[ home ] [ math / cs / ai / phy / as / chem / bio / geo ] [ civ / aero / mech / ee / hdl / os / dev / web / app / sys / net / sec ] [ med / fin / psy / soc / his / lit / lin / phi / arch ] [ off / vg / jp / 2hu / tc / ts / adv / hr / meta / tex ] [ chat ] [ wiki ]

/phi/ - Philosophy

Name
Email
Subject
Comment
Verification
Instructions:
  • Press the Get Captcha button to get a new captcha
  • Find the correct answer and type the key in TYPE CAPTCHA HERE
  • Press the Publish button to make a post
  • Incorrect answer to the captcha will result in an immediate ban.
File
Password (For file deletion.)
25 Dec 2021Mathchan is launched into public
Catalog Archive

File: science physics.jpg ( 109.86 KB , 680x538 , 1722833063498.jpg )

Image
  No. 39
Reply
>>40 >>41 >>42
I mean, nowadays most people believe and trust in science, even if it is nothing but a bunch of scribblings. You need to trust the authors of science articles, to trust the experiment can be reproduced, to trust that the experiment actually occured and is not just made up...
Sounds like kikery
16 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click here to view.
>>
  No. 57 >>58
>>55
>I am 30 years old. I am just telling you about radical sckepicism, five modes of Agrippa and you're just making excuses and repeating passive agressive old shit like this.
I already have had read Sextus Empiricus as I was a teen, thanks.

1000 years ago, no one had access to a computer; many calculation were just impossible, a lot of information has been lost because of fire, book burining and so on.
Today, we're much more further.

As I said, in my opinion, our observation are depended of our point of view. While the inferences and/or conclusions are objective.
This is possible by mathematics.

If you take:
(1) All humans are mortal
(2) Socrates is a human
(3) Ergo is Socrates mortal.

This inference is objective true, even if the premisses would be false. The logical relation is what is true, we can be wrong about empirical data.
>>
  No. 58 >>59
>>56
all of your "reasoning" crumbles with a simple "why"

just say you have blind bleief

>>57
>1000 years ago, no one had access to a computer;
they still had brains, very smart brains. scientists know that newtons law is wrong yet they still use it because it gives "results". computer start from assumptions, without those blind beleifs a computer can't do shit.

>(1) All humans are mortal
why?

nothing is without assumption. yuo can't prove shit. nothing is objective. maybe pick up outlines of skepticism once again.
>>
  No. 59 >>60
>>58
I do not say that the premisses are right.
My point was that the inference as such are the thing we know for sure.
>>
  No. 60 >>61
>>59
If you're not sure about premisses then you can you be sure about whatever it leads to?
>>
  No. 61
>>60
Because logic and the way proofs work.
P1 A
P2 A -> B
This allows me to infere:
c B

Yes P1 is a presumption, maybe, empirical false. But if P1 would be the cause, the inference itself is valid.

File: 54104210_303.jpg ( 22.25 KB , 700x394 , 1643821462815.jpg )

Image
  No. 7
Reply
Philosophers have thus far only interpreted the world, the point however is to change it.
>>
  No. 8
Philosophers on suicide watch.
>>
  No. 9

File: duq4ddkyz0c51.jpg ( 2.42 MB , 2800x4029 , 1652537054842.jpg )

Image
Change it into what, OP?
>>
  No. 12
"The insights of philosophers have occasionally benefited physicists, but generally in a negative fashion – by protecting them from the preconceptions of other philosophers. ... without some guidance from our preconceptions one could do nothing at all. It is just that philosophical principles have not generally provided us with the right preconceptions." -Steven Weinberg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_mathematics#Rough-and-ready_realism
>>
  No. 44

File: download.jpg ( 7.38 KB , 183x275 , 1640638734336.jpg )

Image
  No. 1
Reply
>>2 >>11
>Philosophy is the requirement for every civilization as no civilization can be created without symbols that unite its citizens to partake in the very same civilization, such that could be described as an ideology. Today we also use philosophy, although unknowingly to entertain a meaning of our life. For an example, a popular philosophy is that of authenticity which is derived from Existentialism. The problem is that philosophies are taken for granted and are not withstanding any scrutiny by it’s believers. That’s where the distinction begins. Philosophy, as it’s translation from ancient Greek is defined as love of wisdom. Following the meaning of the definition we come to the conclusion that you don’t actually love wisdom if you refuse to put everything through all forms of scrutiny as it exposes your unwillingness to find the truth and thus love of wisdom. This is the reason why we need to live in world wide philosophical societies, such that every human is able and required to fully contemplate their actions and it’s consequences. Without philosophy we cannot live in a coherent way in this construct we have as of now unless we have reached an objective truth or something absolute that can show us the perfect way to live. I label it as incoherent because in a society that doesn’t embrace philosophy instead forces us to rely on random cultural influence and biological determinism that accepts only basic emotions as truth which leads to chaotic, irrational and deadly actions. This is why we need to embrace living in a civilization and understand our duty of being philosophers. The only way to achieve this is by racially segregating people in the best climate for them. The very idea of ethnic diversity is flawed because it tries to mix people with very different features which creates unforeseen results and low trust societies. Through racial segregation people can become self-aware of their positive and negative ethnical and environmental qualities that prevent them from being philosophers, prevent unexpected behavior and strive to negate all negative qualities. For now, this sounds like the most reasonable and humane way to achieve world peace. In a world where people love wisdom and find their meaning of life by being philosophers who investigate the meaning of life and their problems while sharing it globally looks closer to virtuous living than in such that refuses to acknowledge it. Mandatory philosophical education for all agesPost too long. Click here to view the full text.
2 posts omitted. Click here to view.
>>
  No. 4 >>5
>>3
>they aren't ready for
You do realize most these "ideas" are actually just basic modes of thinking? It's like saying people shouldn't study math. But the thing is that philosophy is more fundamental. If we lived in a society where philosophy was the norm then nobody would get away with saying illogical and unreasonable things.
>>
  No. 5 >>6
>>4
People shouldn't be made to study too much of a thing they don't want and won't be using. How much math does the average person end up using in their lifetime? Is this worth the resentment towards math that is built up? The OP talks about world peace; that's not fundamentally different from what globalists want. Biological determinism means accepting that only some people are thinkers.
>>
  No. 6
>>5
>People shouldn't be made to study too much of a thing they don't want and won't be using.
Philosophy sparks curiosity.
>How much math does the average person end up using in their lifetime?
Not much because we still live in a low-brow society.
>Is this worth the resentment towards math that is built up?
If people are taughtto think they will learn to love all subjects and especially math.
>that's not fundamentally different from what globalists want.
How? The globalists want to create a mixed race slave class that doesn't think.
>Biological determinism means accepting that only some people are thinkers.
No, it just implies some people might be better at it but that doesn't mean all people can't contribute to it. We have yet achieve a state where pure performance matters.
>>
  No. 11
>>1
ias gem
>>
  No. 38
humans are, as of now through our nature creatures of the minimum, we fall and fold and flail as much as we, or our bodies deem possible to get away with
the inherent fault in instilling base modes of thinking in the common man is the assumtion that he wants to think

where a man does non want to think he quickly becomes adapt at defeating thought, through petty arguements and cheap refutations he can and will avoid the most pressing of problems

so, as i see it, it is clear that are we to properly educate the common man, and given we have no resounding budget to individually school each, we must clearly focus not on the positive but on the negative, on teaching men how not to cheat

File: skull.png ( 71.16 KB , 644x900 , 1706037755422.png )

Image
  No. 37
Reply
What do you think about this Approach:
https://youtu.be/vPS5Yw_YsHA

Do you think there is something to it or is it nonsense?

Must be believe in false things to become human?

File: aqua.PNG ( 214.99 KB , 1474x810 , 1689971082911.png )

Image
  No. 31
Reply
>>32 >>35
Can AI help us with theological/metaphysical questions like the question of the existence of g'd or a higher reality?
>https://page.mi.fu-berlin.de/cbenzmueller/papers/C40.pdf

What do you think, fellow anons?
>>
  No. 32
>>31

Pic:
>https://ibb.co/2sQRcps
>>
  No. 33 >>34 >>36
Not sure. I'm more interested in the theological questions AI raises about man. In the Christian tradition, man has typically been seen as a unique creature posessed with reason and langauge, which is what distinguishes him from lower animals, but if a computer is capable of complex reasoning what does that say about man? Anyway, thanks anon I've never seen Godel's proof of God.
>>
  No. 34
>>33
>In the Christian tradition, man has typically been seen as a
>unique creature posessed with reason and langauge, which is what distinguishes him from
>lower animals, but if a computer is capable of complex reasoning
>what does that say about man?

Thats a really good questions, fellow and follow anon.
In the catholic tradition, the faculty to understand abstract ("platonic") ideas like a triangle is a proof for the immortality of the soul.
So, study math, to show that your soul is really eternal. ;)

Thomas of Aquin define the soul as the causa formalis of the body.
As the AI has no such a thing as a body, I guess, we can doubt that AI has a soul.
>>
  No. 35
>>
  No. 36
>>33
>In the Christian tradition, man has typically been seen as a unique creature posessed with reason and langauge
There were also angels

File: l1kdUg6.jpeg ( 88.88 KB , 1280x720 , 1678798169233.jpeg )

Image
  No. 20
Reply
Why is there gravity?

File: animesher.com_tired-study-918043.jpg ( 48.42 KB , 500x280 , 1661841992198.jpg )

Image
  No. 14
Reply
>>15
"There is no such thing as true good or true evil it is all relative to the observer"
>>
  No. 15
>>14
If everyone closes their eyes then we can kill everyone while being morally correct.
>>
  No. 16
Irrelevant. It's, in pure theory, relative to the observer.
But since we're human, any application of "good" or "evil" resides so much in a human moral framework, moral relativity to the observer is really only brought up to say
>"Technically morality doesn't exist so it's okay if I shat in your orange bottle."
and doesn't get applicable really elsewhere.

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] | Catalog | Archive
[ home ] [ math / cs / ai / phy / as / chem / bio / geo ] [ civ / aero / mech / ee / hdl / os / dev / web / app / sys / net / sec ] [ med / fin / psy / soc / his / lit / lin / phi / arch ] [ off / vg / jp / 2hu / tc / ts / adv / hr / meta / tex ] [ chat ] [ wiki ]