/his/ seems to have a contempt for empiricism and a love for sophistry.
That's 4chan in general, Hume.
>>934942
/his/ is full of wannabe philosophers who are desperately trying to convince themselves they still have something worthwhile to contribute
>>935218
That sounds like the whole field of philosophy, trying to sell your inherently worthless thoughts in a world which changes through action.
>>934942
No. Empiricism is OK, it is positivism that is despised, and with good reasons.
Hume in particular is a good philosopher and his skepticism puts him above any delusional positivist.
>>935218
Especially hipster ones who vastly contradict contemporary philosophical views with sweeping judgments
I'm looking at Christchanners in specific
Also OP Hume is a sophist
>>936654
tell me the difference because I really can't see it. from what i've seen it's akin saying you don't have a problem with black people, it's niggers that's the problem.
>>935218
/his/ is actually pretty good when they begin to sperg out in metaphysical vs physical; or rather, supernatural vs natural; or rather, thought vs matter; or rather, outer world vs inner world.
I learned quite a few things on here, and the one that has shocked me the most to date is the fact that matter is not perfectly conserved in energy exchange systems.
>>936700
>matter is not perfectly conserved in energy exchange systems
What.
>>936705
Yeah. Apparently matter just dissipates and turns into literally nothing.
>>936712
Wait no I'm bullshitting. Matter turns into energy and the total mass-energy in enclosed system remains the same as long as it doesn't escape.
Nevermind my other post.
>>936716
Okay, I was going to say.
Even in nuclear reactions:
The number of particles, Net charge, Energy, and Momentum are conserved.
>>936670
Empiricism points that ideas are born from our senses and there aren't inmates ideas. It doesn't pretend that those ideas give us a true knowledge of the external world (see Hume's fork), as there is no basis for believing on induction or causality.
Positivism in the other hand pretends that trough verifications science can have a true understanding of our world. Which olympically ignores all the problems pointed out by empiricism.
Positivism is like "you know what, fck it, let's do inductions and trust our senses just because".
>>936728
*there aren't INNATE ideas, sorry.
>>936728
> It doesn't pretend that those ideas give us a true knowledge of the external world
>(see Hume's fork)
> through Hume's fork as well as Hume's problem of induction, was taken as a threat to Newton's theory of motion.
So it's wrong?
>>936771
Critique on causation and induction undermines the epistemological validity of any scientific theory.
Are you asking me if Hume is wrong just because it contradicts a widely accepted theory?
No.
As far as I'm concerned, all Hume did was prove that cucks are insecure and should let their women do as they please for, after-all, you cannot reasonably speculate (much less inferr) that your wife bringing young men to her home when you're out doesn't mean they're doing the good old in and out and that paternity tests aren't valid since there isn't a guarantee that the two child will always have the same dna as both parents.
>>936842
>you can't acquire knowledge through observations
You do understand this is why this field has become largely irrelevant? I'm not even going to respond to your rebuttal to this.
>>936959
this desu fampaitachi
logical positivism is objectively right, what is wrong is that our language is meme-tier and can't arrive at why
>>935863
Spoken like someone who's never studied philosophy
>Hume's fork can be turned against itself. He comes by it a priori.
>We can demonstrate this by substituting the words "divinity and metaphysics" with "Fork" in the following quote:
>If we take in our hand, the fork, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.[8] - An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding
>It actually is really that simple. Hume seems to enjoy a prominent standing among many skeptics, but his thinking oftentimes seems to refute itself, as utunumsint demonstrated above. I believe Elizabeth Anscombe was the one that referred to him as a "mere brilliant sophist" and I think the description is probably apt. Although Hume's fork was the result of following some of Descartes' theories to their logical conclusions, so Descartes is probably a culprit as well.
>>936728
But in a rational Universe everything can be verified given enough knowledge.
People in the 1200's had no idea about the atom and quantum physics.
Because people back then didn't know about quantum physics did not mean that stuff was non-existent.
However, its just now that we are verifying that through science with the large hadron colider.
I firmly believe that in the next 50,000 years man (if they don't destroy themselves or find a hostile space faring civilization with more guns) will have the technology to prove things like qualia.
That said, I have a feeling that qualia is simply a mental construct used to justify the existence of philosophy majors as STEM degrees actually put a man on the moon and created the internet.
Really, does it matter if science can or cannot prove qualia? If we can't falsify it or the existence god, what matter does it make if neither qualia or god makes civilization progress.
>>936978
Does hume explain why numbers mean anything? or is it just a matter of preference? is thought itself a matter of quantity?
Can ideas be found in fact? they certainly do exist
>>936986
What is Qualia?
>>937025
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia
>>937025
A word used by people who have nothing of actual value to say to scam new-age retards into giving them their money.
>>937028
So just a persons individual views?
>>937059
More like their distinct mental impressions.
>>937059
No, what he means is that by some bizarre ass magic someone will be able to prove the way consciousness as an experience in itself comes on about, which will never happen, because it doesn't exist in nature in a way that doesn't involve the interaction of forces and minerals.
To put it in simpler terms, people will not be able to find the color red other than in specific wavelength, and accompanying processes in the eye and brain which involve the sensation of seeing color red.
>>937065
>people will never figure out consciousness. Ever.
So sayeth a 4channer from anno 2016.
Therefore it shall be true forever.
>>937091
>>937091
Well, they will figure it the way one can figure a processor out. It's just a bunch of 0s and 1s.
Sure, software exists, and you'd have to be retarded to deny it, but it really is just a combo of a lot of processes. Nothing that holds a "spirit" or whatever.
it's either that, or the soul exists.
David Hume is a big guy.
>>937108
By the way, I don't mean that consciousness is just a bunch of 0s and 1s, I'm just using it as an example.
But they won't be able to go beyond it. They will have to say, "these specific neurons firing in this pathway IS the color red" if they wish to arrive at a definitive conclusion. But color red, as such, will never be found because consciousness doesn't exist (as such).
>>934942
>/his/ seems to have a contempt for empiricism
Really? Because /his/ is the only place I've been able to have a reasonable discussion about Berkeley.
>>937108
>Well, they will figure it the way one can figure a processor out.
There's nothing interesting about a processor. It's just a bunch of transistors. Just like the brain is a bunch of neurons that we have pretty much mapped out. The interesting part is the process itself.
>it's either that, or the soul exists.
There's no evidence for a soul and ample evidence that literally everything about us as persons is reducible to brain activity.
>>937112
>because consciousness doesn't exist (as such).
So why is death or pain a bad thing?
>>937131
Follow up question: does this mean that disruptions of consciousness don't exits (as such).
>>937135
Nope.
Remembering the movie watchmen, Dr. Manhattan himself says that there's no difference between a living body and a dead one.
>>937139
OK, so following this through, what possible reason is there to pursue scientific knowledge?
>>937147
I didn't mean to deny the existence of consciousness. Only that consciousness doesn't exist outside of processes.
What I mean is, you can't observe consciousness outwardly, only inwardly.
>>936986
This just seems like a desperate attempt to put the quantifiable on a golden pedestal.
Of course you can assume that only STEM fields are relevant in what you are defining/assuming is a 'rational world.'
The two can coexist, even compliment one another: we couldn't have nuclear engineering without the groundwork of theoretical physics laid out beforehand, we couldn't have behavioral psychology without a pre-existing philosophy of mind. In terms of the "progress of knowledge," time and again it is the qualitative that sets the groundwork and creates the conditions in which quantitative solutions can come in to being.
Or we could take the two in isolation and bash them against one another until the disappearance of man, maybe Foucault was right.
>>936967
Saying you know something is right but cant explain why because language is not a terribly convincing argument.
I'm torn really, I like positivism, but none of the critiques of Hume have convinced me that (true) knowledge is logically possible.
>>937151
>I didn't mean to deny the existence of consciousness.
>consciousness doesn't exist (as such).
>What I mean is, you can't observe consciousness outwardly, only inwardly.
In other words, you think the only way to observe consciousness is to observe where it does not exist, and ignore what you claim consciousness actually is.
>>937179
>I'm torn really, I like positivism, but none of the critiques of Hume have convinced me that (true) knowledge is logically possible.
True knowledge, as in absolute knowledge, is completely irrelevant.
Literally nothing we do is based on absolute knowledge. Buildings are built with 99% confidence they'll hold for at least 200 years. Cars are made with probabilistically expected lifetimes. This absolute knowledge shite is pure philistine sophistry.
>>937426
I agree with that, but that still leaves alot of philosophical problem.
living based off a method which is logically indefensible raises a few question
Rationalists know that they failed at proving their stances, especially the scientists. so they claim ''okay, at worst, our methods are just methods and we are glad that we managed to be paid for this''.
The point is that methods are not proven, it does not even make sense (like the pro0f of modus tollens does not make sense), but you still can manage to praised for inventing them.
>>937450
Methods are proven by successful results and applications. What else do you need?
>>936907
Still in 2016, a few men in relationship are astonished when they discover that they are cuckolds.
>>937448
It doesn't. These "logical questions" are irrelevant when there's no evidence of any other existence.
It's like the problem of solipsism. If you actually believe this is a problem with any relevance to our perceived existence, you can already be proven to be a hypocrite because you don't even believe it in any real sense except in one or two circumstances.
>>937450
Back to your cave.
>>937469
Science itself only makes sense in a certain logical frame work. If you say it works but it does not make sense, there are conclusions we logically have to draw from that.
You can simply say you dont care, but that doesn't answer the questions raised
>>937482
>You can simply say you dont care, but that doesn't answer the questions raised
You can only answer those questions with absolute knowledge. Absolute knowledge is unattainable, even in principle.
Again, if you actually think this is a problem, just sit in your chair there without drinking or eating (hurrrr can't know nuffin, who said i'm hungry) and die so we can be rid of these timewasting conversations.
>>936986
Why would I care about civilization progressing when there are foundational ontological structures to be searched for through unfalsifiable metaphysics ? Why should I care about civilization if it isn't giving me the means to explore metaphysics ? I don't see why technological progress is being seen as a golden cow here ?
>>937505
>I don't see why technological progress is being seen as a golden cow here ?
The problem is that you do, you're just pretending not to. The fact that you spend most of the day masturbating, physically and mentally, on this shithole, already proves how much of a hypocrite you are. Don't want progress? Go innawoods and stop annoying people.
>>937511
I spend most of my time at my university reading and writing philosophy, computers are useful in that I can access philosophy easier, their value is derivative to philosophy's value for me. I don't mind "progress" when it helps me at other things I enjoy- but it is ultimately derivative, not primary.
>>937530
>I spend most of my time at my university reading and writing philosophy
Yes, like I said, mental masturbation.
>but it is ultimately derivative, not primary
Come back when you understand that you cannot get at anything primary, even in principle.
>>937530
>things I enjoy
Logically substantiate this.
>>937538
You accused me of sitting around on 4chan all day- which was equated by you with me treating technological progress as a sacred cow like you do. What I pointed out was that what I enjoy doing requires as much technological progress as the ancient Greeks had. Which was prior to the falsifiable method you take as being sacrosanct. So your claim that I secretly value technological progress as you do, but am actually a hypocrite who denies it- is false.
>Come back when you understand that you cannot get at anything primary, even in principle.
I can get at the fact that I value technological progress as something derivative to my enjoyment of philosophy. Which is what I said there.
>>937549
You want me to "logically substantiate" the phrase " things i enjoy"? It's not even a proposition, what do you want me to do with it exactly? Or are you just an elaborate troll ?
>>937579
>You accused me of sitting around on 4chan all day
In /his/ specifically. Given that all you apparently do is waste time on your worthless philosophy degree, you might as well be here.
>It's not even a proposition, what do you want me to do with it exactly? Or are you just an elaborate troll ?
>it's not a proposition
TOP KEK
O
P
K
E
K
>>937579
>I can get at the fact that I value technological progress as something derivative to my enjoyment of philosophy. Which is what I said there.
And where does the denigration of science come in, in your worldview? You appreciate it for the "primary" enjoyment of sophistry that it allows you to perform (and a whole bunch of primary things, like foods and comforts that you're omitting); and that is also true of literally everyone on the planet. There you go, scientific progress is now a golden cow. There is zero reason for it to prove something unprovable.
>>937505
>>936987
Yes he does.
>>937108
>a processor is just a bunch of 1's and 0's
My sides.rofl
>>937601
>In /his/ specifically. Given that all you apparently do is waste time on your worthless philosophy degree, you might as well be here.
This has nothing to do with your former claim though. You are just deflecting from the fact that you have the reasoning ability of an 8th grader by insulting my degree.
It isn't a proposition, no matter how many memes you spout, to be a proposition you have to be able to have a truth value. " Things I enjoy" isn't a phrase with a truth value.
>>937630
But I would have no reason to eat If I couldn't do Philosophy. So technological progress still isn't a Golden cow to me and is derivative to Philosophy. I never denigrated Science, I just denied that only the technological progress it brings is valuable. I actually find physics interesting for its own sake- in the same way I find Philosophy interesting for it's own sake, just not as much.
Philosophy is clearly important for you as well, you would be able to make arguments that actually work if you took some philosophy courses. Which means you could try ti justify your golden cow without embarrassing yourself.
>>937806
>But I would have no reason to eat If I couldn't do Philosophy.
Is being dishonest a part of being a """"philosopher""""?
You eat because it feels good, just like philosophy.
>>937108
>Well, they will figure it the way one can figure a processor out. It's just a bunch of 0s and 1s.
Please tell me in what world the brain's make up is boolian?
>>937814
If I was told that I had to chose between never eating again and never doing philosophy again I would chose never eating and do Philosophy for a few days before I would die to the best of my ability. I eat so I can satisfy the hunger that would distract me from philosophy
>>937833
>I just denied that only the technological progress it brings is valuable
Nobody claimed only technological progress brings valuable things, just that it DOES bring valuable things by any metric you choose to use, including your example of understanding physics.
>If I was told...
'Kay, I'll just not believe your lies of asceticism and butt out of this nonversation.
>>937025
The computers will figure that out in 50 years but tell us they can't explain it to us.
>>937833
nice fantasy
you are not strong enough for doing this though
>>937203
No, to observe consciousness is to observe at the only place we can define it (from our own experiential awareness) and not try to observe it from our senses (which perceive the world out of it).
If you've seen that recent movie (forgot its name) where a couple of autists are trying to prove whether this female ai robot has actual intelligence (which I assume, in their definition, would include consciousness) you will see that at best they can only infer from several qualities that she is truly intelligent (or ai), but not ai in and on itself.
The guy in question was obviously aware of the complex circuitry in her "brain," but that itself wasn't sufficient for him either.
Because again, consciousness cannot be observed outwardly.
>>936728
Well it gives us true knowledge of the perceived world.
And from an utility point of view, the perceived is all you've got.
tell me beauty is not objective
>>939039
beauty is not objective.
>>934942
>empiricism
>not sophistry
>>938919
>
The guy in question was obviously aware of the complex circuitry in her "brain," but that itself wasn't sufficient for him either.
That's exactly backwards "if consciousness doesn't exist (as such)." He alone has knowledge of her consciousness. Since Qualia doesn't real, the circuits are the only thing that determines consciousness.
If your claims were true, him not knowing if this AI is conscious or not is identical to him not understanding the function of her circuitry.
>>939039
Beauty is not objective, and only faggot pedophiles would find that attractive.
>>936728
there is literally no difference between the two for practical purposes.
A scientist is welcome to believe that atoms truly exist or are merely a very good model of reality that we can put to good use and benefit our material wellbeing.
There is absolutely no difference.
The perceived world is all an individual can ever have so sure there is no way of verifying that your brain is not in a jar somewhere (although if it were then there would be no reason to suppose that brains exist at all since all the evidence you have ever been provided with of them existing will have been made up ), but there is also no point in even wondering about that.
There is also no point in crying about induction.
It is usually useful to trust that an experiment that gave us the same result under the same circumstances 100 times in a row will not give us dramatically different results under teh same circumstances tomorrow. It is on the basis of such assumptions that we use modern medicine, which benefits us. And most modern technology we trust to continue to obey the rules of physics as they have done thus far even though there is no proof that they will.
So yes complaining about induction is also useless. If you want to cry about induction without being a hypocrite then go live in a cave.
Philosophy students are so desperate to still be considered relevant that they embarrass themselves like this.
>>939327
Precisely.
>>937448
it isn't logically indefensible.
the defense is that it benefits us.
humanities students are such retards jesus christ
>>937530
You enjoy being alive thanks to modern medicine and agricultural production and engineering.
>>937448
>living based off a method which is logically indefensible raises a few question
You do understand that there's no other model to live by, right? Without empiricism/positivism, you don't have "muh logical defense" for eating whatever hipster shit you eat to sustain yourself.
>>937579
>I enjoy doing requires as much technological progress as the ancient Greeks had.
But this is false.
You can do what you do because you were born in a western country or to a moderately wealthy family in a 3rd world country.
The chance of you being born with similar opportunities in terms of access to education, access to food, the probability of being born in circumstances allowing you to survive childhood and infancy, are all much lower if you were alive in ancient greek times, or rennaissance times, or any other time in history.
It is thanks to technological progress made possible by scientific progress that you had a sucha good chance of being born to a life where you can enjoy these leisures.
You'd only be able to enjoy a similar life being born as a greek land-owner, which you would have a substantially smaller chance of being born as as compared with being born in non-3rd world country or an affluent family in a 3rd world country today.
>>937858
A poster stated that anything that doesn't "advance civilization" according to a standard of technological progress is useless. >>936986
I was responding to that and showed that no, the advancement of civilization is something derivative to other things, not the primary thing itself.
>>939456
It helps me to do it certainly, but it is not required as a matter of necessity. So no, you're retort doesn't work here.
>>937505
Because metaphysics are worthless sophistry.
Philosophy is for stupid people who don't want to feel stupid.
>>936986
Implying the world is rational and logic isn't just our system of understanding the world in the most efficient way. Truth can't be reached, just generalisations that make the world a more understandable place for us.
>>937505
>unfalsifiable metaphysics
>Why should I care about civilization if it isn't giving me the means to explore metaphysics
While I don't completely agree with >>940362 This is some top notch retardation.
>>937833
What are your thoughts on Hume, Stirner and Aquinas?
>>939451
Stemfag, do you know what falsasionism is? Being a defensor of science you should know.
Positivism is shit and even scientists -the true ones, not college pretenders- know it.
People who cling to the meme of verification and unfalsifiable do not even know why they think that it is a good idea.
>>939397
>A scientist is welcome to believe that atoms truly exist or are merely a very good model of reality that we can put to good use and benefit our material wellbeing.
>There is absolutely no difference.
Umm.... Yes there is
>>936968
Spoken like someone who needs to validate their career choice.
>>941971
My parents are rich.
Looks like you need to work harder than me in a field you secretly hate.
>>937630
Personally, I will argue that if you cannot falsify something then it doesn't exist and is just a mental construct.
Conciseness is just something meat zombies made up to make themselves feel better about the terrible reality that is life.
To be fair, mental constructs exist, but they are simply states of neurochemistry that make the meat zombies type large amount text into devices created by positivism.
>>940756
Nice evasion.
>>940395
Perhaps philosophy is for intelligent people who don't want to feel intelligent.
>according to the scientists, the scientists are able to explain nature and the secrets of the cosmos
>the scientists cannot even prove that other people are humans like me
>>935218
And what have you contributed?
>>941971
A philosophic mind requires self-awareness. Apparently, you are an automaton. You do nothing more than react, like an animal, based on predetermined instructions.
>>942279
Cringe 2bg
Can you tip the fedora any harder?
>>936978
>Not realizing Hume was saying that tongue in cheek.
It's ok, Wittgenstein thought he was being totally serious too. The positivists have no sense of humor
bouimp
