Physics replaced natural philosophy.
The scientific method solved epistemology.
Math took over logic.
Which field of philosophy are we gonna make obsolete next?
evolution already replaced ontology so like whatever man
scientism is toxic
what's next anon. at some point there would be nothing left in this world for me to be interested on. should I just kill myself?
>>8189985
Since when did the scientific method solve epistemology? That's asinine
Philosophy doesn't become obsolete. A topic in philosophy expands enough to become it's own subject. Every subject stems from philosophy.
>>8189999
If you're not a brainlet, you'll inevitably reach the conclusion that life has no meaning. The only smart reaction is to become nihilistic and depressed.
>>8190020
Nihilism is the result of bad existentialism.
Life is not meaningless if you choose to give it personal meaning while you are still alive.
>>8190027
what are some examples of this personal meaning?
>>8189985
>The scientific method solved epistemology.
>solved epistemology
lol, prove it
>>8190903
>>8190027
>Meaning
>Emotional association governed by various structures situated within the brain, including the amygdala: the organ of emotionally associated memory.
>Some form of objective property of the universe and not merely an aspect of our internal simulation
>Qualia is entirely representative of the external reality
Hahahahahahahaha.
>>8190950
Scientific theories which have stood the test of time, also known as scientific facts, display a degree of positive correlation with pertinent aspects the external reality far beyond that of chance.
>>8190990
That sounds an awful lot like an argument stemming from an epistemological stance, to me. Hm, funny how that tends to work out...
>>8190996
Well yes, as it's a scientific argument and science is the logical end point of epistemology.
Science is philosophy.
It relies on informally logical hypotheses that are falsifiable and often incorporates formally logical mathematical models, which tested via experimentation.
Science is modern day philosophy.
Philosophy that is not scientific, is outdated - theology tier - drivel.
>>8191008
>Philosophy that is not scientific, is outdated - theology tier - drivel.
Thanks for getting right to it. That's where most of your opinion stems from, a hangup on what you see as unsubstantial and worthless philosophy. I advise letting go of the past, letting go of other people, and looking into the history of philosophy for yourself. Start with a guy named "Democritus", then see how he relates to the ideas about void, and change, around Plato and Socrates' general time.
As for science being modern day philosophy, that's about as narrow and incorrect as a mindset can possibly get on the matter. Science is composed of formalized philosophical ideas, if it is to be made anything, it is a subset, not a superset. The realm of philosophy is much wider than science, and that's why the old and pseudo-new keep bumping into each other.
One thing to keep in mind is that science says little about higher meaning, implication, or truth of a given dataset, people do. Be aware of the mental structures they're using to do so, such that you can avoid being drawn in and riding their endless waves of "we know", "woops, we don't know" [...].
>>8191013
Ive studied philosophy, in fact it's his I started out.
Please tell me what philosophy has to offer, or what it deals with, that science cannot and does not do a much better job of?
>>8191026
to know that you approximate something, is to know that you have the exact result and the approached result and the delta between the two result
>>8191024
>faith in scientific realism
>based
>>8191024
Science is philosophy.
>>8191024
Nah Anon, I've had this conversation before and I've other things to do than go there with you. We likely have fundamentally different perspectives on what it is to be realistic and intellectually honest, and we also probably have incompatible internal value systems. The mere fact that you'd ask such a question makes this implicit. It's not worth either of us trying to concisely convey a logical framework that accurately says what we are, and what we've been. The ancillary aspects of any statement that otherwise exists in a vacuum or is misinterpreted all to hell.
A mind without philosophy, in the context of science, is a worthless one.
>>8191026
No, that is most certainly science, because it's people. Science is a tool, and for one reason or another, that's how the human species works. With the fucked up mess that is modern research and publishing, this has only gotten worse.
Got other shit to do. Go watch Ghost in the Shell or something, good movie. This conversation brought it to mind.
>>8191039
Ok anon, thank you for running away.
I'm genuinely interested in what philosophy has to offer.
>>8191048
I don't think you are.
If you really claim you are, I suppose I can risk wasting some time. I've got a pounding headache though, so I'll ditch you at a moment's notice if it turns into something I don't feel like dealing with.
>>8191055
Mate, I will patiently listen to everything you have to say and calmly refute arguments from my perspective, while eagerly awaiting your own refutations.
Let’s engage in dialectics.
No rhetoric, no fallacy and no ad hominem.
I genuinely want to learn.
Let’s get Socratic up in here.
>>8191066
If that's the format you're interested in, you could ultimately harvest all the same fruit and more, by taking a reverse engineering approach to figure out how my brain generated a given output, what mental structures are involved, how to replicate it yourself, etc.
Instead, let's just have a conversation. No high stakes nonsense, no bias towards hard refutation where one need not necessarily exist. Etc.
We'll start with solipsism and what it reveals about epistemology as a whole.
What do you think of solipsism?
>>8191084
Ok, fine let's keep it light.
>What do you think of solipsism?
I think that cognitive illusions and biases, as well as delusions, omissions and hallucinations falsify solipsism.
>>8191098
How so?
>>8191101
Actually, scratch that; I misinterpreted the question.
Well, I think that it’s a pretty cool perspective and as we cannot know anything for certain, that even scientifically verified causation is actually just a high degree of correlation and that the mere fact that observe something changes its form entirely, I would have to agree that it’s a caveat that should be implied when making any statement about scientific ‘truth’.
However, I don’t really see what else can be done with it after that.
For me it’s like: ‘yeah totally man, anyway let’s get on with the science now and try to build better integrated circuits and think about new approaches to gene therapy’.
>>8191107
I think it has utility.
In my opinion, knowledge can only be called a framework of relative truths wherein all elements are inherently uncertain and therefore weighted by apparent probability while controlling for know, and known possible unknown, sources of error. Initially I rejected that knowledge was possible in any meaningful way, but realizing that it has no inherent connection to truth reconciles that fairly well. At such a point, a given system whether animate or not, can contain knowledge about a number of things even if it isn't capable of knowing about its own knowing.
In considering all of this, a person is made to acknowledge a number of things about what it is to "know", and what can be known, as well as an array of useful "types" for knowledge. I see solipsism as a base impenetrable barrier, it's logically incapable of being reduced further. It shows the axioms everything is necessarily built on, logic, reason, the senses, can't be substantiated themselves. Obviously you'd have to be using the mind and the senses to prove the mind and the senses. This unearths that many things are taken on faith (or apathy around error), and that faith must be either stripped or consciously acknowledged and controlled for. Many people, in science as well, don't like to admit when they don't truly know what they want to think they do. This causes problems. If a person has useful epistemological positions, this is more easily controlled for, including as far as the hardwired heuristics, other biases, artifacts of sensory processing, logical blind spots, etc that you mentioned earlier. And it all is able to stem from delving into one simple supposition, then rebuilding.
There are other consequences, like the idea of what a thing "is" relative to the notion of scale. For example:
[will continue in the next post]
>>8191137
You often see the debate over what "you" are, not in a dualism / reductionist sense, but in a strictly mechanical one. Where does this "body" thing begin, where does it end. How do you delineate body from not body, or should you? Are "singular" objects actually arbitrary? I would say they are, though our mental hardware has specialized networks of pyramidal cells devoted to fast complex object recognition, so we're biased towards framing a "thing" in a certain way. Nonetheless, the existence of a forest doesn't invalidate that there is also individual trees, and likewise with the body and its cells, various bacteria, etc. Everything is like a single cluster of arbitrary granularity in a grand mechanical waterfall, where the downward flow is time.
I think solipsism, as an indirect consequence, also allows this looser thinking that still maps quite well with our ideas about objective reality. As another example, it's quite clear that one's own heart is distinctly their organ, and keeps them alive. But what about the sun? In a given moment in time, its functions sustain a given organism (machine / particle system) to continue its processes as much as its circulation.
It's all tied together, is I suppose what I'm saying. The scope of philosophy is good for lateral thinking which allows novel insight to ongoing dilemmas in science. It's a two way feedback system between science in philosophy, to an extent.
>>8189989
>evolution already replaced ontology
4chan is for posters over the age of 18
>>8191130
Sorry. That started out concise into turned into a wall of text.
>>8191137
>>8191142
>You often see the debate over what "you" are, not in a dualism / reductionist sense, but in a strictly mechanical one. Where does this "body" thing begin, where does it end. How do you delineate body from not body, or should you?
I’d say this relates to the hard problem of consciousness and that it will either be transcended by science, or it won’t.
For me, this is a question for cognitive scientists.
I can’t say whether we will ever have an understanding of how organic structures translate into conscious experience, although I hope we do.
Anyway, I completely agree with everything you are saying.
I might have failed to clarify that I understand that the majority of allegedly scientific minds have little understanding of philosophy, as well as interdisciplinary approaches to scientific questions.
This bothers me as much as it does you.
>>8191164
I'm inclined to think that consciousness will never be truly, and absolutely, resolved by scientific endeavor. You'll probably still have matters remaining like I mentioned with scale, or are mental operations local but consciousness is being projected and created from elsewhere, or injected from something outside what we think is the universe.
Even though as it stands, modern transcranial magnetic stimulation has substantiated what was discovered by the CIA during their MKUltra deal, that there does exist in a point in the brain that if interrupted produces instantaneous complete loss of any useful consciousness. The CIA researches likely used very intense, but subsonic sound waves focused in a narrow directional cone to jostle the brain through the skull, TMS just prevents an action potential, to a similar end. Strange how that works out. But even so, just like the necessary faith in the nature of the mind (that oneself is part of a greater objective reality), and the accuracy of one's senses, it does little to get by that base solipsistic / dualist barrier. Which is why it comes down to weighting by probability.
Philosophically, for me, it ultimately resolved down to one main question. Are the means for the universe to exist, do what it does, and be what it is, entirely self contained, and can it be proven as such. Or is it reliant on some sort external force. Perhaps machinery, that's generating it. Intentionally or otherwise. There's also ideas about universes existing in blackholes, where matter might take on quite foreign but orderly forms. All it takes for complex machines like life to form are a ruleset and state that support it. I suppose philosophy can be seen as a guide that may not in your lifetime take you where it says you could go. Although it is important to also be wary of overfixation...
Anyway. It's 5:30 am here. I'm tired, sleep will remove the headache. I hope our exchange has been valuable.
>>8191197
>I'm inclined to think that consciousness will never be truly, and absolutely, resolved by scientific endeavor.
Well, we don’t know.
>You'll probably still have matters remaining like I mentioned with scale, or are mental operations local but consciousness is being projected and created from elsewhere, or injected from something outside what we think is the universe.
We’ll either figure that out or we won’t.
>it does little to get by that base solipsistic / dualist barrier.
We’ll also either find out whether that is the case, or we won’t.
>Are the means for the universe to exist, do what it does, and be what it is, entirely self contained, and can it be proven as such. Or is it reliant on some sort external force. Perhaps machinery, that's generating it. Intentionally or otherwise.
Well that’s what theoretical physicists are working on.
>Although it is important to also be wary of overfixation...
I agree, completely.
>Anyway. It's 5:30 am here. I'm tired, sleep will remove the headache. I hope our exchange has been valuable.
It most certainly has and ok sleep well anon dude bro lad m8.
Isn't ontology pretty much subsumed by quantum physics?
>>8190020
git gud fedoracuck
>>8190020
Our existence is a lucky chance but wouldnt that be a reason to enjoy it more. Think of all the factors that had to align for all of it to work
>>8191804
cuckcuckuckcuckcuck
cuck
KEK
>>8191825
Lol. Cuck in all caps is filtered to "KEK".
>>8191823
How am I supposed to enjoy it if it is so full of suffering?
>>8193185
>he doesn't use his own enjoyment to reduce overall suffering.
>>8191823
>making comments about probability with a sample size of 1
hello rebbit?
How can you use the scientific method to predict:
>What your next thought will be?
>Whether of not you choose to express that though and why?
>What will be your first word if you choose to do so?
>Whether people will agree with it or not and why?
>Why can't you not think of anything for more than a few seconds at a time?
>Who or what is the author of you thoughts?
>What is a thought?
>What is a language?
>What is Symbol?
>What is the material underpinning of information?
>What is morality?
>What is art or music?
>What is spirituality?
>Why is man be the only creature that is not as "it should be"?
>>8193453
You can't use philosophy to answer any of those things either.
>>8193481
You sort of can but you have to dissolve the boundary between philosophy and spirituality.
>tfw a model most people relate to but cannot put into words vs. a model most people can put into words but cannot relate to
>>8189985
>Math took over logic.
Hi Bertrand.
>>8190987
don't hurt yourself with that edge, kid
>>8191773
you clearly don't understand either of the two
>>8191145
Well yeah but it's not not, you know what I mean?
