Medfag who loves reading here I feel like science has made philosophy

>>8626723
Start with the pre-Socratics

Are you fags even aware philosophy means love for knowledge?

Try reading actual philosophy instead of what pop scientists say about philosophy

>>8626723
Read a lil bit of old Plato and you'll see

> science has made philosophy obsolete.

How the fuck do people come to this conclusion?

>>8626737
STEM redpilled intellectual here. 'Love' is just chemicals in the brain. Knowledge is the collection of scientific facts.

Shut down the humanities

>>8626723
Neuroscience wouldn't exist without philosophy. Also neuroscience doesn't say anything about how life should be lived.

>>8626732
>>8626738
>>8626739
You aren't telling me anything. Is there a concrete thing you can say, other than "read X".

>>8626741
Neuroscience claims that brain is the source of the consciousness, and that when blood stops flowing to it, we lose our consciousness forever. Also there is no free will because of the predetermined movement of the matter, there are no real "moods" because it all depends on the hormones and neurochemicals, and so on.
Basically, to me, if science is true (and it looks like that to me), there's no room for free will, moral system (or any other abstract system) or anything. There's just matter which interacts, and that's it.
I wish I could see what's "wrong" with neuroscience, but I can't.

>>8626743
I don't even consider scientists intellectuals. They've discovered truths to be sure, but those truths are objective in nature. All you're capable of doing, all you're good at doing, is becoming aware of them. Nothing is actually up to you.

>>8626741
posiivism, see >>8626743

>>8626751
We are "just" matter that interacts, but couldn't there be a way for us to shape our interactions with the world? Do something enough and it becomes habit; think a thought over and over again, and you'll start to see confirmation for it everywhere. Consciousness might be a chemical reaction, but it's an exceptionally clever one in that it's aware of itself. That awareness is something that can be exploited to produce a semblance of freedom, basically by rigging your mind to react in certain ways to certain stimulus.

>>8626757

Positivism is rubbish though? Good luck making any normative claims, including the claim you should adhere to positivism.

>>8626773
All that is useless if it was predetermined to begin with.

>>8626778
How does predetermination negate freedom? As soon as you begin to come up with a reply...BAM... You're engaging in philosophy.

>>8626789
Are you retarded or just baiting? It doesn't matter what I am enganging in, nothing doesn't matter because it was all predetermined, including me doing philosophy that negates freedom.

File: 1475117809467.jpg (67KB, 480x608px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 480x608px

>>8626743
Nu-male tier, faggot

File: Double-compound-pendulum.gif (218KB, 160x120px) Image search: [Google]

218KB, 160x120px

>>8626778
predermined doesn't mean predictable though.

>>8626794
Why are you even posting here then?

>>8626741
They're dumb people that think they're smart. They can't grasp the possibility that life and existence is irrational and that science is not some objective basis for their worldviews and beliefs. Only dumb-dumbs think "hurr durr religion/philosophy is outdated".

>>8626799
Because it was predetermined? If free will doesn't exist, that is.

>>8626751
Not that anon but...

>Neuroscience claims that brain is the source of the consciousness, and that when blood stops flowing to it, we lose our consciousness forever.
Consciousness is just a concept, it's not a thing in itself. It's not in the brain or anywhere else, it's not mystic or material, it's a word we use to describe our point of view as people who experience things.

>Also there is no free will because of the predetermined movement of the matter, there are no real "moods" because it all depends on the hormones and neurochemicals, and so on.
There are moods, in your body, they are expressed as the flow of hormones and neurochemicals and in relationships they are expressed themselves as anger, love, etc.

>if science is true (and it looks like that to me)
Science is not true or false, it's a method, a way we invented to do certain things. Like art, philosophy, trolling, everything else.
>there's no room for free will, moral system (or any other abstract system) or anything. There's just matter which interacts, and that's it.
Here is where I disagree. Matter is interacting, sure, but that's not "it". The key is this "it", what do you mean by that? Regardless of free will or determinism, forget about that. We can still talk about what we feel is right for ourselves and for others, we will still live and relate to each other, face decisions and problems, face impredicable situations, talk about society, ecology, language itself, produce art and talk about it and have our own tastes and so on. These things do not clash in any way with the laws of physics or any other neurological discovery, they exist on a different level and we can talk about them at that level. Even if everything could be determined at some level, that doesn't make it actually determined by us. Do you see the difference? It's subtle. You don't have the time in the world for it, just like trying to make for a political decision through motions of subparticles, perhaps one day you'll get there through the most logical way, but there is no need to do so through that particular way. You can talk about history and philosophy, you can even take on it poetically and learn a lot through it.

>I wish I could see what's "wrong" with neuroscience, but I can't.
Because there is nothing wrong with it at all. To engage in humanities means not to deny it.

>>8626808
>These things do not clash in any way with the laws of physics or any other neurological discovery
But they follow from it. The talking we do about specific things, what we invent and so on, it's all predetermined.

>>8626816
They do not follow from it, anon, they exist together, all of it. We choose what we think is best to deal with each of them.

>>8626751
>MUH NO FREE WILLS

If you believe in that, do you
- believe that you were pre-destined to make this thread?
- believe that all participants of this thread were pre-destined to come upon it?
If you believe both of these things, why did you make the thread? Clearly, the outcome of your life is already decided, so making this thread couldn't possibly supplement you with new information or change anything in your life
The only explanation I have is that you don't believe in either of these things

>>8626816
>it's all predetermined
how do you know? Cause you seem really sure about it, despite being one of the most debated philosophical argument ever.

>>8626797
Why does is do that perfectly symmetrical double spin after swinging seemingly at random?
Crazy.

>>8626723
Why do you even want to believe philosophers?

>>8626743
Good job, you've deconstructed what composes something. How does that make a concept any less significant?

If I ever came to an absolute certainty that hard determinism is true, I would kill myself.

>>8626900
No you wouldn't because it isn't in your programming.

>>8626906
Anon, are you retarded?

>>8626723
>Medfag who loves reading here
stay that way, philosophy is mostly bullshit, like religion for the ones who think they are intelligent.

orgo changed my whole perspective on the world. can anyone actually explain well enough why metaphysics proves free will? it all just seems like uncharted territory we dont have theories for

>>8626906
Yes it is.

>>8626900
Only dumb people can't cope with that possibility.

>>8626900
only if you were destined to kill yourself

File: 18.png (347KB, 631x439px) Image search: [Google]

347KB, 631x439px

>>8626900
but then you would be giving into the absurd lol

>>8626919
There are no dumb people, anon, just chemicals :^)

>>8626915
Philosophy is the highest discipline there is.

>>8626911
I am as I was determined to be and I will continue to be as long as has been determined.
>>8626916
Then do it faggit <l@;^)

File: 51ee8c02e2c9e.gif (1014KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

1014KB, 500x500px

>>8626927
>Philosophy is the highest discipline there is.
im sold, where do i start?

>>8626900
You might as well, fade the fuck out right now

>>8626931
Are you new here? The Greeks of course.

>>8626931
The answers can only be found to those who open their ass.

Open your ass and your mind will follow.

>>8626936
>>8626939
any greeks on here wanna fuck my ass?

16/f/nj

>>8626900

>Convince the world hard determinism is true
>People kill themselves
>Tell the ones who didn't the day after that it was just a prank

>>8626945
Nice try FBI but it was preordained that I not fall for your bait.

>>8626723


Take some psychedelic and find the true answer within.

You're not wrong

>400BC
>philosophy: write books
>science: write books

>1600AD
>philosophy: write books
>science: build steam engine and transoceanic capable ships

>1960AD
>philosophy: write books
>science: build spaceships, split the atom, discover quntum phenomenon, invent a computer, understand the nature of human

>>8626962
i know lit is dumb but fuck, stop replying to my shitposts already

>>8626996
>tfw when predestined to endlessly post and reply to shitposts

Eternal Reoccurence indeed

>>8626723

Knowledge has made the love of wisdom obsolete.

Does this statement still express what you meant to communicate? If not, consider how much words like 'philosophy' and 'science' have snowballed through English—and other languages—to their current conceptual size. It's extremely important to define the limitations of a word before using it to avoid possible miscommunication. Concern with the precise use of language was actually one of the more recent objects of philosophy. In fact, one possible interpretation of philosophy's purpose hitherto is as dialogue on matters of contemporary importance. The sense you mean of philosophy being obsolete due to the developments of modern science could indicate nothing more than that philosophy has passed the historical ball and moved on to other matters.

>>8626986
>science: build steam engine and transoceanic capable ships
>>science: build spaceships, split the atom, discover quntum phenomenon, invent a computer, understand the nature of human
I think those are all bad things tbqh

>>8626986
philosophy gave birth to science (you can imagine them both as pretty girls, one of them, philosophy, being a bit more mature) and taught her how to invent all those things...

>>8627089
That's a pretty fucking gay metaphor desu

>>8627090
but it's a traditional metaphor -_-
those words even have the feminine gender in a few languages like french, russian, german...

>>8626723
Science is a philosophy

>>8627089
Yeah, well, nobody credits theory of relativity to Einstein's mom just because she pushed Einstein out of her vagina. Everything in a world is built upon something, thanks for highlighting this shocking fact

>>8626723
This has to be bait. Especially considering my heart weeps at the idea that you are on your way to becoming a doctor and you seem to think "neuroscience has made philosophy obsolete".

I assume this was you >>8626751
Now lets consider a scenario where you are treating a patient. This patient is in pain, think's they have been cheated out of a happy life and in turn is angry, aggressive, depressed and difficult to treat; constantly yelling at you when you attempt to help or possibly out right refusing treatment. What do you do?

This is where the field of ethics, a branch of philosophy comes into play. Surely you know this as a med student where Medical Ethics is a required course. Do you instantly dismiss the persons "mood" or feelings as an irrelavent byproduct of their neurochemicals? Maybe you simply drug them up because hell, its not his fault, its the manner in which his brain is functioning and you're at liberty to do what you think is best as a doctor. Or are you?

Philosophy aims to answer these questions, or at least examine them. It sounds like you're simply familiar with philosophies dealing with metaphysics or existentialism, which I can understand STEM students being dismissive of. Whats important is that you shouldn't be. Science only answers so much, philosophy answers nothing. However it examines idea and prospects which science has no way of encompassing.

TL;DR: I fell for this top tier bait

>>8626986
Philosophy created mathematics and is still extremely important to modern computing.

>>8626755
>im smart but lazy
>everyone is actually mediocre

>>8626755
This is the dumbest thing I've read in a while.

>>8627129
philosophy created the very scientific way of cognition

>>8626986
Why do people think technology is something that science does? What produces technology is politics and economy. There wouldn't be transoceanic ships if a nation was not looking for something on the other side of the ocean (as it didn't for many years, and as it didn't in several places). Which incidentally was to rape and pillage and steel gold to get ahead other nations, nothing anywhere near "noble" or whatever for one to be proud of.

There wouldn't be any of those things if there were no political pressures to create them. Knowledge expressed through science is used as means to get to that political end. If there is no need, no technology is created.

>>8626723
buddha made philosophy obsolete in 500 BC. the task neuroscience in the 3rd millenium AD is to catch up to the buddha.

the point of philosophy, at least when its done well, is conceptual clarity, not providing conclusive answers: we can't bottle reality up in nice little abstract phials, it doesn't work that way. Monomania for "science" can devolve very quickly into inept autism and category errors - e.g. complacent reductionism

"subjective conscious state x IS JUST objective process y."

basic bitch materialists love saying this and feeling smarter than anyone who disagrees with them, but is it really clear thinking?

#1 there's an obvious explanatory gap between subjective and objective - if this doesn't mean anything to you, google "zombie argument"
#2 the notion of 'objective' reality is a conjecture - all we really have is consciousness. think about that when you try to "reduce" consciousness to something you conceive of as non-conscious - how does that make any sense? how is something nonconscious producing consciousness?
#3 if there's no ontological distinction between ourselves and everything else in our environment (as science suggests), doesn't this imply that the fundamental substratum of our phenomenal field is broadly distributed in the environment? that some rudimentary form of conscious intentionality is present in all of the supposedly "dead" matter and/or energy that surrounds us? what magic is happening in the nervous systems of conscious beings, if the rest of materiality is something 'dead', an absolute 0 on the consciousness scale? (comparing the 'particles of consciousness' to degrees Kelvin, by way of analogy) this idea never seems to occur to materialists for some reason (a crude form of it is common in aboriginals, as animism), but it seems obvious to me. if consciousness is physical, it must be quantifiable, and its rudiments obviously preexist their manifestation or "realization" in the parlace of functionalists in a particular conscious being.

we are conditioned by millions of years of evolutionary programming to make attributions of mental states based on behaviour - we are perfectly willing to infer subjective interiority on the part of other individuals in our environment, that is to say, other physical objects that look and act a certain way, EVEN THOUGH we have absolutely no way of scrutinizing the subjectivity of these people/animals. but the question is, what if its the case that 'lesser' forms of subjectivity precede the organization of complex nervous systems? subjectivity on the molecular level? if not, whence cometh the particles of phenomenology in the first place? if they are physical/material, they are quantifiable, no? and they aren't created from nothing.

tl:dr pan-psychism, and the sense of materialistic disillusionment is a bad joke, stale conceptual leftovers of the 20th century. reality is weirder than you can imagine.

>>8627226

I would say you're wrong in declaring that materialists don't see consciousness as a scale. Consciousness existing on a scale is a topic of frequent discussion and exploration in neuroscience. It's well understood that animals possess cosciousness in a different way to ourselves.

>>8626986
You do realize science is basically just a subset of philosophy? None of those things would've been possible without philosophy.

File: salvo.png (340KB, 393x447px) Image search: [Google]

340KB, 393x447px

>>8626751

>Neuroscience claims that brain is the source of the consciousness,

There's a difference between saying the mental supervenes on the physical and that the physical and mental are the same things. Any philosophically aware scientist knows this.

>Also there is no free will because of the predetermined movement of the matter

What kind of "predeterminism?" Biological? Temporal? Fatalist? Superdeterminism? Environmental? There are different determinism with different implications for free will. One being true doesn't negate the possibility of free will in humans.

>there are no real "moods" because it all depends on the hormones and neurochemicals, and so on.

Check out some Kripkean critiques of identity materialism, which is what you're peddling right here, and you may come out surprised by what you don't know.

>Basically, to me, if science is true

Science doesn't prove truths. Science develops models that correspond to empirical data. They are always subject to revision and there is a massive difference between mathematical formalism and physical interpretation. See interpretations of quantum mechanics

basically you're retarded

>>8626723

What is the philosophy of science? Research couldn't even be rationally conducted with a philosophical underpinning.

>>8627080
Of course you would

>>8626723
If you take neuroscience that seriously you don't understand philosophy or science. Just check out all the problems with fmri studies and you'll feel retarded.

http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2009/10/the_problem_with_science_is_sc.html

>>8626723
Science is how philosophy is why.

>>8627186
Anon, your views on scientific progression are quite limited.

Sure, political or economic pressure certainly helps, especially with obtaining funding and public backing (really one in the same). However, political and economic pressure does not create technology; technology is created by scientists and engineers. All of the breakthroughs and devices we enjoy today would absolutely have been created without major economic incentives, but they would have taken much, much longer to develop. The incentives just push things along much faster.

Look at the Large Hadron Collider. They're looking at a final, cumulative cost of $17 billion, and yet the only justification other than intellectual curiosity has been "one day this knowledge might be useful for technology".

>>8626755
you clearly dont know anything about science.

it actually arguably requires just as much or more creativity to build theoretical models in science than in the arts.

read some philosophy of science dude as well im not going to tell you all the issues about whether science is objective or not

>irony talking to someone defending philosophy.

File: 1448072354886.jpg (61KB, 498x360px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 498x360px

>>8629371

anon is just saying that the context in which the scientists live is something that should be taken into account for the conditions that allowed progress to made. case in point is the development of the atomic bomb as a response from political unrest globally. these things should not be considered in isolation nor are either moot and not worthy of consideration.

philosophy of science in this sense is important to understanding how these scientific advancements actually take place. thomas kuhn is a worthy read for anyone interested in the sciences.

>>8626808
your sense of self is a thing you can study in neuroscience though...

>>8627226

idiot

>>8626751
Do chemicals cause the moods? Or do moods cause chemicals?

Matter being predetermined is so far out of the ability of scientists to know its not worth addressing further.

Finally, even if I just assume the two points above are how you say they are, that doesn't tell me what I "should" do in life, this is what philosophy and ethics are for.

Reading up on phenomenology and actually working with statistics will show how many ideas presented to you as "facts" are actually quite flimsy.

>>8629459

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

i find this stuff really interesting but i dont know enough about it.

>>8629356
what the fuck are you talking about. neuroscience is in a pretty good state and yes fmri has its weaknesses but it has made major contributions in science. also comes the issue in science. if you dont use something properly, youre not going to get anything good out of it.

youre also precluding the fact that there is a broad diversity of techniques and methodologies as well as fmri BOLD.

neuroscience is pretty good atm and only getting better

>>8626723
doctor here, have my adhominem: you are retarded and the likes of you are disgrace to the art of medicine

Lets just all hope you'll one day understand the principles of scientific theory, statistics, correlation and whatnot and actually realize how full of shit you once were.

I hate fags like you

Healthcare professionals are such narcissistic ignorants

>>8629415
Speaking of the philosophy of science. Can anyone recommend any books on the subject?

>>8629529
Start with Popper

>>8629529

i mentioned it earlier. https://www.uky.edu/~eushe2/Pajares/Kuhn.html

the idea is that scientific theories dont necessarily progress in neat linearity but in violent revolutions once scientific theories fail to account for anomalies. these are carried out in paradigm shifts.

>>8629356

http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2009/10/the_problem_with_science_is_sc.html

i assume this is yours... this fish study says more about statistical significance testing than actual brain imaging... and thats a problem that isnt confined to neuroscience.

>>8626751

>neuromaterialism

Nice casual mechanism you got there pham

Do you even double aspect theory? Stupid git

>>8629529


read "what is this thing called science?"

standard introduction. gives you an overview of the kuhns and poppers, loads of other stuff and examples from physics.

>>8629547
Part II of that article points to the problem of quantification of behaviors and correlation between brain and thought processes, and how sometimes said correlation as published is not only naive and simplistic, but even malicious as well.

File: heil.jpg (118KB, 480x640px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 480x640px

>>8629553
dont u get into the problem though of defining when and when something has mental properties. is it arbitrary? or do all things have mental properties?

>>8626723
>>8626751
I look forward to help the guys wearing funny hats with putting pieces of shit like you in jail for your disregard for bioethics, medical ethics, professional ethics, informed consent, privacy and the many related laws - maybe something involving the environment too, for variety's sake.

And do make sure your insurance has "science has made philosophy obsolete" written somewhere, or at least that it is said aloud in court.

You'll go far, Mengele.

t. fellow medfag

Again:

>no irreducible particle found
>actually finding it would automatically refute materialism since it could not have come into being by material means

I'm so tired of these exact kinds of threads.

>>8626723
quantum mechanics says you're a small stupid faggot

>>8629588

What do you mean, mental properties? Only the mind can be said to have mental properties.

>>8626723
There is no science without epistemology. Science is a branch of philosophy. A highly successful one but still a fundamentally fallible one just like the rest. If you don't understand how science can be fallible you need to read more philosophy.

sorry youre fucked. unless you have a life-changing experience that puts your life on the edge your mind will remain closed in that partial view.

>inb4 OP gets upset and proceeds to make this same thread on /sci/ so he can enjoy all the positive and reassuring (You)s.

>>8626751
>Basically, to me, if science is true (and it looks like that to me), there's no room for free will, moral system (or any other abstract system) or anything. There's just matter which interacts, and that's it.

Ok so you know what happens but you don't know why it happens :)

>>8629687
the problem i have with people who give philosophy credit for science is that philosophy has very little (next to none) input on how science and scientists work. the only way id say philosophy has a relation to science is that early in history the line between science and philosophy was blurred and philosophy morphed into science. but now and for a long time, no philosophy doesnt influence science. ethics at a stretch yes but new philosophy hasnt influenced the development of methodologies, how scientists do their daily work or how they interpret data. i think maybe the earlier parts of twentieth century informed on what we should think of as a scientific question or topic but that still hasnt been influential on daily life science. not even epistemology has seriously influenced science.

and i think these things say that science more than a rigorous methodology that always follows distinct rules in a quest for knowledge, is to some extent more influenced by the social aspects of it as an institution rather than philosophical rigours (philosophy seems to broadly conclude you cant really know anything anyway)

>>8626755
This is debatable but I love how every reply took it wrong.

File: 1476042043407.png (95KB, 233x255px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 233x255px

>>8629764
>(philosophy seems to broadly conclude you cant really know anything anyway)

Scientism in action

>>8629510
>Neuroscience is pretty good at the moment

No it isn't it is absolutely in it's infancy and has very little explanatory power when it comes to consciousness. A dog is better at predicting how a consciousness will act than neuroscience is. I'm studying neuroscience and love the field. I think the understanding will increase rapidly but we have very little knowledge about the human brain.

Problem here is that very little people are actually knowledgeable about both fields, either the philosophy fags don't have enough knowledge of neurology to criticize it from the inside, like the guy from the TLP blog, or the medfags can only spurt out soundbites about philosophy like this:>>8629764.

>>8629764
Determining what science is valid and what is not is done everyday in the sciences and is inherently a philosophical pursuit.

>>8629848
>medfags
Medfags actually do very little neuroscience. OP is probs either a student or is using med in a very wide sense for life science type shit.

>>8629871
Sorry, I should've been more specific.

>>8626749
>Also neuroscience doesn't say anything about how life should be lived.

yes it fucking does

abusing alcohol shrinks your brain, making your cognitive world smaller and literally shrinking your intellectual existence

drink too much and you might develop korsakoffs and literally erase your intellect from the world by becoming a memoryless monstrosity incapable of learning, only living 10 seconds at a time

there you have it philosophy destroyed

>>8629882
>medfag here

>>8629882
>how life should be lived.
>philosophy

I know you're baiting but I can't not get triggered.

>>8626830

>If you believe that you have no free will, then why did you do this thing you did?

>>8626741
People are so fucking dense in this thread omg.

I mean, take the case of normative ethics - the rational justification of behaviour. We all know behaviour stems from phylogenetically old parts of the brain - not the rationalising parts.

So why bother questioning how we should act in rational terms when that's not at all, at all, at all, how people make their decisions.

i'm not op

>>8629913
>We all know behaviour stems from phylogenetically old parts of the brain - not the rationalising parts.
right, impulse control doesn't exist and cannot in any way be shaped by the """rationalising""" parts of the brain

>>8626800
Actually isn't it the opposite?

>>8627080
Haha of course you do. You goddamn moron

File: petsounds.jpg (11KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 225x225px

>>8629564

dude what are you reading. this article is so biased and trash. most of what is said in part 2 is either wrong, out of ignorance or irrelevant to the study criticised. the study doesnt even have very nice conclusions but the article misrepresents them and the type of conclusion the article is criticising isnt even a type most neuroscientists would be naive enough to make or even try to make.

>>8627124
Philosophy does not come close to answering this question. Psychology does.

File: There goes my indifference.jpg (153KB, 400x453px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 400x453px

>>8629913
>questioning how we should act in rational terms when that's not at all, at all, at all, how people make their decisions

>>8629424
Oh I completely agree, the cultural and political context in which science is being undertaken is very important. However, it is not to the point of absolutes, as anon was discussing, where political and economic pressures are literally the only driving forces behind scientific progression.

>>8629786

it is comparatively in its infancy but it iss going forward and it looks very optimistic if you give a broad look at the field; its advanced to a much better stage than it was about 20 years ago. no its not very good at predicting things but neither is biology and thats only because it deals with very complex systems. i think its naive to criticise it because of that as in all likelihood it wont be able to do great predictions in alot of areas in the future due to complexity. knowledge isnt completely about prediction though even though that is a good way to validate a study.

>>8629871
nice 1 m8, ya really got him !

>>8629929
Well yes - but not in the sense that it's traditionally thought of. I'd recommend checking out the works of Jon Haidt aswell as Simon Baron Cohen

Trying out normative theories is not 100% obsolete but what's the point when it's 99% ineffective versus other branches of science that deals with decision-making and cross-species behaviour. There are some decisions you and a goddamn crayfish are going to similarly make. If you can reason with that part of the brain you're in a whole other arena of resolution and effectiveness. Which sends you straight to another paradox of philosophy. Claiming wanting to solve a problem, but refusing to use tools that would bring you closer to your goal - what's that all about?

File: repro.jpg (113KB, 480x640px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 480x640px

>>8629776
>>8629848
yeah that was shit

>>8629849

thinking like that,just thinking is philosophy but im talking about academic fields influencing eachother with their theories.

>>8629913
>We all know behaviour stems from phylogenetically old parts of the brain - not the rationalising parts.

im not actually sure this really makes sense.

>>8626723

Stoicism taught me not to get triggered by shitty bait :)

Enjoy your studies friend.

>>8626723
It's pretty easy to combat, just ask questions. It's really that simple, while Science has it's place and value, most deep questions still won't be answered. Science makes premises and unlike positivism thinks, they are and should be subject of debate. The feeling of reading something imperfect and maybe in the future outdated concept should follow you also, while you are reading science.

>>8626751

>there are no real "moods" because it all depends on the hormones and neurochemicals, and so on.

There are no real chairs because it all depends on the configuration of the molecules.

Wow, STEM sure showed me.

What do you think the scientific explanation is for the fact that philosophy majors score much higher on their SATs than pretty much all other majors, tailing only physics and astronomy and mathematical science?

Science has no stake in human affairs. Go research physics, you will not find any directives on useful ways to live. The Universe is unconcerned with the world of human ideas. Plunge a knife into someone: the atoms don't care whether it was a just or unjust act. Your skin tears, blood pours out regardless. Drop a nuclear bomb on 150,000 innocent people, the uranium still reacts and radiation will penetrate their skin regardless. Reject the experimental method and believe in fairies: The Universe carries on regardless.

Philosophy is about contructing frameworks within which to view the world. That's what philopsophy is for, and science is in fact a philosophy in itself.

>>8626743

STEM Physics student here. Your body is just a group of jiggling particles and there is no reason not to kill yourself, so go ahead and do it.

>>8626743
Science is tautologies after tautologies. Like a man who sees a tree, but doesn't acknowledge it as a tree until it calls it a tree. And after calling it a tree, it's just a tree.

>>8629428

So are fucking duck dicks, does that mean they aren't 'really' duck dicks?

>>8630101

what has SATs got to do with anything in this thread?

>>8630195

that insinuates that science makes no new discoveries...

>>8630227

im not intelligent enough to get what you are trying to say, please enlighten me?

>>8626962
based post

>>8626737
It means love for wisdom, anon. Love for knowledge would be philognosis.

>>8630297
The senses do and the mind thereafter; science tautologically registers that the senses did and the mind thereafter

File: hubrs.jpg (99KB, 480x640px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 480x640px

>>8630447
no because we do not have direct access to the causes of the world. we make models that are best fit to noisy and ambiguous data and refine the models. its not tautological at all.

>>8629428
>your sense of self is a thing you can study in neuroscience though...

I think you are giving neuroscience too much credit.

Neuroscience does not study the self. Neuroscience will state that the self is most likely an emergent experience, but 1) Where that experience takes place, 2) How it takes place, 3) To what degree it takes place and 4) Why it takes place are questions we do not have answers to. Why?

Our sense of a self is constantly changing, and it cannot be quantified so easily. Most people think that with sufficient computational power, we can create a fully conscious virtual intelligence. A lot of neurosciences would disagree with this possibility. It's a long discussion to have.

I recommend reading up on what computational neuroscientists have to say about modeling awareness and the self. Churchland and Sejnowski might be a good place to start exploring. "Data Rich, Theory Poor" is a common topic among their research. Neuroscience isn't as fleshed out as we'd like to think.

>>8626723
"fuck you, OP," said my amygdalae.

Learning philosophy makes it hard for me to take in any information. Take a "basic fact" such as this:

>Ottawa is the capital of Canada

Right away this falls apart for me; it assumes that "Canada" is a thing that actually exists. When in actuality, the concept of "Canada" only exists in the minds of many human beings. It is not a "fact" so much as an agreed upon plot of land. What if I say that Canada does NOT exist, and the land there is actually called "Cheese Land"? Am I wrong? Why? Because more people think it's called Canada than Cheese Land? That's resorting to a logical fallacy of saying that a more popular opinion means its true

So really, what the fuck am I supposed to think about any "fact"? It's all just observations that a lot of people agree upon.

>>8630868
well maybe if you had a more precise definition of the fact you're telling, or take something that seems true whether or not humans agree to it.

>Water freezes at 0°C (at the right atmospheric pressure)

Of course you can probably go with the super-conspiracy theory and say that every time you saw water freeze it was only an illusion and no one can prove otherwise. But lack of proof isn't a proof, ain't it?

>durr science is objective neuroscience which has virtually nothing to do with science except for maybe just epistemology means ALL PHILOSOPHY IS KILL
>>8626743
>knowledge is a collection of true formalized knowledge
So knowledge is accurate knowledge, how fucking profound of you. Moron.
>>8629882
That's not how you should live, you idiot.
>>8626751
>You aren't telling me anything. Is there a concrete thing you can say, other than "read X".
You are totally ignorant, you will not be regarded until you are not totally ignorant.
>and it looks like that to me),
>this system that attempts to remove the subject from observation looks correct to me (a subject)
Holy fucking shit are positivists stupid.
>>8626986
>pragmatism
That's a philosophy you fucking idiot.
>science: build spaceships, split the atom, discover quntum phenomenon, invent a computer, understand the nature of human
A fucking method that falls under philosophy cannot act, it's a method. The idea of cream-filled pastries cannot make a prepubescent boy obese.
>>8627057
Knowledge doesn't exist, it's a statement of hubris.
>>8627115
Ideas work differently on ideas than biological functions work on ideas, you fucking idiot.
>>8630297
It doesn't, it simply masturbates over irrelevancies.
>>8630886
>that time
One example cannot conclude a model to be accurate, nor can anything short of infinite undeniably true examples.

>>8630703

i think neuroscience is getting closer to answering those questions more completely. in recent years i think theres been quite abit of progress in doing research and experiments on sense of self, agency and ownership and their neural correlates and in a number of different ways. Neuroscience is definitely beginning to study sense of self. computational and theoretical neurobiology are also producing new frameworks which seem to be really promising at describing and explaining how the brain and biological systems work including the sense of self and answering those questions. i think with time they wont be that difficult to answer. im very optimistic despite its infancy.

i would disagree with the vitual conscious thing but i think that is something different in itself and its not really important to me.

one thing id also say is that sense of self is a strong, powerful phrase and i can imagine people in different fields probably interpret the word differently. mine might be different to yours.

>>8630978
>i think [x] is getting closer to answering those questions more completely

this is the modern age Zeno's paradox, you will never answer all the questions because there is always new, subsequent questions arising thence, ad infinitum. This is delusion.

>>8630703
I think you're confusing subjectivity with a sense of self. Understanding self-awareness, one's sense of selfhood, the notion of the ego, etc. is certainly difficult, but well within the range of scientific theory. Understanding the nature of qualia and subjectivity on the other hand is presumably outside the field of scientific investigation, so unless you a deflationist about qualia, materialism/physicalism is kind of ruled out.

>>8626743
Humans aren't robots

>>8631003

so what if you never will completely understand, its good to try increasing knowledge, its still interesting and amazing what little we do come know and it does alot of good to the world (maybe not always), advances us as a race, betters our well-being (not always).

>>8631054
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DcNEzxTSvuw

>>8631088
It would be good for you to try to understand first the relation between knowledge and non-knowledge and how the second is necessary for the activity of science. Unfortunately, the kind of empirical science in vogue is ignorant about dialectics.

>>8631088
>advancing is good
*keks respectfully and with good chear*

>>8630868
You're just being contrarian now. You sound like a teen who is realizing that his mind does not hold the secrets to the universe.

>>8631088
>its interesting
>i compulsively need entertainment

there's a book about this, it bears the initials IJ

>>8630868
Just try to not be autistic.

>>8626743
please read Hume and come back
9/10 b8

You might be screwed. I might seem uneducated, ignorant, and perhaps even disillusioned by saying what I say next, but if you might find it helpful...

The more you grow in hard scientific knowledge, the more rigid you grow in rationality. The more rigid your rationality, the harder it is to adapt. The harder it is to adapt, the harder it is to be happy, or even satisfied by life. Screw survival. We don't need to adapt to survive in our current state of civilization. We adapt now in order to become happy, and unfortunately, science is often a direct impediment to happiness. Let me give you a slightly off topic instance that isn't intended to support my point, but to make you think and begin to develop conjecture of your own.

Science is predicated upon the idea that events can be broken down into constituent cause and effect and formulas can be developed based on the interactions between the quanta of a given circumstance, but when you break everything down into it's smallest possible instance, you neglect the anomalies that pop up in the given whole, that is, the variables that science intends to eliminate. Now consider the anomalies, the variables. Variation is that which we must adapt to. Why adapt when you are shown a clear cut formulaic response to any given circumstance? There is no reason if everything is solved. There is no point in living, the meaning of which is to give meaning to life, if life has predetermined explanations to the heretofore unexplainable patterns we face everyday. Solution? Forgo science. It's a dead end, and it's only use is developing technology. It isn't any good for establishing protocols based on anomalous human experience. First truth of anything, you can only base things on your own experience, yet science dictates that our experiences are similar if not identical to every other human. Paradox; science takes faith in order to properly operate. Proof; I could explain to you the actual grand unified theory of everything, but you would have to believe me in order to gain any use from it.

Forgo science. Imagination and experience is all that matters. Philosophy is a greater tool than science, because philosophy provides no answers, but only questions.

>>8626743

This is why STEMfags are hard to take seriously. You get stuck in your little area of study and convince yourself its the font of all knowledge.

Philosophy just stems from a love of wisdom. Scientists and scientific curiosity is an extension of this. However just because we can approach many things scientifically doesn't magically mean there shouldn't be a 'philosophy of 'x' which examines the things that aren't immediately measurable.

STEMfags always feel this horrible compulsion to make every argument "science vs x" rather than "science plus x" as it should be. Philosophy isn't some rival camp to science, philosophers love using scientific knowledge.

>>8630928
>Knowledge doesn't exist, it's a statement of hubris.

Knowledge is a word, like everything else we're discussing. All we can do is relate words to other words. The actual relation of words to phenomena is experience, and always subjective. All you can mean by your statement is that you have no use for the word. You did not concern yourself with the nuance of knowledge—how it is to be got, relative certainty in the thing once attained, whether or not it is transitory or communicable. You merely, in your hubris, declared its nonexistence.

The question I have is this: How did you come by the knowledge that knowledge does not exist? Additionally, how would you know whether or not I have experienced /knowing/ something?

File: 35412355_p0.jpg (1MB, 1729x879px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1729x879px

>>8626723
Basically here's the deal, consciousness exists despite the universe being a deterministic phenomenon, this is a fucking problem and we still haven't figured out how this is possible.
On one side you have the people who say that consciousness doesn't really exist and it's just an effect of all that shit going on in our brains.
On the other side there are people who say that consciousness is some kind of magical aether separate from the body.

Both are wrong in very nuanced ways; in the former case, it's correct to say that consciousness is the result of natural, empirically verifiable brain operation involving matter, but this is a perennially incomplete observation because it is reductionist, which is to say that you've only walked around the problem saying shit like 'that ain't real senpai' when in reality anything known is real and thus consciousness, being known, has just as much eidetic vividness as anything that we can touch and feel.

In the latter case, it's correct to say that consciousness isn't actually made of matter, because even though the brain is matter, it is producing something which is supremely known to us, but does not exist in any tangible way. However, it is incorrect to say that consciousness is separate from the body or that it belongs to some plane of existence besides the physical one, since clearly our sense-perception extends to the body and also our abstractive intellect is tethered to the construction of the brain.

So materialism is wrong, and 'God-of-the-gaps' is wrong as well, so how do we solve this puzzle?
The answer, simply put, is the Christian God, particularly the Christian God that Aquinas wrote about.

In a material universe you have total quantum equilibrium, nothing is different from anything beside it, not even being is different from non-being, all matter is uniform.
This is where the divine love comes in, and disturbs this equilibrium in such a way that it never existed in the first place.
The divine love is the self-imparting force in which things may rise to existence by participation.
God, being the prime mover, created causality, and by extension the universe and human beings and consciousness.
Human beings are what could be called 'composite movers' since we do not have divinity but we do have the image of God, which is precisely immaterial becoming, which allows us to exist within the universe, bounded by its laws, and yet in such a way that we appear to be looking at it from the outside.
That is to say, my perception is different from my being, my brain is different from my consciousness, and this the divine love causes in us.
The divine love expresses the universal by the power of the particular, good by the power of evil, life by the power of death and so forth.

>>8626986

science isn't engineering you fucking mong

>>8631498
>"I cannot solve these problems so I believe in god"

>>8631521
That's only what people say when they aren't able to understand the metaphysics involved.
Seriously, after all of that, you honestly think I would contradict myself by applying the God of the gaps when I specifically said that that's wrong?
This is different, too much to explain on an image board at 2:30 in the morning.

>>8627124
Pretty insightful bro

File: yup.png (68KB, 316x320px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 316x320px

>>8631113
please enlighten me. for some reason i feel like its not going to make a difference to science what you say. just going to make a differene to some definition of what science is or trying to do which actual scientists dont give a shit about.

please continue your intellectual shitposting.

>>8631521

>I cannot reduce qualia to matter in a relevant and/or useful way so it doesn't exist

>>8631054
we're biopuppets

>>8631450
Divination