Okay /lit/, you're the smartest board on this shit hole.

>>8629427

if neuroscientists can neatly reduce mind states to brain states, ill be convinced that experience is reducible to physical phenomenon.

We are beholden to our thoughts and their ultimately meaningless machinations, but knowledge and pleasure are inherent desires that do not self destruct and as such should be requited.

>>8629442
'muh feelings so muh feelings'
I happen to agree. Mickey is right, not because Donald is wrong, but because Mickey has chosen to respect his feelings and rise over the truth Donald discovered.

Duck says it's all chemicals; mouse says we can't know anything for sure. The mouse doesn't acknowledge, though, that he takes issue only with the duck's faith in what the chemicals that constitute him tell him about life; the mouse doesn't refute the duck's conclusion that everything is meaningless. With his assertion that we can't know anything for sure, he seems, on the point of meaninglessness, to agree with him.

File: 949ff646e4a0abb964fca4b0706676cc.png (577KB, 500x889px) Image search: [Google]

577KB, 500x889px

I think meidos are pretty rad.

>>8629462
When you say it like that it sounds funny.

Reality is objective, but humans cannot perceive objective reality. So, are we shaped perfectly by reality or a false reality? Can a false reality exist in our mind if even that is literally chemicals and reality itself?

>>8629462
Does he rise above it? He seems to go even further than Donald in denying meaning. Donald makes an assertion, but Mickey denies any possibility of assertions.

>>8629474
>non americans exist

>>8629487
Holy.... I want more

>>8629427
Donald's is a reasoned scientific position.

Mickey is literally just saying you can't know nuffin'.

>>8629521

Mickey is stating the logical conclusion of Donald's edgy Nihilism.

Both are wrong

Do not focus on the nature of the cookie jar, focus on the nature of the cookies within

Donald: Accept that the universe is random and that science has explained most if not all human brain process.

Mickey: Accept that humans still don't fully understand the machinations of their own brain.

Seems clear enough depending on your belief.

>>8629427
>Don
There is no intrinsic value in the material universe
>Mick
You can't claim that there's no intrinsic value if there's no intrinsic value with which to measure your claim.

Then he calls him a bitch.

I'm with Mickey because I'm not a weakshit nihilist.

>>8629427
>you're the smartest board on this shit hole
No, that's [s4s].

>>8629492

>Will you fight? Or will you perish like a dog?

Mickey is the Overmouse.

File: 3a7.jpg (127KB, 504x470px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 504x470px

>>8629427
more nihilist donald memes please

mickey is in the right.
if we are to exist than we shall exist to highest degree that we can. it doesn't matter if our perception of our existence doesn't take into account knowledge that is provable or unfounded. As long as we operate at the edge of our perceptions, we are fighting the good fight. Donald's point of view doesn't take into account that those chemical states also change and can not stay constant, internally or externally. The absurd reaction of chemicals will lose it's potency.

>>8629437

And what kind of evidence would they have to produce to satisfy you?

File: 1475844212100.png (92KB, 1152x648px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 1152x648px

>>8630161

simulating all known brain functions through artificial means.

I will never be pleased until the next philosophers are man-made robots that exceed human understanding.

>>8630187

If they 'exceed human understanding' than how do you expect to comprehend that they have exceeded your understanding?

File: 1471894387165.jpg (39KB, 400x282px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 400x282px

>>8630155
All these edgy Don memes, we need to make some Sisyphean Mick memes

>>8630193

I don't know how to respond to that anon.

if AI reaches a point where it exceeds human intelligence then that's probably the end of our species

>>8630161
Not the anon that you are responding to but I am a proponent of the hard problem of consciousness so that I believe it is impossible for science to provide adequate means of answering it.

Reading pic related makes me feel like I'm being punched in the nose.

File: why.png (8KB, 231x218px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 231x218px

>>8629427
>here
where?

>>8629487
>Reality is objective
prove it

>>8631172
The image.

donald = redditor humanist fedora atheist
mickey = subjective 4chan mystic

>>8629427
mickey, he is a sceptical agnostic and agnosticism together with scepticism is a way to be always right

Mickey is a little defeatist agnostic faggot whose line of reasoning inhibits progress.

>>8631211
>progress
progress to what?

>>8631214
Scientific progress, the development of knowledge of our world. If we claim we cannot trust our perception of the external world then the scientific method falls apart. We cannot make accurate observations and therefore any conclusions or hypotheses we generate are inherently flawed. The ability to replicate observations of phenomena and experimental results also is inductive evidence against his point of view. Long live the Donald.

>>8631229
>If we claim we cannot trust our perception of the external world then the scientific method falls apart.
you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the word "theory"

it's the disclaimer that takes into account our innate perceptual shortcomings as humans, allows for amendments when needed, and is not to be confused with "scientific fact", something too broad for us to be wrong about or grounded in our subjective views.

Gravitational theory is our understanding of the effects of gravity to the best of our ability.
Gravitational law is our understanding that gravity is here and does effect the environment.

>The ability to replicate observations of phenomena and experimental results also is inductive evidence against his point of view
No it isn't

>>8631229
>denying Mickey's idea because it inhibits the pursuit of "truth"

>>8631211
The glorious thing about Mickey is that he can have those opinions, and it isn't going to inhibit jack shit. There will always be people musing at the stars, while others are developing a way to visit them. It's ok to have people who doubt the world around them because we're not all one collective. Science will move forward regardless.

>>8631229
false. you misunderstand mickey.

mickey would continue to pursue science to find the limits of the knowledge he can achieve even knowing that it is likely to be limited.

donald would be content knowing that his drive to pursue knowledge is simply a chemical reaction in his brain. He'll instead spend his time trying to recreate the chemical reaction in his brain that feels like satisfaction and achievement instead of actually achieving.

>>8629437
>can't into anomalous monism

>>8631229

"scientific progress" has nothing to do with the search for "intrinsic value" or the objective truth

mickey denies scientism, which is not science but a yet another mistletoe of science and by its nature is nothing more than a belief

>>8631204

Or rather to never be wrong.

>>8629996
>guys you can't know nuffin'

I didn't know Mickey was an ubermensch

>>8631244
Valid point. My disagreement with Mickey is essentially for the implications of his idea and not the idea itself which is one that has been expressed in such a way as to be more or less irrefutable. However I would contest that if we are going to assert that if knowledge is based on that which we cannot prove we cannot claim to know anything. This is in line with Donald's point that the material universe has no intrinsic value to us as sentient beings.

Everything is meaningless, yet here we are. Give that meaning, and you have found meaning.

I read that in a fortune cookie.

>>8630223

Is any given human smarter than you the end of your existence? How much smarter than us does an AI need to be to overcome our numbers?

All I know is any given human smarter than you is an end to your argument. AI will never supersede man, because man isn't smart enough to create something smarter than itself, just like you will never foment an argument for man's fall to a super intelligent creation. Man's truest enemy? A hivemind of men.

>>8629427
But everything we know is not reducible to the absurd acts of chemicals. There is a theory that it is for sure, but science hasn't gotten to the point of perfectly mapping human thought via chemical reactions yet, and likely never will.

File: Zizek in bed.jpg (42KB, 397x230px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 397x230px

>>8631367
Deep fortune cookie.

>>8631381

Will new chemicals be synthesized in response to our discovery of the inner workings of our minds? Will transcendence be a revelations that defies understanding, or will it pass away with a whisper, none the wiser that they have evolved?

they are both right to varying degrees, the problem is that people by habit look for absolutions in a paradoxical and pragmatic world.

>>8631174
you're the asshole who ruins parties

File: whatev.jpg (67KB, 499x700px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 499x700px

>>8630155
I agree with this pretty much. Maybe the core question one should ask if such metaphysical nihilism is affecting him is why does answering that question matter to him? How does it prevent him from leading a good life filled with virtue and striving? Maybe even love?
Why that question of meaningfulness is even important needs to be answered first, and in answering that I think the core confusion can be dealt with.

>>8629427
I don't know about you guys, but I'd rather trust what my brain tells me than some guy who's trying to sell me his "fight".

File: tips Christian morality.jpg (20KB, 474x528px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 474x528px

>>8629427

Donald's conclusion doesn't follow the hypothesis. If everything that we know and love IS reducible to the absurd acts of chemicals, it does not necessarily follow that nothing matters. This is without getting into the trickier questions: what is his metric for measuring the 'intrinsic value' of something such as the material universe? We can deduce that it is probably either 'purpose' or 'meaning' - if everything that we know and love could be reduced to some purpose or meaning, life/existence WOULD probably have some intrinsic value for him - why? By what mechanism, and how does it follow, that meaningless and purposeless things are necessarily valueless/pointless/etc?

We have no impartial/outside point of view from which we can judge the value of life/existence. Indeed, we cannot be unbiased - we have a vested interest in life/existence, and are a biased party in that regard - because our entire experience of existence and the world takes place within it.

Therefore, assuming that life/existence has no value is JUST as presumptuous as assuming that it does. The only reasonable approach is to give life/existence the benefit of the doubt.

Nihilism taken to its worst conclusion (suicide) is a leap of faith, as is living life - but unlike life, suicide is a leap of faith from which there is no return. Given that life results in death in any case, it may as well be lived in any case.

>>8631374
>man can't create anything smarter than itself
Any reasoning for that? Wouldn't that mean kids are always at best as smart as their parents and humanity is constantly declining? Also, can't men already create "AI" that can defeat the best of us in fairly complex activities like chess?

>>8631486
this pretty much

>>8629427
the right, micky

>>8629427
Mickey makes a non-falsifable statement. Pleasurable fortune cookie, but his statement has no value beyond that.

File: d0f708b6fad81d8162fe62a4ecb77c779c4e3f895524c3af42b559f632ee1e8c.jpg (18KB, 409x393px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 409x393px

>>8631195
>subjective 4chan mystic
every fucking time

File: 1458926755341.jpg (78KB, 850x400px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 850x400px

>All things are chemical matter
>Intrinsic value does not exist

hmmm very compelling argument

IS/OUGHT

The latter is right, the former is correct in his assumption, but not his conclusion.

>>8630155
>Donald's point of view doesn't take into account that those chemical states also change and can not stay constant, internally or externally. The absurd reaction of chemicals will lose it's potency.

also donalds thoughts can be reduced to a chemical reaction, which not only disproves his point, it creates a tautology.

if we reduce our experiences, which are the conclusion of chemical reactions too, then this knowledge itself would be based on chemical reactions. so how can we trust them?

The way out of this circle is to make a choice, which trancends this argumentation.

File: 1419025772905.gif (2MB, 380x285px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 380x285px

>>8631486
this comment really tips my trigger-mechanisms

File: Hm.jpg (40KB, 657x527px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 657x527px

>>8631486

Only right answer ITT.

>>8631486
But mane
>If everyone is biased
>No one is

>>8631486
Amor Fati!

>>8631374
>isn't smart enough to create something smarter than itself
The fear is not that man will create something smarter than man, but that technology will reach a point where it can engineer itself, and man is smart enough to create a robots that have to ability to create and improve themselves. Once this happens A will grow more and more complex to the point of superintelligence in a ridiculously small time frame, and evolution just cannot compete with this rate of technological advancement.

besides, I disagree with your first premise anyway, can a calculator not do maths quicker than you can? Oh, thats not real intelligence? Then what is?

>>8632999
There's no understanding, rather the calculator follows a method

>Meno

>>8633023
>Implying there's a difference
Explain it to me and I'll concede.

>>8630193
If it can do everything you can do and then some. . . How do you recognize if another individual is smarter than you? I consider myself a pretty smart dude, but I can recognize that, say, Leibniz is smarter than me.

>>8631374
Nice logical fallacy. This is literally a retarded argument. A simple case to illustrate how many could make something smarter than himself: genetically engineering humans to make them smarter then currently existent humans.

Another example: assuming we could creat a machine of equal intelligence (or perhaps even slightly less intelligent), we could massively expand its memory quite easily. Even if such a machine was equal in cognitive ability (for example, with respect to IQ, amongst other things), simply in virtue of having a larger memory it could complete many intellectual tasks that you could not, even if its processing power and ability were identical.

>>8629494
>Implying anyone exists but me

File: me.gif (10KB, 279x305px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 279x305px

>>8633177
Pretty sure there are machines that surpass human computational ability, they just don't have code that allows them to pass Turing's.
>>8633186
Hah, nice joke property.

File: 69km1.jpg (46KB, 345x504px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 345x504px

Social reality is the only relevant reality. Since the way you interpret the world is based upon material conditions and systems of thought that reflect them, searching for Truth independent of human, practical activity makes little sense.
The way forward is to change the social reality to accommodate your interpretation. Theory can be tested and made true only through interaction with revolutionary, practical-critical activity,

>>8633191
All of you could be chemical anomalies in my head, even human beings I see irl could all be a trick of the brain. How am I supposed to know I'm not just lying in a chair with my brain attached to a computer simulating my reality? The only answer lies in this 9mm.

>>8633210
Would it ultimately matter?

>>8633210
t. first year philosophy undergrar