Nah user, I've had this conversation before and I've other things to do than go there with you. We likely have fundamentally different perspectives on what it is to be realistic and intellectually honest, and we also probably have incompatible internal value systems. The mere fact that you'd ask such a question makes this implicit. It's not worth either of us trying to concisely convey a logical framework that accurately says what we are, and what we've been. The ancillary aspects of any statement that otherwise exists in a vacuum or is misinterpreted all to hell.
A mind without philosophy, in the context of science, is a worthless one.
No, that is most certainly science, because it's people. Science is a tool, and for one reason or another, that's how the human species works. With the fucked up mess that is modern research and publishing, this has only gotten worse.
Got other shit to do. Go watch Ghost in the Shell or something, good movie. This conversation brought it to mind.
Chase James
Ok user, thank you for running away.
I'm genuinely interested in what philosophy has to offer.
Leo Gutierrez
>is to know that you have the exact result and the approached result and the delta between the two result
Please elaborate.
You just threw that in yourself, but ok.
I already said that.
David Lee
I don't think you are. If you really claim you are, I suppose I can risk wasting some time. I've got a pounding headache though, so I'll ditch you at a moment's notice if it turns into something I don't feel like dealing with.
Logan Edwards
Mate, I will patiently listen to everything you have to say and calmly refute arguments from my perspective, while eagerly awaiting your own refutations.
Let’s engage in dialectics.
No rhetoric, no fallacy and no ad hominem.
I genuinely want to learn.
Let’s get Socratic up in here.
Easton Nelson
If that's the format you're interested in, you could ultimately harvest all the same fruit and more, by taking a reverse engineering approach to figure out how my brain generated a given output, what mental structures are involved, how to replicate it yourself, etc.
Instead, let's just have a conversation. No high stakes nonsense, no bias towards hard refutation where one need not necessarily exist. Etc.
We'll start with solipsism and what it reveals about epistemology as a whole. What do you think of solipsism?
Ian Barnes
Ok, fine let's keep it light.
>What do you think of solipsism?
I think that cognitive illusions and biases, as well as delusions, omissions and hallucinations falsify solipsism.
Adrian Lewis
How so?
Hudson Collins
Actually, scratch that; I misinterpreted the question.
Well, I think that it’s a pretty cool perspective and as we cannot know anything for certain, that even scientifically verified causation is actually just a high degree of correlation and that the mere fact that observe something changes its form entirely, I would have to agree that it’s a caveat that should be implied when making any statement about scientific ‘truth’.
However, I don’t really see what else can be done with it after that.
For me it’s like: ‘yeah totally man, anyway let’s get on with the science now and try to build better integrated circuits and think about new approaches to gene therapy’.
