How does it feel, knowing all the "feelings" and values your books talk about are nothing but hot, abstracted nonsense...

How does it feel, knowing all the "feelings" and values your books talk about are nothing but hot, abstracted nonsense? Meaningless, unquantifiable baby babble?

It makes me feel pretty good, heh.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=uBuPiC3ArL8
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

I hate smbc so much.

Is the black person supposed to be hobbes?

same

They're not 'nonsense' and the fact that things are made from atoms and ideas is the beginning of philosophy, not the end of it.

Really what the comic points out is fairly trivial in most discussions except the metaphysics of objects.

The fact that 'love' doesn't exist like protons exist just means we can talk about what 'love' is. Or ethics or justice etc.

No one is more spooked than the people who think like the black person in this comic.

Yes. See also: Magical Negro

That's a really shitty version of Condillac p much

About the same as it feels that time itself is a human construct that doesn't truly exist, feels fine.

If you want to be an existential pedant, then nothing has meaning, even "real" things like quantum interaction or the physical world. It's all just entropy and the settling of chaotic dust.

What matters is the human experience, you have to forge your own meaning in life, because it doesn't exist on its own.

>you have to forge your own meaning in life, because it doesn't exist on its own
My god this is pure.

This desu

also a return to aristotle makes me puke

Pure what?

Even if I put on my robot scientist hat it's annoying
> implying you can travel to any galaxy and definitely find a bunch of protons

Take a guess.

Mein gott. The ..... Is so pure you can't even see it

Redhead isn't wrong. The fact that the things s/he mentions rely on perception doesn't mean that they don't exist. The only way that they wouldn't exist is if it could be proven that the world existed independent of observers. Obviously, there is no way to prove this and any self-respecting scientist will tell you this. Believing that such a world exists, without being able to perceive or logically prove that it does, is essentially religious thinking. This mistake is the core of scientism.

>things arent real!

>why

>appeals to authority

ok

Feelings are real, or I wouldn't experience them.
Checkmate, friend.

that comic implies that protons are somehow different from mountains or color red as not being an anthropocentric idea of reality. if they have a word to signify them they are already an anthropocentric idea pressed into the procrustean bed of human language

that nigro had to speak in math if he wanted to avoid it

i also wouldn't seriously consider web comics with magic negroes, would prefer hobbes instead

Should writers write from perspectives they don't have? Should a white author ever have characters of different ethnicities? Should a straight male ever use characters of sexes, genders, or sexual orientations? If no, does the door swing both ways and minorities shouldn't ever write characters who are white? If you include aspects of other cultures in your story, are you performing an act of appropriation?
How does one include things they can't possibly understand yet remain authentic?

Straight men are a minority.

True. And math is a human concept anyway, a system for describing the world. The old 'world is math' fallback is pure abstracted nonsense, ironically the same criticism your scientism-advocating STEM NEET will levy against philosophy and religion.

What do you call a scientism-advocate anyway? Can't use 'scientist'.

the world is math thing is closer to the truth than you think, not that it justifies any arguments nerds make

lay it on me user

>the world is math thing is closer to the truth than you think i think
t. user

...

...

>Misunderstanding Plato's Ideas this hard

amazing autism

You are basically asking if a human bean should use the imagination in his possession

Yes you absolutely fucking can. Our galaxy isn't some unique item. Every star out there is primarily protons crashing into each other. Don't post about astrophysics if you don't know jack shit about it.

Not the guy you're replying to but I think what people mean when we say this is that any observer would create the same set of mathematical laws if they were presented our universe. I'd bet that they'd be better than us at probability too. Humans are so utterly garbage at probability in a world which is a composition of probabilities that it is amazing.

>Every star out there is primarily protons crashing into each other. Don't post about astrophysics if you don't know jack shit about it.
What about the ones made primarily of antiprotons ;^)

Kekmate.

I wonder if any other animals are better at probability than us. Like I know they think cats are smart but are not easily trainable on the same way as dogs, maybe they inherently view things as probabilistic or something

>dogs playing poker

Would they? There's no way to find out, barring alien contact. Your claim cannot be observed and tested. It's a non-scientific basis for a scientific theory. There is just as much chance that any observer would create the same set of moral laws or the same standards for art. Math is as much a human construction as anything else.

lol what

so calling something a heap is a "human concept", but calling something a proton isn't?

the mere fact that you used english in the first place completely defeats this idea

Are cats better at poker than dogs?

I like the implication that we'll get over heaps by travelling to other galaxies. Boldly going where no man has gone before, that's the answer to everything!

what do you even mean by "better at probability", i don't understand it as well as what that claim means that humans are "utterly garbage at probability"

certainly humans have infinitely better conception of probability than animals, both with or without math; now, get it, most of animals don't understand that they are a separate being at all, they have no self-consciousness i.e. they have no "i" however primitive it could be. only very few animals - some apes, possibly some cetaceans and some birds (corvids)... possibly elephants (?) have it... sometimes. now, even if they have it they still usually don't understand how things are connected with each other. animals live in a much different world than we, you understand that if you push a cup of water it falls from the table, animals don't. yes, they can self-learn to open doors and do stuff like that, but they learn it by trial and error method like a computer program would i.e. they self-make a conditioned reflex. some apes sometimes can have an insight about connections between things but it's their max. you see, connections between things it's merely the level of elementary thinking, since animals don't have language they cannot think abstractly. probability itself is an abstract idea so even the smartest animals cannot know it. one can try to teach a chimp some american sign language and possibly that chimp can understand the very basic of probability, i dunno, but it's the maximum what they can

if you mean they can instinctively solve some tasks which imply some uncertainty, mostly related to their movement - every animal can do it including man and if you ever seen how a cat jumps before a car and gets smashed you wouldn't be of an especial high estimation about the movement prediction skill of animals (the cat of course doesn't understand that the car can kill him, but he has some instincts and possibly also reflexes which tell him to avoid fast moving objects)

also cats are stupid animals and so are dogs

it's silly to directly connect smartness with obedience (as they did in the time of alfred brehm) or disobedience (as some people do it now), albeit i should note that obedience is a reliable sign of domestication and domestication makes animals much more stupid than their wild counterparts, cats are domesticated anyway, their disobedience stems from them being solitary animals (ok, not really solitary bit not pack animals too) while dogs feel like they live in a pack and so obey much more readily; i don't know who is smarter, cats or dogs, i know they both are stupid

to be fair, they're certainly not the same kinds of conceptual knowledge. If you were to abstract the definition of 'heap' from whatever substance you've heaped together, you'd be left with something that is of an indeterminate composition, that is never consistently made up of the same quantities of stuff, that can be made smaller or bigger, or have its constitution replaced with an entirely different substance, and yet still be defined as the same thing. It's like other human words like 'weed' or 'lap' - they only operate as real-world referents if the specific conditions of perspective are met (weeds are plants I don't like, a lap exists only when sitting down, etc.). A proton on the other hand is always going to be a proton.

>if you mean they can instinctively solve some tasks which imply some uncertainty, mostly related to their movement - every animal can do it including man and if you ever seen how a cat jumps before a car and gets smashed you wouldn't be of an especial high estimation about the movement prediction skill of animals (the cat of course doesn't understand that the car can kill him, but he has some instincts and possibly also reflexes which tell him to avoid fast moving objects)
People have trouble working out the Monty Hall Problem. On the face of it it just don't make sense.

As well I'd suggest putting away the B F Skinner and co and picking up some Montaigne or something. Dogs are fucking master logicians. We have to study that shit.

>cats are stupid animals and so are dogs
>written by "kitty"
Why are you so hard on yourself? :(

>science can get me out of subjectivity

good luck with that chump

>People have trouble working out the Monty Hall Problem.
and animals cannot get even close to understanding what's going on in it

>As well I'd suggest putting away the B F Skinner
it's not behaviorism since i go there way past reflexes

>Dogs are fucking master logicians.

pshaw
it's not even funny
i seriously suggest you to check what abstract thinking is and what it demands
also walking mazes (and dogs are not great there afaik) is in no way a sign of knowing any logic

>Monty Hall Problem

This is such reddit tier bullshit, and proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that probability, statistics, and mathematics are meaningless abstractions, like everything else we've come up with for the past 6000 years or however long it's been.

Could you be any more of a negative Veeky Forums stereotype?

Will armchair philosophers ever stop confusing language problems with reality? All words have contingent, malleable, disputed definitions. That's not a problem, it's a necessity. Fuzzy logic and vague predicates are the way communication functions, not some obstacle to it.

That's just not true. Things like 1 and 0 are not human concepts. 0 existed before we called it that. n dimensional space will be defined as n dimensional space regardless of the terminology. Maybe another life form will have no concept of geometry but if they do they will likely have a circle. No matter what counting system you define the circumference of a circle is pi*r. Unless you're arguing that aliens will not count or define linear space in any way then their rules will be the same.

The sororities problem is discussed by real philosophers.

>you understand that if you push a cup of water it falls from the table, animals don't. yes, they can self-learn to open doors and do stuff like that, but they learn it by trial and error method like a computer program would

Humans learn from trial and error too. We make associations between somewhat similar events better than other animals and we may (I've never seen any research around this) learn from trial and error better but it is still trial and error. Further, your classic computer program does not learn from trial and error, it is a rules based system created by a person. They exception to this are "machine learning" programs. Somewhat ironically, what many consider to be the best of three aforementioned programs actually does trial and error in a manner that approximates the human brain.

You're ignoring that words matter to us more in the form of text, rather than by themselves.

In other words (get it)

No word should be seperated from the context that it was spawned in. The significance and meanings we give to words help us grasp the world around us.

its analytic degeneracy at its finest
>If its sounds smart but is easy to understand, it must be true

More importantly I fail to see how someone can claim an atom is an inherent categorization whilst a heap is an arbirtrary catergorization.

So writers should only ever write about a world full of clones of themself? You do realize all people are broadly the same? racist turd

no, they cheat too much

you forgot meme magic my friend, I walked past old dick dawkins the other day and the next day I threw dirt at a church, explain that!

There are questions that deal with being human and questions that deal with being the universe. Shared ideas, even if they're not "real", bear their own weight.

Fuck, even Weiner's mocking the idea of pulling purely towards materialist thinking. Y'all are dumb as shit

>you understand that if you push a cup of water it falls from the table, animals don't.
What the fuck even is this? I think most animals would have some sort of concept of "falling"

Thank you for trying to differentiate between "real" and "fake" philosophers in this particular thread. It made me smile.

The post I replied to was talking about 'armchair philosophers'.

Would using a number system other than base 10 change the way math is understood? Or is that just arbitrary?

No but arithmetic with roman numerals is painful enough that it impedes progress.

...

trial and error is an umbrella term for a plenty of methods with pretty different nature

humans certainly don't need to get a conditioned reflex to interact with tools, things and stuff, a stupidest man understands how a shovel works and how his actions move soil from one place to another if you make him to dig a pit, a smartest chimp if you manage to teach it to dig would likely do it automatically only because it was taught with positive stimuli having no idea about the result of its action only knowing that this action is somehow good for it

the concept of falling generally (not of falling this cup which you see right now but of falling generally) is an abstract concept and therefore needs a true language to even be possible

>an abstract concept and therefore needs a true language to even be possible
Citation needed.

it's common knowledge

google abstract thinking and language

What about birds fishing?

youtube.com/watch?v=uBuPiC3ArL8

it's either an instinct or a learned reflex

>it's common knowledge
Citation needed.

I doubt it's an instinct, more likely something similar to blue jays learning to remove milk bottle lids. But why would behavioural plasticity which seems to demonstrates a flexibility in what can be done/understood, and subsequently transferred (through imitation) need a language? Obviously it can't understand the concept of fishing, but it does understand how to fish.

Human language obviously must have arisen from less complex precursors that were influenced by selective pressures, and novel environments lead to novel behaviours.

>I doubt it's an instinct, more likely something similar to blue jays learning to remove milk bottle lids

a learned reflex then

both of those things don't need even elementary thinking, they don't understand what they do, they simply learned to do it to their benefit

yes, such behaviour can be very complicated

imo it's pretty fascinating to try to imagine how animals actually see the world without doing it through the eyes of anthropomorphism, it's pretty hard to imagine it not falling into making them into something like simple minded persons with their simple thoughts

i mean animals are not robots too, have emotions without dividing themselves from the world i.e. without having ego, huh

>imo it's pretty fascinating to try to imagine how animals actually see the world without doing it through the eyes of anthropomorphism

I completely agree, it's fascinating to see how the 'traits/temperaments' between two closely related species differs, in addition to the variation between individuals within a species itself (dogs being an extreme example due to artificial selection). Let alone anything as foreign as a bat, with perception primarily based on sound.

You're arguing that all human, or human-type observers will come to the same conclusions about math. Pi will always be 3.14 regardless of what you call those numbers, right. Fair enough.

BUT math is a human framework for understanding the natural world, as it is perceived by humans. 1 and 0 ARE human concepts. They do not exist outside of human thought. There are no human-type aliens, (or aliens at all) and there is no proof that math is part of some 'objective reality' independent of human observers. Such a claim would be impossible to test anyway. You cannot escape your limited perspective through math.

And what would you say, just as a thought, if aliens had the same understanding of morality as us, but not math? Would that make morality a part of objective reality, and math a subjective human idea?

bomp

>1 and 0 ARE human concepts.
To bolster the argument, much like imaginary numbers, there have been times where 0 and negative numbers were considered unintuitive. They only really came on the scene with Indian bookkeeping.

Nice post, but I'm getting a strange false equivalence aftertaste. Did a Christian cook this?

>the concept of falling generally (not of falling this cup which you see right now but of falling generally) is an abstract concept and therefore needs a true language to even be possible
This is the stupidity of the human race everybody
> well there's this thing most creatures understand called falling but for us humans to really understand it we need to make an overly elaborate framework around it and pretend it's somehow truer than intuition

You're also understanding a "reflex" much like Skinner. So p shittily. And applying it universally like Skinner.

>I Have Severe Asperges: The Post