STEMTARDS BTFO

STEMTARDS COULDNT REPLY


HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>>8589174
>p-please respond

>>8589175
NO REPLY AHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA

>>8589072
>materialism undermines materialism because it doesn't imply idealism
Might as well bang your head against a brick wall desu

>>8589072
value in the sense it is being used here is an undefinable subjective term that has no bearing on anything. Additionally
>or truth to your statements either!
this is where the philosophyfag went full retard and supposed that truth is somehow tied to this non-concept of value.

>>8589579
/thread

>>8589072
>implying that something coming forom chemical reactions has inherently no value.
>being a philotard unable to think simply and clearly without intellevtual masturbation.

All thoughts and feelings ARE the result of chemical reactions and atoms interacting with one another
That, however doesn't impact their value or the truth

>>8589828
I thought it affected the meaning by ridding one's thoughts of free will, as these processes are deterministic/random

Value =/= truth
Also, there is truth behind the chemical reactions that happen in our brain. You can acknowledge that our perception is entirely a byproduct of chemical reactions in our brain and at the same time not rule out everything that these chemical reactions show us.

>>8589072
When I punch 2+2 into a calculator it finds the answer through atoms and electrical signals, does that mean we can't trust the answer that it gives us?

>>8590177
I don't think free will to be anything else than the name we put on the unknown causes of our actions. It however doesn't deprive those action from their meaning or value.

>>8589579
>>materialism undermines materialism because it doesn't imply idealism

Wrong, brainlet, read again.

>>8590235
Your justification for 1+1=2 is purely linguistically based and has no inherent basis.

>>8590496
Whatever philosotard, you completely missed the point. Not to mention I said 2+2 you dumbshit.

>>8590518
How do you know it is the 'right' answer beyond the definition? :^)

>>8590539
>le we can't know nuffin argument

>>8590564
No one said that, friend. Just admit that your axioms rely on assumptions :^)

>>8590573
Do you know even know what an axiom is? By definition an axiom *is* an assumption.

>>8590586
>By definition an axiom *is* an assumption.

"no"

>>8590595
Holy shit I need to stop taking the bait.

But since I'm sufficiently triggered, look up the definition of axiom on Wikipedia and tell me what the very first sentence says.

>chemicals telling you they are chemicals doesn't make them chemicals
Except that's not how it works