Philosophaggots BTFO

Yeah. And?

>None philosophy shows misunderstanding of philosophy and passes this misunderstanding onto others.

Shocker.

Searle is a hack, it is known, this isn't an indictment of philosophy.

>MIT
>implying autistic asians can into philosophy

>>1161638
>STEMautists BTFO
ftfy

>>I had to discontinue that lecture…
Murderer!

File: 1462058685907.png (15KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 500x500px

>Aronson

>>1161687
pretty much this. Searle's argument has been answered and challenged a million times (e.g. dennett) and he pretty much just keeps repeating it.

File: 1457165242637.jpg (75KB, 1152x1426px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 1152x1426px

>>1161638
Philosophy is just structuring and formalizing in natural languages.

mathematics are about formalizations of your speculations (which you form from your desire to see things that you experience [the empirical world, once you chose to objectify what you feel] through induction, as similar or dissimilar) to the point that you have a structure more formalized than your speculations structured in natural languages.

Logic is just a the formalization of your speculations about *validity of inferences*, so here logic is a formal part of mathematics.

It turns out that plenty of mathematical structures are cast into some formal deductive logic (like set theory formalizes your structures of numbers).
I meant your usual set theory cast in FOL. Set theory is just a structure too and it turns out that you can interpret a part of this structure as some kind of numbers.


Science is just claiming that your formalized structures (in formal languages or not) gives you access to some *reality*, more or less hidden with respect to what you are conscious of[=the empirical world, once you choose to ''externalize, objectify'' what you feel].
Same thing for the religions which go beyond empiricism [=claiming that you feel and think is **not** enough from which you choose to dwell in your mental proliferations].

Some mathematicians, typically Brouwer, think that mathematics should, equally to the speculations (however formalized) of the scientists, talk about the empirical world. So typically, your formal symbols are real entities: these entities belong to some world and they connect or not back to the empirical world.
to be clearer, the symbols are names of real entities and, since you begin always from the empirical world, this world constrains you on the creation and usage of these real entities. then these real entities can or cannot belong to some other world as well.

File: 1462550012073.jpg (85KB, 705x823px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 705x823px

>it's a philosophy vs. STEM episode

Secularism kills Philosophy.

you need religion in order to ask and ponder the big questions.

File: 1368327330559.jpg (40KB, 352x259px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 352x259px

>>1162478

File: philosophicaldebate.png (115KB, 460x588px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 460x588px

>>1162454
fix'd

>>1162454

>Science is just claiming that your formalized structures (in formal languages or not) gives you access to some *reality*, more or less hidden with respect to what you are conscious of

what the fuck

>to be clearer, the symbols are names of real entities and, since you begin always from the empirical world, this world constrains you on the creation and usage of these real entities. then these real entities can or cannot belong to some other world as well.

no shit

Seriously, the only reason why STEM people mock philosofaggots is because you can't do exactly this thing. Your speculations hold no value nor in this world nor in imaginary ones.

File: 1463159953826.png (128KB, 274x297px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 274x297px

>>1162194
Am I a STEMautsist if I'm majoring in math, yet realize the philosophy has it's place in society and it should be treated in a similar matter as mathematics?

>>1162598
Enlightenment philosophers were all religious.

>>1163876
same here m8 math major and a philosofag masterrace

>>1161638
Modern society now has a hard egalitarian view of everything, and it's annoying, because a premise that is physically true, to them, is always true no matter what, even if it's logically wrong, such as the chinese room experiment.

Take the ship of theseus for example. Let's suppose a ship was on the sea, and as it aged, it kept needing repairs; and after a while, the ship was bit-by-bit replaced with new boards; the crew got all the old parts that were replaced, and reassembled them exactly in order. So they now have two ships of thesus. So what is the original, the one that sailed and was repaired until it became entirely made of new boards, or the one that was reassembled from the old boards that were discarded?
Some people default and say "the one with old boards", because it's physically correct, but the men on board might claim that they haven't left the original ship (the one that was made with new boards).

Using this as an example in consciousness, one could pose the same question.

If I was getting older, and a neurosurgeon could replace one synapse with a completely new one, then after a while, would I be a completely different consciousness when all synapses have been replaced? And what if all those that had been replaced, those old synapses, had been put back together? Would that be the same me?

Practical answer would be yes. But that leaves a lot of holes open.

>>1162630
thats PoMo philosophy though