Is there a philosophy that holds that: Because Humans are basically

I've tried researching into this but haven't found anything sadly

>>861794
fedoraism

>>861794
Probably not. It's not a very sensible position.

Why is being a 'meat robot' inconsistent with understanding the concept of truth?

U CAN'T KNOW NUFFIN!

Are you closer are farther to understanding the truth compared to a fly, an amoeba, or a rock?

>>861794

Yeah it's called being a retard

>>861794
>>861825
>>861828
>>861826

/his/ is triggered by materialism

Plantinga, in arguing for the incompatibility of naturalism and evolution, basically says that, given evolution and naturalism, the probability that our perceptions or experience of reality is veridical is either low or imperceptible.

That's kinda what you're talking about. I forgot the exact formulation of his argument. It's basically that evolution picks for knowledge which is pragmatic. Knowing truth is not necessarily advantageous or better than doing the appropriate thing based on the wrong belief. Consider a human who, while hunting, sees an elephant. One man is struck by fear and slinks away, avoiding the elephant, because he believes elephants are cursed creatures and does not want it to spread to him. Another man is struck by fear and slinks away, avoiding the elephant, because he belies elephants are strong creatures that he would have difficulty resisting if enraged. Evolution does not likely promote true beliefs, it promotes beliefs which produce useful behavior.

>>861860
>it promotes beliefs which produce useful behaviour

Useful beliefs for the conditions in which we adapted to. So not intuitively accurate in regards to the microscopic scale for example.

>>861857
But that isn't materialism.

probably not because generally in philosophy the conclusion you reach has at least some relation to the premise

>>861894
not really

>>861794
It's called teenage angst, and everyone experiences it.

File: H._P._Lovecraft,_June_1934.jpg (8KB, 220x272px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 220x272px

>>861794
Hello darkness my old friend,
I've come to laugh with you again...
Because a vision is soft-ly cree-ping...
Seeded fears while I was slee-ping...

And my madness is written on the subway walls,
tenement halls...
I hear the the sounds
of silence...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmicism

>>861898
look i'm getting real sick of your shit anon give me a break

File: Mind_Blown.png (403KB, 635x355px) Image search: [Google]

403KB, 635x355px

>>861794
Christianity. Nice reverse psychology bait. A real fisher of men, OP.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jo3zAdXM4Tk

Leopardi

>>861794
I'm writing a thesis at the moment on two authors, Thomas Ligotti (the Lovecraft of our age) and R. Scott Bakker, who try to entertain something akin to that philosophical position. I would heartily recommend their work, especially Bakker's Neuropath and the recent Penguin release of Thomas Ligotti's two first short story collections. They have both written non-fiction on their philosophies, although their fiction is more fun.

In terms of philosophy, there's a tiny branch called speculative realism who argue for something like it. Ray Brassier's Nihil Unbound: Enlightenment and Extinction argues (I think) that absolute disenchantment of meaning is required in order to further scientific progress. It's a difficult book, however, and I'd rather recommend you try out Graham Harman's Lovecraft and Philosophy, if you're into all that.

Or, you know, just watch True Detective or some shit.

1.) Nihilistic Existentialism
2.) Anti-egotism
3.) Samkhya
4.) Post Modernism
5.) Post Structuralism

How do humans have any inkling of inhuman truths? That doesn't make sense. If it was beyond our scope we wouldn't be aware of its existence. They're human concepts.

>>862210
Fallacies committed in your post:
1.) Begging the question
2.) Presuppositional statement
3.) Personal disqualification

>>862219

Fantastic, but do you have anything to actually change my mind?

>>862233
My goal isn't to change your mind, it's to point out that you should challenge your own mind/assumptions.

There is an idea called the "Epistemological Ladder" [won't find it online, hit a library or college] whereas it's been demonstrated through historical analysis that we are born ignorant but jump to self-serving conclusions and confirmation bias.

We are born ignorant, at the bottom of the ladder, and people that are higher on the ladder try to pull us up, but often spread incorrect attributions to why they're smarter or have done better.
This ladder breaks.
The ladder that doesn't break is one in which each step is based on a demonstrated axiom.

So the key is humility and empiricism.

>>862237
Oh, I completely agree with that. My point was everything a human learns comes from the perspective of their own subjective experience. Even the concept of inhuman is human in nature. You can't escape yourself.

>>862253
I disagree.
When one learns that magical thinking is bullshit, and you learn the "magic" [biases] being it, you can abandon subjectivity, at least in the area of giving it more credit than cross comparative empiricism analyzed with the socratic method [weeding out known fallacies].
I call this the "Anchor Method".

>>861794
Try reading some Nietzsche

>>862258

I think we are talking past each other. I also agree with what you just said. "Objective" ideas that humans are able to reach are through reproducible experiments that any human being, through their own subjective perspective, can understand with enough effort. I'm using subjective in the sense that all humans inherently can only experience reality through their own minds.

I am not a relativist.

>>862271
I don't consider reproducible induction to be subjective.
To non-identical computers don't process things subjectively just because their components are different; it's the information they're fed and the rules the hardware uses. There are differences in speed and there is room for error, but in a Universe that functions on very objective rules, and Evolution process that works on generally objective rules, I think subjectivity only becomes an issue when objectivity is completely thrown out the window.
I could still be misunderstanding your stance though.

>>861794
Isn't "truth" human creation?

Isn't "reality" domain of natural philosophy a.k.a. /sci/?

Isn't your "existence" a self evident fact?

>>862280

>I don't consider reproducible induction to be subjective.

This is probably the problem. We have different understandings of subjective. I agree with most of what your saying.

Semantics.

>>861981
>>862295

Those 2 combined. should satisfy OP.

>hurr durr meat robot muh evolution
not philosophy
>there are limits to what we can understand, know, etc
part of philosophy

File: m'gentlesir.png (117KB, 320x263px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 320x263px

>>861794
yes, but 20000 years ago if you were an alien looking at the earthlings you might assume we would never discover electricity and atomic energy, how can you be sure we won't discover anything or enhance our intelligence beyond that which we naturally evolved as science progresses?

File: pablo.png (3MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1920x1080px

>>862307
>biological arguments are not philosophy
Well philosophy just needs to deal with them and frankly it's quite easy here cause if the meat robot thing would be true then all of our discussion would be determined by evolution and therefore futile. Having a discussion about these subjects at all assumes that there is at least some part of our brain that is not hard wired by evolution.

>>862312
Why do you think 'meat robots' implies that degree of determinism? Call it a complex meat system producing consciousness which arose due to evolutionary selection pressures or something like that?

>>862312
You are saying we can't know 1+1 = 2 because evolutionary biology somehow means abstraction and rationality is impossible. That we can't see or conceptualise without some biological evolutionary factor interfering.

That's the most retarded shit I've ever heard and people like you shit all over the reputation of people who actually seriously pursue knowledge of evolutionary effects

>>862332
>You are saying we can't know 1+1 = 2 because evolutionary biology somehow means abstraction and rationality is impossible
I don't but I strongly feel that this is what OP implies. He did not only say that we are production of evolution but that we are designed to reproduce. Also you using math as an example sort of weakens your argument.
>That's the most retarded shit I've ever heard and people like you shit all over the reputation of people who actually seriously pursue knowledge of evolutionary effects
Why so salty faggot? I am on your side.
>>862322
What else could it mean in this context? I am aware that most serious biologists/neurologists won't speak of biochemical determination anymore.

All things can have positive effects. A serial killer that kills elderly people is bad for the elderly, but good for the future of his/her country.

>>862339
>What else could it mean in this context?

The wording isn't too retarded, evolution does require 'self replication' (selfish gene?) to operate.

>>862344
How about you try what positive effects the absence of your existence might have?

>>862348
Well it still begs the question what effect this has on our cognitive abilities and behavior. The way I understood OP, and most people "argue" like this, is that men simply pursue self-replication and that everything else is derived from this simple drive. The idea of a selfish gene is already too complex for most people.
But I suppose at this point OP should clarify what he meant for this to go anywhere.

>>862360
I think OP worded it carefully but it's meant to seem flippant.

>is that men simply pursue self-replication and that everything else is derived from this simple drive

I wouldn't think that most people reduce it down so that everything is derived from one particular drive (It might be more common than I think though). And I just assume for the sake of discussion that he's talking about the actual process even if it wasn't explained well.

>>861860
or to be specific, beliefs that result in behaviour which is conducive to reproduction

>>862295
>Isn't "reality" domain of natural philosophy a.k.a. /sci/?
>humanities aren't in the domain of reality

Screencapped (^:

>>861860
>>861885
>>862384

I agree with almost all of this.

>a philosophy

There's no such thing as 'philosophies' in academic philosophy

>>862414
>ignoring quotation marks

>>861981
This

And Hegelian Lacanianism

>>861794
>evolution
>designed

>>862441
Academic philosophy is literally a 'philosophy'

Agnosticism

>>861794
That's just a cruder way to phrase what Nietzsche meant when he said that we have no organ for truth.

>>861860
This is legit.

Likewise, if I may add:

That the 'a priori' truths that seem common with the rationality bestowed to humans, no doubt through the physiology of their brain and its structures, allots them the innate and almost instinctual (the language instinct) knowledge of said truths. For instance, the very structural (semantic) properties of logic are given by the nature of language and its pragmatic use by humans. Other animals communicate, but they have no reason to ever assume 2+2=4, nor wil lthey ever, by limitation of evolutionarly gained brain capacity and qualities.

In that, even 'a pripori' truths about existence seem to be pragmatically part (not a part) of the species general, just as language and a Broca's region seems to be.

redditism

You're an idiot, humans are Turing machines and mathematically proven to be able to solve every problem in the universe