why are math, physics and philosophy the only worthy pursuits

>>8109090
They aren't, if you truly think that you are delusional and using pseudoscience.

maths can be done without physics

physics can't be done without maths

philosophy is pure garbage

>>8109096
>>8109101
ah so you're plebs

got it

>>8109090
>philosophy
>worthy pursuit

Gr8 b8 m8, I r8 8/8, don't h8.
Seriously though, why would you think the thoughts of people who lived 2000 years ago would be any relevant to how the world functions today?

>>8109101
>philosophy is pure garbage
ur mom is garbage.

Fuckloads of philosophers are are wannabes, but philosophy itself is pretty neat. It's mental medicine, and that is something we need in this twisted society of mankind.

>>8109124
you sound like an idiot?

why are you an idiot?

how does it feel to be one?

>>8109124
>Seriously though, why would you think the thoughts of people who lived 2000 years ago would be any relevant to how the world functions today?
But you do realise that some of the greatist mathematicians lived over 2000 years ago right?

>>8109124
Because those people decided how society should work and how to know if something is true. If it weren't for philosophy, science wouldn't exist.

>>8109090
Math, physics and the other science are all worthy pursuits of mankind.

Philosophy should not be in this list because philosophy is literally outdated. I cringe every single time someone uses those cute philosophy analogies to make a point. Can you only construct arguments by copying and pasting random quotes from random philosophy books you read?

Some other philosophers in some fields discuss the nature of knowledge but isn't that completely useless outside of the rigorous context of mathematics or th empirical context of mathematics?

When a mathematician says that you can get new knowledge by the technique of induction that is very fucking useful. Absolutely mind blowing proofs with real applications can be obtained this way.

Furhtermore, when a chemist tells me that they got a new test to get knowledge about the state of a compound that is also amazing stuff. It combines the philosophical with the empirical to make something we can actually care about.

But when philosophers say
>I took all my beliefs like the apples in a basket and threw them all out and then I started checking those beliefs to see if they are worth it. No, I did not test them empirically or rigorously... I just had a little debate with myself and decided that I liked those beliefs and therefore now I believe what I like.

Fucking cringy shit man.

>>8109127
>>8109107
>Philosophy
>Sitting there and thinking of how to make a play on words sound deep, so that people will say "Woah, that's deep!"
>Not actually contributing anything to pure, objective understanding of the universe or the survival of mankind

There are many other worthwhile pursuits, like medicine and engineering. Even some non-sciences, such as politics and economics, are far more fundamental to modern society than philosophy.

File: alanu wattu.jpg (275KB, 1252x1252px) Image search: [Google]

275KB, 1252x1252px

>>8109143
Cringy post, anon. Try solving morality using physics and mathematics.

>I cringe every single time someone uses those cute philosophy analogies to make a point
So you cringe every time a teenager or fedora tipper pulls a quote from google images. No shit, we all do.

>>8109107
Try expressing yourself through creative means like music or art, becoming fit and healthy with team or alternative sports and fitness, learn how to grow and tend a garden and live on a completely sustainable off grid acre of land, learn to fly a plane. Literally most things that aren't murder, rape, or some kind of thief are worthy pursuits. If everyone, EVERYONE, were only good at math, physics and philosophy the world would crumble. You need everyone to do their own thing their way, personal, individuial growth is needed to have a fulfilling life. Anyone who's worth their salt knows that, and anyone who thinks "optimizing" people means telling them what they enjoy isn't worthy of their own time is a fuckin pleb, you pleb.

>>8109159
>Try solving morality
Not him, but care to elaborate? What does "solving" morality really mean? Also, a lot of people here like philosophy, they just don't dedicate 3 or 4 years doing a degree on it when they can do it on their own time.

File: 175844725.jpg (43KB, 970x646px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 970x646px

Whats even more cringy is passing by the science department watching a bunch of students shake liquid that looks like someone came and spat on it in a phallic test tube.

Therefore math and philosophy are less gay

QED

>>8109159
>Try solving morality using physics and mathematics.

Morality can be explained through psychology and biology, which both have models explained by mathematics.

There.

You can easily find why killing another person is 'bad' through the lens of evolutionary biology and then apply the broader statement to make up a rigorous definition of 'morality'.

For this case it would be that for a population that wants to grow, killing other people is a bad idea. Furthermore, we feel emotional measurable pain when someone dies so killing someone implies suffering for others of your same species and that is wrong, as we should ideally be helping each other.

There, morality solved by using biology and psychology. It was too easy.

Your job was taken hundreds of years ago, we do not need you.

>>8109147
>>Sitting there and thinking of how to make a play on words sound deep, so that people will say "Woah, that's deep!"
This proves you have absolutely no idea what philosophy is. It's as retarded as me saying

>Science
>People making bombs to kill people and TVs to brainwash people
Do you see how ignorant that was?

Expanding humanity throughout the galaxy is my ultimate wet dream. I want the Empire of the Sun to be real. But it can never be real when humanity have a collective mental illness.

>>8109163
You sound like a bug

>muh specialization

>>8109168
Lol wtf? that's morality in only one case. Now solve for all cases you dolt.

You are an inmate in a concentration camp. A sadistic guard is about to hang your son who tried to escape and wants you to pull the chair from underneath him. He says that if you don’t he will not only kill your son but some other innocent inmate as well. You don’t have any doubt that he means what he says. What should you do?


You are an emergency worker that has just been called to the scene of an accident. When you arrive you see that the car belongs to your wife. Fearing the worst you rush over to see she is trapped in her car with another man.She sees you and although barely conscious, she manages to mouth the words “I’m sorry”…You don’t understand, but her look answers you question. The man next to her is her lover with whom she’s been having an affair.You reel back in shock, devastated by what her eyes have just told you. As you step back, the wreck in front of you comes into focus. You see your wife is seriously hurt and she needs attention straight away. Even if she gets attention there’s a very high chance she’ll die.You look at the seat next to her and see her lover. He’s bleeding heavily from a wound to the neck and you need to stem the flow of blood immediately. It will only take about 5 minutes to stop, but it will mean your wife will definitely die.If you tend to your wife however, the man will bleed to death despite the fact it could have been avoided.Who would you choose to work on?

>>8109165
>>8109168
Now you're getting ahead of yourselves. I would never bother getting a degree in philosophy.

>Morality can be explained through psychology and biology...
I know everything you just said, but morality is more than "why is it wrong to kill".

>Your job was taken hundreds of years ago
Software development didn't exist hundreds of years ago anon.

>>8109170
What, so you want fucking cookiecutter jobs and social classes straight outa Brave New World? Are you off your fuckin rocker mate? The American Dream can be said to be the dream of the New, Free world, as a whole, (since it's founded on immigration) and that dream is best put as "Everyone doing what they do best, in the best way possible". Why have a whole nation or world of just physicists, mathemeticians, and philosophers? How would you grow any food, build any roads, or keep the power on? I could just as easily say that the whole world would be better off if we all were agriculturalist, environmental technomage shaolin monks who were in tune with nature and the Earth, but that's no better than your stupid plan because:


EVOLUTION will ALWAYS find a way to fill every niche possible, that includes social niches. So even if you could get everyone to be boring ass mathematicians and physicists, over a hundred years or so every other job would pop up again and be filled. So fuck off with your "specializtion" nigga and get varied.

>>8109168
You are going on a cruise. 2 days into the cruise your ship experiences technical difficulties and the captain says it needs to make an unscheduled stop. A couple of hours later the captain makes another announcement that the ships hull has been breached and that you will all need to start heading to life rafts and abandon ship. The ships life rafts are lowered as people begin to pile in and you get on board one of the life rafts.As it is lowered however, it hits the side of the ship, putting a hole in the side of the raft, and when it hits the water it begins to sink. There are 10 people in the boat and to prevent it sinking, you quickly work out that by having 9 people working for 10 minutes while 1 person rests you can bail the water out with their hands, quick enough to keep the water at bay and preventing it from sinking, but you have to continually keep it up to ensure that the boat doesn’t sink. By being able to rest one person you are greatly able to increase the length of time you can keep the boat afloat, however if the rescue team doesn’t turn up you calculate that within 5 hours the boat will sink and you will all die.While taking your break, you glance over to another boat and notice that a friend of yours who you met on the boat is there and has noticed your predicament. He is signaling for you to come over and join them on their boat so you don’t have to continue bailing water out. There is only just enough room for one more person. You also notice that their boat is moving away rapidly with the current, but your boat can’t keep up because the hole is affecting its buoyancy.You estimate that if you jump ship, you will force all 9 remaining crew members to bail water continuously, which will reduce the total time they can stay afloat to just 2 hours, but will ensure that you will be able to live long enough to be rescued.If you stay aboard, you will not have another chance to jump ship, and there’s no guarantee that the rescue....

>>8109185
cont.
will arrive in 5 hours, meaning you will drown, however by staying you give everyone a better chance of survival.
As you watch the boat with your friend drift away, you realize you have about 30 seconds to make a decision:a) Do you stay on your current boat and help keep it afloat as long as possible and hope that the rescue will arrive in 5 hours
b) Do you go to your friends boat, ensuring your rescue, but reducing the chances of the others on the boat being rescued?

>>8109169
>This proves you have absolutely no idea what philosophy is
Oxford dictionary definition of Philosophy: The study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline.
All of these things are explained by biology, maths, chemistry, and physics (both quantum and macro).
Philosophy, by comparison, is an attempt at using one's own opinions to answer a series of unnecessary existential questions. None of it can be tested, confirmed, or objectively observed, and no scientifically valid conclusions can be drawn from it.

This board is for science, not meaningless, unverifiable speculation.

>>8109191
Philosophers use logic nigga. Please get knowledgable, if you can't see the point in doing your own philosophizing at least take into consideration how important ancient philosopher's ideas were to the sum of knowledge before the days of science, and even today as learning tools.

>>8109182
Stop thinking with your mouth and penis for a second

>>8109177
For your first case, both cases are immoral so either way you are doing something immoral. Explained simply by the fact that no one should die.

In other words, you can do either of them because it doesn't matter.

For the second I wouldn't do either because I'm not a fucking cuck.

Seriously what the fuck is up with these scenarios? The first is already immoral because you are in a concentration camp with cruel treatment from the start so everything there will be immoral.

The second case assumes that I am a cuck. What the actual fuck?

But whatever, I would help my wife because that way the guy will die and there is still a big chance that my wife also dies and if both die that is the best outcome, as I am not a cuck.

This is acceptable because all possible outcomes are immoral so just take the one that makes you feel better. I feel better by having them both die as I am not a cuck.

If she survives then whatever, divorce and shit. However, I would be extra stupid when taking care of her just to raise the odds of her death, like getting my hands covered in mud and then threating her wounds with my dirty hands so that she gets a deadly virus.

>>8109191
spinning_fedora.gif

>>8109177
Not the guy, but all of these problems depend on who you are referring them to. Other people place different priorities and therefore the solutions will be different.

The thing is, we need to be able to quantify utility through proficient understanding of biology and then we can get our objective tool to solve these problems. Philosophy won't help with that. The philosophical problems might have helped lead us to the right direction, but science takes it from here.

>>8109197
Is this supposed to be an insult, or an attempt to get me to think something besides "this poster has nothing left to contribute"?

>>8109204
I'm expostulating you to take a course of an action

>>8109191
Philosophy is not for explaining things anon, we use science for that. Two different things, it doesn't work like that.

>>8109206
I don't think you have enough grasp of the English language to do this.

>>8109198
But you're a cucked by ignorance son.
This is horrible reasoning.

Yes, we get the fact that its immoral in the first case. The question is what you're going to do. Why does doing either of them not matter?

>This is acceptable because all possible outcomes are immoral so just take the one that makes you feel better.

Ah so you're deciding what to do in a certain moral situation based on your feeling? so you haven't exactly decided on a definition of what is moral or not because your definition doesn't tell you how to act in one way or another. And if it does, it's making you act according to feelings. So which is it? is it immoral because someone is going to die? or is it immoral because of your feel-feels?

Your reasoning, like I said, is pretty terrible: "because I'm not a cuck." Wtf does that even matter in a moral situation?

jesus, bunch of fucking idiots in here

>>8109220
>to reason earnestly with someone against something that person intends to do or has done

>stop thinking with your penis and mouth

welp, looks like I found the idiot.

File: Short-Circuit-Stalls-Large-Hadron-Colliders-Restart1.jpg (691KB, 1615x1078px) Image search: [Google]

691KB, 1615x1078px

Science can teach you why humans "fall in love", but it can't teach you how to love.
Science can't teach you how to forgive.
Science can't tell you how to get a fulfilling life.

These are tasks for philosophy. It's not the "science of the olden days", it's a completely different approach needed to answer completely different questions.

Anyway I'm off.

File: 1452410364269.png (2KB, 506x54px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 506x54px

>>8109090
What does "Higher" mean?

>>8109229
>The question is what you're going to do. Why does doing either of them not matter?

Sure sure. I would kill my child. At that point it doesn't matter so I would work on reducing deaths.

>Wtf does that even matter in a moral situation?

Everything. It is probably moral to kill someone who cheated on you.

The logic would be that even though you are killing someone and that would cause some suffering, if you let a person who just causes suffering for other people for no reason (like a cheater) live then the net suffering in the world would eventually increase beyond the suffering her dad would have after she was brutally murdered.

That is why it is moral to not be a cuck and therefore you let your wife die. I would pribably piss and shit on her wounds. Maybe even stab her a little more, help her lose that last pint of blood.

>>8109242
>The logic would be that even though you are killing someone and that would cause some suffering, if you let a person who just causes suffering for other people for no reason (like a cheater) live then the net suffering in the world would eventually increase beyond the suffering her dad would have after she was brutally murdered.
So you're omniscient. What if she made one mistake? what if she truly was sorry? how do you know that one localized situation is a predisposition to always act in the same way? how do you quantify suffering? what makes the pain of losing your daughter not the same as getting cuck'd by your wife, thereby causing you suffering? how many times would she have to cheat on someone in order to cause enough suffering to the point where it'd be on the same level as losing your daughter. And again, how the fuck do you even know that she will continue acting the same way? lol dafuq, nigga you dummmm

File: 1455244453761.jpg (48KB, 319x553px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 319x553px

>You can prove everything with science!
>mfw you can't prove that with science

Everytime.

Positivists get out.

>>8109251
>What if she made one mistake? what if she truly was sorry?

I'm sure that if robbers say they are really sorry they still get months in jail.

>how do you know that one localized situation is a predisposition to always act in the same way?

Psychology could prove that the phrase 'once a cheater, always a cheater' holds up. Or may not. Depending on that the punishment should be either death or like a year in jail.

>what makes the pain of losing your daughter not the same as getting cuck'd by your wife,

If the daughter is from the cheating wife then the daughter can also fuck right off. I'm not a cuck wtf.

>how many times would she have to cheat on someone

Probably just a second one. People get over deaths at the same rate they get over bad breakups.

A psychology study could also figure this one out.

>>8109242
>The logic would be that even though you are killing someone and that would cause some suffering, if you let a person who just causes suffering for other people for no reason (like a cheater) live then the net suffering in the world would eventually increase beyond the suffering her dad would have after she was brutally murdered.
See, now you're getting in philfag territory. You have stopped answering these questions biologically or psychologically because you have not found a way to quantify or reduce the suffering inflicted into the terms you mentioned before.

Most of what you're saying is pure emotion. Highly illogical and non-philosophical and, in a sense, not scientific either. At first you said, morality is reducible to the biological and the psychological but now you're referencing concepts such as "cheating" and "cucking."

Sounds like you have cucked yourself through shitty reasoning.

>>8109262

No, I already said that causing suffering to a member of the same species is evolutionarily bad, as we should ideally care for each other.

Cheating is causing pain to the other person and therefore who cares if a cheater dies. I fucking don't.

I think philosophers are secretly cucks and want to defend the fact that they would save the guy and then stroke his cock to get a last taste of their wife's pussy.

>>8109234
I thought we were talking about the subject matter at hand and not that inane distraction we call banter.

>>8109251
>>8109262
Since you conveniently ignored >>8109202 and went for the easier target, I'll say it again: just because we have an incomplete account of neuroscience and biology does NOT mean we will never reach the required understanding. Give it a few years and we will be able to quantify suffering, pain, utility and all of that. And, as I said, the answers to each hypothetical morality problem depend on the person in question, whose body defines their sensibilities and tendencies towards one option or the other. Which is why we need an objective measurement system.

>>8109261
>I'm sure that if robbers say they are really sorry they still get months in jail.
wtf does this have to do with what you're going to do? why would she have to die?

>evolutionarily bad
Ok so a person will die. But you're going from the objective to the subjective. It is a fact that someone will die. You're jumping from the logical relation of "is" to "ought" rather quickly.

>Cheating is causing pain to the other person and therefore who cares if a cheater dies. I fucking don't.
You're causing me pain by being an utter retard. Therefore you should die. This is where your conclusion leads sadly. Round 'em up boys.

>Psychology could prove
speculation
>People get over deaths at the same rate they get over bad breakups.
speculation

>>8109273
I didn't ignore you, just forgot about you desu. You raise good points and I don't necessarily disagree. I'm not saying that science WON'T figure it out though. Although you have a lot of confidence that science WILL eventually find th answer, given enough time. Sounds like speculation to me.

>>8109277
>why would she have to die?
She did wrong, as in she caused suffering. Now, as a society we should punish as a way to discourage futher stuff.

I already said that I would try to save her but after that she would have to go to jail but ideally I'd want her to die as you said it was possible.

>You're jumping from the logical relation of "is" to "ought" rather quickly.

They caused pain, but you have a point.

>You're causing me pain by being an utter retard.

No, you choose to get butthurt about someone having a different opinion on the internet. Not my fault. This makes you sound like the SJW crybabies.

>speculation

Sure but it is what ultimately would happen if the problem of morality was handed over to psychologists, and there probably already are studies for this. I am just not a psychologist. I study math ffs.

>speculation

I don't know man. I've had bad breakups and that shit lasted weeks. Furthermore, my ex gf keeps messaging me on steam even though I don't give two shits about her. It has been literally 7 months.

I'm sure people get over deaths in less than 7 months but fuck if I know. Soon my grandparents will have to die so after that I will have certified experience because for now no one has died in my life.

>>8109285
>No, you choose to get butthurt about someone having a different opinion on the internet.
No you choose to get butthurt over someone who decided to cuck you because she had a different opinion of who is fuckable.

> I've had bad breakups and that shit lasted weeks
Anecdotal and feel-feels
>Furthermore, my ex gf keeps messaging me on steam even though I don't give two shits about her. It has been literally 7 months.
I don't care
>I don't know man
I know
>but fuck if I know.
You actually don't

Feel-feels and cuck'd the post, sounds like you don't have any arguments besides "they caused pain."
>we should
Ah there we go again, the "is" to "ought" jumping.

>>8109281
>Sounds like speculation to me.
Not really, it's not a matter of possibly breaking new ground in science, it's a matter of mapping body functions based on mechanisms and theory we are already aware of. I don't see anything speculatory about this, but feel free to elaborate on your point of view.

>>8109301
Well I'm just curious to know how biologists would ever get around solving the hard problem of consciousness. Sure they will be able to map out things perfectly in the foreseeable future but how will they be able to conclude from these physical facts the subjective facts of qualia.

>>8109177
I'd walk the fuck away.

>>8109306
The hard problem of consciousness is a philosophical problem, and what does it have to do with quantifying utility? We've already made gains in our understanding of the brain and how neurotransmitters affect our experience relative to the amount/combination with other chemicals. As long as the link between biological phenomena and subjective experience is there (we've observed that it is there, as I highlighted) and it's quantifiable, I don't think we need to look at the hard problem to create our objective measurement system.

>>8109323
Yes indeed there is a link between subjective and objective, that is, that certain mental states supervene on physical ones, scientists supposedly having found most of the materialistic explanations for these experiential elements. And you're right in saying that it is a philosophical problem. However, I'm sure you've heard of the the thought experiment of the girl who's stuck in a black and white room who's read everything there is to know about the color "red." When she steps out of the room though, she finally sees what red is like though, thereby learning a new fact. You would agree that she learned a new fact yes? if you do, then you automatically also assume the hard problem of consciousness. To wit, you agree that there is a gap between the objective explanation of what red is and the subjective experience of it. That's the gap that I'm worried about. A lot of people seem to assume that philosophy is only about answering questions without realizing that it is also about asking the right questions. Sometimes the questions are more important.

>>8109329
To elaborate more. Scientists will have to answer why experiential phenomena follow from physical phenomena. They won't be able to answer that by just explaining the physical once more.

>>8109191
>Oxford dictionary definition of Philosophy: The study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline.
>All of these things are explained by biology, maths, chemistry, and physics (both quantum and macro).

That's because all those things are natural philosophy you illiterate faggot.

>>8109329
I wouldn't necessarily say that she learns something new. If she did in fact know everything there was to know about colours, she would know the neurophysiological basis that helps us differentiate between colours. Or not, because we simply can't know.

But the fact that doing X on our brain produces Y effect in everyone that has these exact structures shows that our "subjective experiences" might not be different after all. Or maybe consciousness is an illusion. The thing is, the link between physical phenomena and what we deem to be subjective phenomena is very clear cut, therefore we might not be that different after all, even if we never get a definitive answer, which helps us build our objective measurement system.

>>8109101
I think you might be a mthfg, but let me enlighten you.

Mathematics uses axioms derived from the human experience and perception of the universe. I.e the concept that one plus one rock is two rocks. It is ultimately based on observations, though it takes them to absurdly cool abstarct places. It is all ultimately based in physical intuition.
Physics is the study of the world around us, and hence also uses axioms of observation, but it disregards the mathematical ones unless they can be applied to an observed situation.
So math without physics is just really shit and directionless and useless physics.
And philosophy is used to make literally every scientific or mathematical advance, so please don't call it garbage. This just highlights that you don't really know what it is.

>>8109372
How/why is it not the case that I'm just a philosophical zombie running around according to physical laws but not having any subjective content? I won't be able to find suffering in a lab. If I conjure up some chemical potion that parallels the chemical composition/biological formation of certain human emotions I won't be able to experience the emotions themselves, but will only be looking at the material plane of their existence. I can stare at these beautiful compositions all day, but I won't ever experience the compositions by just staring at them.

If consciousness is an illusion then what you're saying is that no one is aware that this conversation is going on. Clearly I know it's going on, but I don't know if you are experiencing it obviously.

I guess I can reword the thought experiment another way. Suppose you knew everything about what it is to lose someone. That is, you've learned the social, physiological, and psychological basis of what it is to lose someone you care about. You've studied it all your life in textbooks. However, you finally actually lose someone. You've experienced what it is to lose someone. In a sense, you've added this experience to your knowledge bank. Just like I've added the experience of touching fire to my knowledge bank. That is, I won't touch fire because I know it will hurt my hand. This is a memory. It's knowledge. Same thing with the suffering. You have it in your knowledge bank. You would say that touching fire and learning that it is hot is a knowledge gain or no? because if you say you have not learned a new fact then the conversation from here is pointless really.

>>8109372
Gottfried Leibniz wrote, as an example also known as Leibniz's gap:

Moreover, it must be confessed that perception and that which depends upon it are inexplicable on mechanical grounds, that is to say, by means of figures and motions. And supposing there were a machine, so constructed as to think, feel, and have perception, it might be conceived as increased in size, while keeping the same proportions, so that one might go into it as into a mill. That being so, we should, on examining its interior, find only parts which work one upon another, and never anything by which to explain a perception

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leibniz%27s_gap

>>8109169
I share that wet dream also. We should command the stars.

>>8109191
You genuinely looked up the Oxford definition of philosophy? I'm sorry, but a single sentence can't incorporate every aspect of a field. But regardless of this, philosophy is not there to answer the questions, it is there to ask them , and to realise there even is a question to be asked. Then we use science and mathematics to answer it. There ya go, philosophy is sort of half or the parcel for gaining knowledge.

>those verbal SAT scores.
the bigger question is why are you all such autists?

>>8109398
how are we being autistic

>>8109390
Since we opened many fronts and a lot of them are going into purely philosophical territory (fascinating, but I don't have the time to discuss all of them, and philosophy doesn't have a reputation for getting objective answers), I'm going to focus on the last point and return to the start of our discussion:

What you're trying to draw the line at (I assume) with your reworded experiment is subjective experience and the physical realm, as you said in your previous posts. I'm not sure about my position on the matter myself and that's another discussion entirely, but even if we assume that I acknowledge the existence of the hard problem, it still doesn't erase the fact that there is a direct causal link between the physical and the subjective as has been demonstrated, and the best we can do in solving morality is constructing a way of measuring utility using neuroendocrinological calculations, once everything has been mapped. Venturing into the hard problem doesn't help because there are no answers to be found. Do you disagree?

>>8109392
Yes, the mind-body problem. There are many takes on this, but, as I said above, I am itching to end this discussion because we are branching off too rapidly and I have exams to attend to. heh. Maybe we'll discuss this on /his/ in one of the few times I go there.

>>8109437
>it still doesn't erase the fact that there is a direct causal link
I never disagreed with this point.
>Do you disagree?
Neither. Just another question to think about.
>Venturing into the hard problem doesn't help because there are no answers to be found.
It just means we will need a new theory that incorporates qualia with the physical. A theory that finds a coherence between the two.

>>8109449
>I never disagreed with this point.
I'm aware, I worded this badly, didn't mean to imply that you disagreed, just a reminder to get back to the question at hand.

>It just means we will need a new theory that incorporates qualia with the physical. A theory that finds a coherence between the two.
How would that work? I'm not sure if it is possible to incorporate both... I'm inclined to think that the answer is a very simple concept we already have like consciousness being an illusion (not this specific theory, just an example), not something that we can discover in the future.

>>8109456
>I'm not sure if it is possible to incorporate both
So you agree that there is a problem or not?

Kind of hard to see what your view on this is here

>How would that work?
By positing consciousness as a fundamental property in the universe perhaps. In our physical equations we have things like mass and charge without understanding their true natures. Just their mathematical or physical natures perhaps. Stephen Hawking even asked "what breaths fire into the equations?" So perhaps these smaller physical units are proto-consciousnesses that combine in a way to give us experience. The only problem with this view is how do they combine to give us these macroscopic experiences and why it is that smaller units of consciousness find a way to get consciousness into a summation instead of a simple aggregate of discrete pieces. It's up for interpretation.

>>8109159
>thinks morality is real
>tries to ''solve it''
Degenerate brainlets like you are slowing humanity down as a whole.

>>8109469
>Degenerate
>>>/pol/