Philosophy General

File: wijok.jpg (9KB, 205x249px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 205x249px

who /munchhausen trilemma/ here?

File: pepe.jpg (21KB, 500x435px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 500x435px

Nothing matters, that's why it matters.

Are women spooks?

>>35053726

What does it truly mean for something to "matter"?

>>35053730
A spook is a spook

File: epep.jpg (43KB, 500x435px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 500x435px

>>35053779
That it doesn't matter.

>>35053837

That idea seems to violate the law of identity.

>>35053682
God is an entity of pure morality and mathematics that is above all of us.

There is perfect morality, but it has not been studied as we are yet to develop a language to do it in.

There is perfect mathematics that has been studied, allowing us to prove the mathematical existence of concepts, like infinity, that are impossible to place inside the universe, but which are real none the less.

>>35053837
I matter
Mostly carbon and hydrogen

>>35053682
If anyone knows about the Chinese room thought experiment, why does it actually hold any validity for countering AI. We humans think very algorithmicly when it comes to certain topics. My point is that the Chinese room is a sign of intelligence, just not a very dynamic one like we humans claim to have.

>>35053889

How did you come to these conclusions?

>>35053889
I hate religious arguments in philosophy. All you have to say at the end of the day is, prove it buddy. I want hard evidence of this god. We give this standard of proof to everything else in the world. It's a fundamental part of logic, and yet we completely disregard it when it comes to religion.

Thinking is a process of gradually arriving at conclusions as the mind takes into the things it knows and does not know.

Assuming God knows everything, then, how could he think?

we growed inside vaginas. we belong into vaginas. VAGINAS ARE OUR RIGHT, NO MATTER HOW DISGUSTING WE SOUND.

(pls tell me its wrong, i am slave of my mind)

>>35054014
who said he thinks. he doesnt need to.

>>35053957
I have a background in physics, engineering, and I'm now working on matsci.

The universe can be completely described by mathematics with the exception of morality, a trait displayed by only a few animals. Even most behavior can be understood mathematically, but not morality.

Due to the fact that there exists a thing (mathematics) which we cannot touch, or see, but which does, provably, exist. It stands to reason that there may be things aside from mathematics that truly exist, regardless of whether you believe in them or not.

Just as a mathematically perfect triangle doesn't exist within the universe, but we can still calculate it's existence, so too does perfect morality not exist in the universe, but that does not preclude it's existence.

We are just yet to develop a language in which we can study and prove morality as we can mathematics. So a lot of people are moral subjectivists, but moral subjectivism is wrong. It's easy to point out the existence of societies where something they believe to be moral, is actually wrong from every semi-subjective measure we have. (Like raping babies in africa, not saying niggers are human here, I'm just saying that's objectively wrong, and normal for them to do).

So with that in mind, there must be an objective moral standard, that Telos, that purpose, would have to exist outside of the universe in the same way mathematics does. It should not be impossible to begin using objective morality, but it's thus far been very difficult for humans to pin down. See every philosopher and religion ever.

Still, we should look at it like a science, the creator made us for the purpose of abstract reasoning so we could discover things about the universe and 'Him'.

The thing is, we, as humans, are still a fetal stage of development. We will expand into the stars (or abort) and learn more about the creator as we do.

cont.

File: 4b340ccbf845d9505c8db973bdeaa97194e6102ad07a8ce482a8e94a92594624.png (1MB, 1600x800px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1600x800px

>>35054113
We are each a tiny little piece of the universe capable of experiencing itself. More than that, we're capable of abstracting thins which do not, and cannot, exist in the universe.

We are all, in a literal sense, parts of the creator, parts of the universe. We exist in this state because the universe is a higher dimensional structure through which we move via time. The creator exists outside this structure, so from the first moment to the last, the course has been plotted.

We are in a fetal stage of development right now, learning, studying, because our purpose, our telos, is to become more like the creator. When all the energy of this universe has burned out, we will hopefully have acquired sufficient complexity to break out of it and become one with the higher realm of mathematics, and morality.

We, our civilization as a whole, is a fetal creator. We aren't made in gods image for the purpose of who we are now, we are made in gods image for the purposes of who we, as a whole, as a civilization, are destined to become.

It'll take a while though, but for the time being, I am happy to push our civilization further forwards, as that is our divine mandate. Learn, better ourselves, better our people.

>>35054021

You grew in your mother's uterus alone. Not the uterus of every female in the world.

I TRUST NOTHING. NOT OFF WILL OR CHOICE, ITS OUT OF PERPETUAL INSECURITY (YOU CAN LOSE(DIE)YOURSELF ANYTIME)
I CANT TRUST WHAT YOU SAY.
YOU ARE JUST A HUMAN LIKE ME.WHO HAS INTENTIONS.
A SHELL I AM. SAY WHAT YOU WANT 24H/24 (PS I DONT TRUST HOURS) I WILL JUST INSPECT AND LEAVE.

File: 3d32e7917f8a2b79d132660a7be0efce73987354e91ef546b81bccbbea9a8853.jpg (117KB, 640x614px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 640x614px

>>35054181
>>35054113
Here's the video that got me thinking at first a while back;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrU9YDoXE88

That, combined with the fact that each of us is a small piece of the universe capable of experiencing itself.

File: eef.png (278KB, 640x715px) Image search: [Google]

278KB, 640x715px

>>35054208

Some people say you really can't trust anyone in this world.

>>35054217
I KNOW THAT ALREADY. I dont believe its true. ITS A MATTER OF PLAYING WITH WORDS.

>>35054113

>Even most behavior can be understood mathematically, but not morality.

Would you be so kind as to elaborate more on this point?

File: 1475257605600.jpg (85KB, 903x714px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 903x714px

>tfw the meaninglessness of existence sinks in

Sickness unto Death will fix your insomnia and sleeping trouble.

>>35054300

Is the idea that nothing in life matters the same as the idea that life is meaningless?

Or is there perhaps some distinction we can draw between these two perspectives?

>>35054245
THE WIERED THING I SAID THAT TO MY DAD HAVING A CONVERSATION ABOUT FAMILY BIUSNESS. DOESNT MATTER HOW I TOLD HIM I TRUST NOBODY. MOM HEARD THAT, SHE SAID THATS MY SON YOU ARE GROWING. I DONT TRUST HER. WHAT SHE SAID MAY HAVE MISSLEADING INTENTIONS.

>>35054113

How can something "exist" while being "outside the universe"?

"Universe" generally includes everything, no? If so, then there tautologically can be nothing "outside the universe". The phrase "outside the universe" isn't meaningful.

File: 1487264121236.png (250KB, 660x330px) Image search: [Google]

250KB, 660x330px

>>35054269
Utilitarianism was the only marginally successful attempt to describe morality mathematically, but it breaks down when confronted with non-hedonistic behaviors.

Utilitarianism is 'the most happiness for the most people is moral.' This breaks down when you say "gang rape is fun for 9 / 10 people.

The more astute will say 'whatever creates the most high-quality happiness for the most people is moral' as a response. Which is one which was given.

However this too beaks down unless you're willing to consider all of the human future, and past. Fighting wars would be immoral, but preserving the happy lives of your countrymen by fighting would be moral. So you essentially have to have a constant running tally of happiness for every one who has ever lived and will ever live.

There should be a much more elegant way to express morality without this need for, what is essentially, an infinite integral of unknown values.

Thus it's impossible to describe morality mathematically, there must be another language in which we can evaluate the micro, and macro scale morality of a given action. I'd love to figure out what that is, but I haven't got a clue, I do theorize it's existence based on the fact that mathematics exists.

Therefore there does exist at least one purely abstract thing which is real. Therefore there's no reason another wouldn't, and given that morality plays a significant role in every ones life, (though not as significant as mathematics), it should be possible to develop a rigorous way to describe it.

I think we may be onto something with memes, but more memological development is required before we're there yet. It's a new language, it's worth study as a possibility for moral descriptions.

>>35054113
I agree the universe is morally objective (and even if it isn't, that means that any morality system can be deemed 'objective' as long as it is internal consistent)

If mortality is objective then it would follow that all actions are either moral or immoral with no room in between.

This would mean that even some traditionally immoral actions (stealing for example) if they are balanced out by an action more moral (stealing from the wealthy to give to the poor and needy for example).

Therefore it stands to reason that each action has a moral value and that to derive a objective moral standard these values should be uncovered.

>>35054358
No, a perfect triangle does not 'exist' in the universe, yet we can calculate it. Thus it's an abstraction, but that means that the mathematics exists on a layer separate from the physical universe we know.

If you prefer you could consider me saying 'universe' to be more synonymous with 'all space time that we can observe or access'. Which is how most cosmologists use it at this point. It's just quicker to say 'universe.'

>>35054404

>Utilitarianism was the only marginally successful attempt to describe morality mathematically, but it breaks down when confronted with non-hedonistic behaviors.

I am not sure there is such a thing as a non-hedonistic behavior.

>Utilitarianism is 'the most happiness for the most people is moral.'

That is only one form of utilitarianism. There are other schools of utilitarianism that hold that preventing suffering is all that matters, and others that say that preventing suffering and creating pleasure both matter, but preventing suffering matters more. These ideas fall under the umbrella of negative utilitarianism.

>>35054329
Yes, they are the same.

orgogano

>>35054422
Absolutely, we just don't have a linguistic platform with which to perform those proofs. I've been thinking about it for a while, but come up with very little.

Essentially we'd have to redevelop an entirely new set of rules, and a language, that is divorced from logic and mathematics, in order to just describe these things. Not impossible, but as yet, no one in all of human history has managed it.

The best we've gotten is dusty treatise on morality, or religious books.

>>35053682
Moore's law
is why I'm doubtful we'll go any further
this is as good as it's going to get for a few hundred years until we have another technological revolution till then we are stuck on earth

and unless you can find the money and safely cryo freeze yourself into the future
then you die a robot never knowing what alien pussy awaits humanity

>>35054455
Regardless of the form of utilitarianism, it can almost universally be countered by a sufficiently tailored thought experiment where doing what is morally 'right' would involve disobeying whatever utilitarian rules were imposed.

>>35054462

Then I can ask you the same question I asked >>35053726 -- what would it mean for something to "matter"?

Dialektischer Materialismus =
Meisterasse der Pilosophie
come fight me fucking retards

>>35054503

What kind of thought experiment could disprove the idea that the most important thing, the be all end all of morality, is preventing suffering?

I'm challenging you here, throwing down the gauntlet so to speak.

>>35054517
also Hegel, Marx & Engels are the only german philsophs who matters, fuck the rest

>>35054537

What are your thoughts on Marx and Engels?

>>35053948
Agreed. We say IA is not intelligent because it's not like us but we don't even know how to define our intelligence.

KANT is a idealistic CUNT

File: 33fa094fe8ce7b404a9ff514d7e08b1f0a299f103747c126b79eba2ee6312cfc.jpg (43KB, 780x520px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 780x520px

>>35054217
>mfw that image

>>35054531
>minimize suffering

A very high percentage of people in the modern world are depressed while most people in agrarian societies are happy. It stands to reason then that the modern world should be forcibly removed in order to restore people to their normal cognitive state.

According to utilitarianism, in this theoretical system, if we can do it without directly harming people and simply ship them all of to islands, or even reduce the population, we should.

This would, make every one happier in the long run, but it would also mean the destruction of civilization. More so, you can justify doing it forcibly rather than by-choice, because people who refuse are going to still be unhappy, and their children will as well.

Heck the 'minimize' suffering moral system is really easy with the 'well you can just reduce suffering to 0 by instantly killing every one painlessly' argument.

You can argue words, but then you start adding addendum after addendum to the moral system. Minimize suffering can easily be used to justify atrocities, just as maximize happiness can be. Thus the rules of logic break down the argument. Therefore morality, from an objective stand point, must use different rules.

OP here. Some good discussion going on in this thread so far.

Thanks guys.

>>35054547
they was good philosophers and very good thinkers and most of their theorys are still legit,
If you want a good start into their theory, start reading Anti-Duehring from Friedrich Engels

>>35054675
>marx
>thinker