation on a biological model of empathy.
>>1137042
>thinking i'm a theist because you think linking to richard carrier is damning evidence
it's worse than i thought
>>1137028
>different forms of pleasure are valued differently
That means they can't be measured externally. Subjectivity being subjective and all. Your entire project, premised on measuring an objective phenomenon and maximizing it, collapses.
I like it when I argue from someone's premise for sophistry's sake, only to see them undercut that very premise. Smells like victory.
>>1137033
>There is not anything that can expirence suffering if the abortion is in the first trimester.
whats suffering got to do with it, its killing a fetus, that it does not suffer does not affect the ethical problem
>And in any case, if its a person, the personhood of the mother is still in effect.
and the problem is the ethical dimension of what the mother is about to do, her being a conscious person is kind of part of the problem, it does not solve it
>If you are not ready to force people to give their organs to others (as that would cause basicly riots and shootouts with organ collectors i assume, and cause suffering from just living in a society like this) you can't force one person to donate their body for months to another person.
that you cant force people does not solves the problem either, you cant realy resolve any significant ethical problem by forcing people anything
>>1137027
Agree on both points. I don't really care if an actual "template" existed personally, wouldn't make a difference. It just really doesn't hold up to the evidence that is availeable. Muhammed very likely existed, buddha propably did, jesus apparantly likely didn't. If you're in any way interested why, listen to one of carriers vids, I think his case is pretty solid.
But yeah, as I said, I basicly agree with you on the other things =}
>>1137026
He was talking about the argument that morality can't be clearly defined in principle, because there is always someone who could disagree, and there's no way to tell who's right. His response was, the fact alone that someone could disagree doesn't undermine the case. People can disagree with anything, and basic facts of chemistry can be just flatout denied and discarded by some people, that doesn't mean anything in itself. Not everyones opinion is valid, and that goes for the topic of morality as well. If you "choose to think" about morality in terms of how many marbles you can stuff in your nose, you're not invited.
>>1137055
>That means they can't be measured externally.
Nice leap of faith you made for your retarded ideology, but you fell right into the garbage. How forms of pleasure are valued CAN be measured externally. There's these things called polls, you should look into them.
>>1136972
>Yes, and from this you get that specifically your conception of christardianity is true?
It's specifically consistent in spiritual knowledge, yes. More than any other religion, in fact the only spiritually consistent religion.
>>1137060
You're free to outline what the problem is if it doesn't have anything to do with inflicting suffering.
>>1134231
Have you ever study philosophe at all ? It's deeply rooted in science and students are often forced to take courses in maths and various sciences.
Most modern philosophes will talk about science almost everytime, the only exception would be French theory members like Derida and Foucault which were, it's true, quite popular in the us
>>1137069
>It's specifically consistent in spiritual knowledge, yes. More than any other religion, in fact the only spiritually consistent religion.
And you get from that to "this is true" how? Presuppositions aside. People have been consistently wrong about more than a couple of things.
>>1137060
You're not killing anything. Theres nothing alive at that point.
The other points you mentioned are blatant nonsense and reading comprehension on your part.
There is no ethical problem if nothing can suffer or enjoy the consequences. Jizzing into a napkin is not an ethical problem, abortion isnt either.
Assuming you're actually talking about the problem that is usually the problem, "the fetus is alive, youre murdering a baby, they have faces, they have souls", shit like that. Otherwise maybe you mean that abortion doctors are badly paid, no idea then.
>>1137069
>in fact the only spiritually consistent religion.
Explain this bullshit
>>1134231
Descartes and pretty much everyone after him figured out you cant necessarily trust the senses
>>1137077
The life of a fetus is ontologically the same life of a person, that is the life starts there and exists continuously outside the womb, it is one continuous life.
>>1137079
Fuck you think he's gonna suddenly have a good explanation here? He's gonna go into a "religious seizure" and talk about the glory of the lord because he feels it so deep inside that it makes him cry. Like every other religious fanatic.
>>1137040
i dont realy have one other than not screwing people over if i care about them and not causing problems to others if they dont ask for it
but if i got a girl pregnant the momentary consciousnes of the fetus wouldnt be any kind of issue or factor in weather its aborted, i mean if any one of us took such bullshit moral escapism seriously when making that kind of decision id consider us both retarded
do you get that the decision there is killing the kid you made and that fetal microbiology and brain function has nothing meaningfull to add to this, it doesnt say yes or no, let alone solve the ethical problem for you, as if it would help you if it did
>>1137091
"The life" starts, at minimum, at the beginning of our universe if we were to go by your retarded ontological argument (Look at me, my birthday is on the same day as Newton's). Possibly never, if the universe is infinite. Time to accept that what we define and how we define is in some sense arbitrary.
Continuity is no justification to throw out change in category.
>>1137091
Garbage. A human life starts when the brain starts showing coherent activity, and thats way after the first trimester. You are talking religiously inspired horseshit.
>>1137026
See, shit like this. He just asserts a fetus counts as a human life, even though its factually just garbage. he just "chooses to think" of a few human cells as comparable to a fulyl formed human being. Even though theres no brain in there, or anything really. Its the same as a clump of cancer cells. He doesn't care. His faith says otherwise.
Is his voice a problem for the definition of what a living human being is? No. Hes just talking shit, even if its with conviction. Hes just wrong, and is not allowed to change his mind due to his faith. Not every argument and voice needs to be taken seriously.
>>1137100
What the fuck are you even talking about anymore? What kid are you suddenly killing?
>fetal microbiology and brain function has nothing meaningfull to add to this
Understanding that nothing conscious is being harmed adds a lot to the equation. If it doesn't it's because you're a dogmatic moron who can't even substantiate his opinion besides appeals to emotion.
>>1137100
For you, the fact that there is really no difference ethicly between a fetus in the first trimester and something like a hair follicle or a piece of skin, or a pimple, just hasn't sunk in yet.
You are not killing anything, there is no kid.
If using a condom is not killing millions of kids, then an early abortion is not either. There is just noone there to kill, certainly no baby. Its just a mindfuck mistake of intuition that you think abortion means killing anything.
>>1137072
its about killing a living human fetus, ending a pregnancy, i thouth that was clear
>>1137077
if it wasnt alive it would cause a infection if not surgicaly removed
the sucking thing with the rotating whachamacallit goes in an vacumes it out in bits, thus rendering the fetus dead
so its technicaly killing a human fetus, which means ending a human life
so theres a ethical problem
that it does not suffer trough it does not solve this problem, its not a question of sentimental reaction or religious belief, its a ethical dilema
>>1137142
>its about killing a living human fetus, ending a pregnancy, i thouth that was clear
I asked you what's the ethical problem there you thunderous asstard.
>>1137028
>Personally, I'd much rather spend 10 seconds actually proud of a personal achievement, than an entire day orgasming.
Irrelevant. We directly target the mechanism in your brain that causes feelings of well-being. That's what drugs do, simpleton.
>There's these things called polls
They can tell me nothing about what makes *you* happy. If we follow the polls, most likely government policy will end up going for the equivalent of orgasming all day.
You are not very good at this arguing business, contradicting yourself like that.
>>1137148
how is that not clear, its basic bioethics
>>1137110
No, the life doesn't start there. A life is what goes hand-in-hand with the existence of a continuous lifeform. Without the concept of distinct lifeforms, murder is no different from breaking a cup.
>>1137117
>A human life starts when the brain starts showing coherent activity
No, the life present earlier than that doesn't terminate with brain function and get replaced by a different life.
>>1137150
>Irrelevant.
No, it's perfectly relevant. I just outlined how one makes a distinction between simple mindless pleasure and a long term one that is valued more.
>They can tell me nothing about what makes *you* happy.
They can tell you a lot about a lot of people. That is an external measure of preference.
Hell, you can just ask one person and get a poll with a sample of one. Still an external measurement, and tells me what makes (You) happy specifically.
>If we follow the polls, most likely government policy will end up going for the equivalent of orgasming all day.
Probably not, considering most people do not spend their days in a drug-induced stupor. But you're free to substantiate this fatuous claim anytime.
>You are not very good at this arguing business, contradicting yourself like that.
wew lad
>>1137142
>if it wasnt alive it would cause a infection if not surgicaly removed
Uh, see thats what I mean, you're factually wrong here, your intuition is misrepresenting the facts to you =}
Your hair follicles don't need to be removed. Or your moles. Yet its not murder removing them is it.
Does a fetus have the possibility to be come a human? Only given the right conditions, fed nutrients by a placenta, kept at right temperature etc.
But, under the right conditions, a mole also can become a person, you can clone a person from any cell of your body.
The potential for a person does not equal being a person.
And even if its more cells: if you shut off the lifesupport of a braindead body, are you killing anyone? No. There is noone there to kill. Same with a fetus. No brain, no person there. Yes, its human tissue. So is a mole. Removing either is not murder, or killing, there is nothing there to kill.
Your intuition can tell you different, but you have to support that with a reasoned argument for it to matter. Its not an ethical problem if you burn a doll that someone thinks is a real child, in hte sense that you a killing something. (you are causing harm to the person attached to the doll obviously, but thats a different part of the problem).
>>1137173
>A life is what goes hand-in-hand with the existence of a continuous lifeform.
Oh, I'm sorry, so it's just "billions of years ago" that I was born. My bad.
>Without the concept of distinct lifeforms, murder is no different from breaking a cup.
And without the concept of distinct levels of consciousness, a wank is no different from genocide.
>>1137198
>And without the concept of distinct levels of consciousness, a wank is no different from genocide.
This is a decent point against normal people but Constantine actually thinks this.
>>1137181
> Without the concept of distinct lifeforms, murder is no different from breaking a cup.
Who are you implying has no concept of distinct lifeforms?
>>1137198
>Oh, I'm sorry, so it's just "billions of years ago" that I was born.
How is it that the lifeform referred to as "you" started billions of years ago? Your life functions didn't exist then.
>And without the concept of distinct levels of consciousness, a wank is no different from genocide.
Sperm is not genetically a human being. A fetus, however, is.
>>1136270
>this post is made
>but the thread fucking continues
It's practically proof of this part:
>this is called philosophy, without this entire societies get stuck in mass intelectual autism and fail to percieve forms of bullshit so blatant it hurts to hear them spoken out loud
>>1137207
Lifeforms wouldn't be distinct if you date them simply from the start of reality itself.
>>1137178
You are, maybe deliberately, mabye from ignorance, confusing two things.
Living tissue, and a human life.
You are certainly killing living tissue, same as you do when you scratch yourself and remove a few skincells.
You are not killing a human life.
Glad we could clear that up, tell your churchleaders so they can finally start using condoms, and stop the retarded unnecessary aids epidemic thats fueled by christian idiocy.
Done on this thread, you guys have a nice night!
>>1134231
>Hey how do you know the things you see are actually real?
>>1137138
im not appealing to emotion, im not even saying we wouldnt do it, depending on the situation i can easily imagine it happening, or she might do it on her own, its not like id chain her, we wouldnt be exactly euphoric about it, its a fucked up deal in several ways, but the various biometrics and microbiological facts about fetuses wouldnt realy much enter into the ethical dimensions of what is done, one way or another wed just have to make up our minds and deal with that
the important part is that the notion that this or that set of biological facts pretaining to fetal brain function proves its not conscious would in no way solve the ethical problem
this is a clear logical problem and the point, beyond and above any possible moral solution, is that you dont get it and that facts on biology alone cant fix that
same as knowing h2o is water cant tell you what to think about water
>>1137223
Skin cells are not genetically the same lifeforms as human beings.
>>1137211
>How is it that the lifeform referred to as "you" started billions of years ago? Your life functions didn't exist then.
What are you calling "life functions" and what's their relevance?
>Sperm is not genetically a human being. A fetus, however, is.
A cancer is a real human bean, too.
>>1137214
That's applying your mode of thinking as stated before. There is no point you can draw, if you say that mere continuity makes an adult no different from a zygote.
>>1137181
>I just outlined how one makes a distinction between simple mindless pleasure and a long term one that is valued more
... by your own subjective judgement? So back to undercutting your own argument I see.
>>1137247
>What are you calling "life functions" and what's their relevance?
I mean the signs which signify life as opposed to lifelines. Their relevance is that you, as a human being, have one continuous life, and it starts before you're born.
>A cancer is a real human bean, too.
A cancer cell does not have a continuous, human life.
>There is no point you can draw, if you say that mere continuity makes an adult no different from a zygote.
Of course an adult is different, that doesn't mean that they aren't both human lives.
>>1137248
>... by your own subjective judgement? So back to undercutting your own argument I see.
Nicely done ignoring the rest of the post once more, but subjective judgements are a part of objective reality, and can be measured. As I pointed out to you several times now.
>>1137275
as opposed to *lifelessness
>>1137275
>Their relevance is that you, as a human being, have one continuous life, and it starts before you're born.
You described your mode of thinking without describing its significance.
What's so magic about "human life", pray tell?
>>1137289
From a secular, materialist perspective? Absolutely nothing.
>>1137296
>From a secular, materialist perspective? Absolutely nothing.
First, I congratulate you on your strawman use. Several godless secularists have pointed out to you the significance.
But second, I asked -you-. So answer instead of evading you little turd.
>>1137300
Human beings have special souls which manifest and express themselves in life. Each soul is sacred, and precious, because souls are made to become godlike.
Soul Rankings:
Gold - philosophers, revolutionary leaders in history
Silver - scientists, doctors, soldiers, scholars / professors, archaeologists, engineers, artists, architects
Bronze - lower ranking politicians and government officials, business men / wageslaves, priests / clergymen, civil servants, blue collar workers, miscellaneous low class workers, internet forum dwellers
>>1137302
Is there any proof to go with your mad ramblings?
>>1137309
Consider, if you could accomplish mitosis, would both entities be you? No. The one you remain is that which carries your soul, the other has a new soul.
>>1137302
I love it that you actually tried to hide this idiocy for several posts in a row there, at least you're honest. Now I'm free to tap out, and you're free to fuck off to >>>/x/.
>>1137276
Have you really not worked out the most basic problems with your own arguments? I guess not, in your euphoria, you didn't feel you needed to.
If "well-being" is subjectively defined, how do you decide on competing claims for well-being? Person A when polled says he kinda enjoys object X. Person B says he really enjoys it. So it goes to person B. All well and good, but person B actually just didn't want A to have the object and lied. Uh oh, a sub-optimal system.
You could of course just measure their actual brain states, but then we are back to the drugs: if we can manipulate the brain state to such an extent that it reaches the desired state, or better, the drugs are superior, based on observation of the brain state.
Other value systems, like inalienable property rights, deal with these issues much better, whatever else their faults. Real philosophy of course concerns questions that precede even those issues.
You are just dabbling in babby's first philosophy without realizing it.
>>1137316
Considering consciousness is a process and not some ill-defined, arcane object, if I literally split my brain in half both persons would be "me" in the sense that both have separate parts of what make me up right now. If it happened in some form of gestation period like a phoenix jellyfish, I'd be dead for all intents and purposes, and birth two clones in my wake.
>>1137318
>if you aren't a materialist, you belong on /x/
/his/ isn't /sci/
>>1137033
>you can't force one person to donate their body for months to another person.
Yes you can
>>1137324
You assume that absolute accuracy is the point of thinking in these terms. It isn't the goal, it's not even relevant. Better than 50% is good enough for me.
>>1137335
Your brain would we duplicated, properly speaking, not hemispherectomized. And no, only one would be a continuation of you, unless you wouldn't object to the other one sleeping with your spouse.
>>1137344
>Your brain would we duplicated, properly speaking, not hemispherectomized.
>properly speaking
What's the method of this duplication?
>And no, only one would be a continuation of you, unless you wouldn't object to the other one sleeping with your spouse.
You don't get to say "no" when I outlined to you in what scenario it would be the case as you didn't even try to dispute that scenario.
>>1137358
>What's the method of this duplication?
Mitosis, which involves division but is still not the same thing as a hemispherectomy.
>You don't get to say "no" when I outlined to you in what scenario it would be the case as you didn't even try to dispute that scenario.
That's because there would not be a moment of death at any point, so it's clearly wrong.
>>1137374
>Mitosis, which involves division but is still not the same thing as a hemispherectomy.
Mitosis does not happen with brains. I asked you to explain how you propose this would happen.
>That's because there would not be a moment of death at any point, so it's clearly wrong.
What? It is objectively correct that a split brain patient's separate lobes contain different aspects of the formerly full brain. "It's clearly wrong" is not substantiation.
>>1137302
>Human beings have special souls
Sounds like the arrogance of a megalomaniac.
All "beings" (the notion of which is a crude analysis of reality to begin with, since all things come to pass in accordance with the transitory nature of the universe) are "special," and the "soul" is always just the round-about summation of one's analysis of what defines and characterizes an entity, but given "special" indefinite beingness on the part of the analyzer, because the particular analyzer who speaks of "souls" in this way is oft a weakling who must flee to some abstract existence, far away from the highly competitive "material" world, in order to feel any kind of elevating power in oneself.
>>1137392
>Mitosis does not happen with brains. I asked you to explain how you propose this would happen.
It doesn't happen, but hypothetically it would be each cell in the brain dividing.
> It is objectively correct that a split brain patient's separate lobes contain different aspects of the formerly full brain.
It's wrong to say the subject dies.
>>1137397
So you don't see a human life as any more valuable than a fruitfly's?
>>1137415
>It doesn't happen, but hypothetically it would be each cell in the brain dividing.
And what of the synapses as they're dividing? Where are they even dividing into?
>It's wrong to say the subject dies.
That's absolutely correct. And did I say that? No, I said that both brains would be "me", so why are you bringing this up except as some sidestep or misdirection?
>So you don't see a human life as any more valuable than a fruitfly's?
Are you actually a dumb cunt or are you pretending to be when your arguments fall apart? We value human life more because humans are capable of experiencing and understanding more. "Life" is not a magic word, and neither is "human life".
>>1137415
>So you don't see a human life as any more valuable than a fruitfly's?
From a universal scope of analysis, or an attempt to analyze as universally considerate as possible, no. Both are a part of the same massive, endless stream of infinite, interconnected transitoriness.
But on a personal level — it depends on the human life we're talking about. Some humans are uglier, more damaging, and more pathetic than a fruitfly.
