|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jan 19, 2020 7:31:05 GMT
How to destroy philosophy you may ask? Many tried, but it wasn't easy as long as liars participated debates (in which they were supposed to be sent to death). Each time the science had been shrugging its shoulders and arose as a titan some liars did not well things inventing stupid accusations; people believed those liars and the scientists were needed to be quiet to survive.
But the question of burying philosophy has been arising once again and not only once. This question is important, because of - whether philosophy is playing role of an arbiter in science or what? If this is so (or maybe any other arguments), then we shouldn't kill philosophy as long as it serves us as a tool of sharping our reasons.
Then, philosophy is a servant to science?
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jan 24, 2020 21:00:16 GMT
How to destroy philosophy you may ask? Many tried, but it wasn't easy as long as liars participated debates (in which they were supposed to be sent to death). Each time the science had been shrugging its shoulders and arose as a titan some liars did not well things inventing stupid accusations; people believed those liars and the scientists were needed to be quiet to survive. But the question of burying philosophy has been arising once again and not only once. This question is important, because of - whether philosophy is playing role of an arbiter in science or what? If this is so (or maybe any other arguments), then we shouldn't kill philosophy as long as it serves us as a tool of sharping our reasons. Then, philosophy is a servant to science? The great tragedy is when philosophy sees itself (and is seen by others) as the servant of science. These 'philosophists' are then little more than petty bureaucrats whose purpose is to lick the boots of the scientists, and ward off any attempt to put science in its proper place: the servant of ethics. All genuine scientific endeavour is a solution to an ethical problem, whether to save lives (medicine), or even to win wars over barbaric masses, or to simply lay a logical grounding for new sciences. When science tries to elevate itself above ethics, the result is ego: elitists and petty hierarchies. The psychology of which is typically Freudian. The result is the collapse of that society into war, civil-war, or just degenerative dystopia. In this era, the immediate ethical question is the environment. But money-grubbing egotists, will return society to a feudal/medieval state, if they are allowed to. This is the most likely tragedy: the next 100 years sees no significant change, other than a steady erosion of life and health that will go with the decaying of the environment. The cause of this: the 'philosophist'. The noble philosopher is ready to take on the Herculean task of subduing the ego of science to its position as the pet dog of its true masters: philosophy, ethics, metaphysics. ...But science is not an abandoned child. Science is just a tool. Nothing more. We're all who do all the work. "Science" is a man, or a group of people. I see no such thing as "science" behind all of it. Leaving ethics be somewhere outside science isn't good... However, I can't believe this as such a tragedy. Even Macbeth - the warrior with the forest and his intentions to the power - failed, because he had believed to witches. No, this view about evilness of science isn't good either. For me science helps me with electricity and engineering houses; If I use it as a weapon, science doesn't transform into something scary. For instance, if one's plotting to make a crime, and to do this a weapon is necessary, so if "science" would be taken, this doesn't mean "science" had intentions to make it; the human is the one who must have responsibilities to do this. Also, it's not possible to divide the clear one science from another as well as one piece of mental activity from another one. Since R. Carnap said that the universal laws had the form (x)(Px⊃Qx), and science is what trying to find and explains it, how to divide the History from the Biology, if both of disciplines had the same retrospective predictions? H: "During the period of time T people lived in tremor and fear", B: "During the period of time T in people's bodies some pheromones were proliferating". There's also some rhetoric in terms, when we're using words like "lapdog", "bureaucrats", "servants". Surely the terms are allowed, but the color of them is not so transparent it should be like. I'm not positively sure, but some historians are using such terms to draw a picture of some past time as something one-meaning. For example, "an invasion of Soviet Forces to Poland" in 1939 all over the world sounds like I've said, but in Russia it has another meaning, their historians tell that it wasn't an invasion, but a constructive struggle, or something else like this. So, depending on what terms are used, the meaning might be changed.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jan 24, 2020 21:23:42 GMT
You know, NineX, recently I had a little and short vision. I think I've got a tiny part of you've been saying constantly about a year ago. I mean this idea of loops through loops, tautology through tautologies... You must be genius! Surely, I'm not sure about what I've seen as what you've said, while the idea of it - circular motion doesn't seem to me negatively any longer. (I never doubt in it either, but now I suppose to take it clear.) If I'm thinking there might be something as a line, or something... maybe it's not the line, maybe it's a circle, or a cube... not so important, but it's kinda flashlight's light that's coming from the lamp and like a projector beats something with this light as a lightning. So, If I'm thinking there might be some sequence, some order. In this case "order" doesn't correspond to the order. "Order" is what remains changing "light" to "sequence". If I'm thinking, the order's going deeply and all parts that I see as parts are part of those remains of the light. No matter - dividing the thought further, or grouping some "thoughts" together - the result is almost the same - thinking is continue. If I'm thinking the loop of thinking is going, and going, and going on on each step. It doesn't matter there are no changes; they might be. But all the tools our minds are using are loops too. Surely, that taking loops as loops my thinking should change into something another, but it wouldn't, because there are no "changes" more. Circular scenarios of "changing" from loops to loops are crawling, changing rather me, then mechanisms of "changing" itself. So, why the negation wouldn't be what we call "changing" every next level ("nexts" and "levels" are nothing more, than the borders of that light - what we consider as those borders). If there's no composition there's no circularity, and there's no motion. A composition is what be grabbed by the mind, bundled up into the roundness. The composited picture is what has been seen along with visioning of the light. No Eugene I am not a genius. I just payed attention to how I think and how people around me think. We repeat things in loops. Second I studied and focused on the Munchauseen trilemma, and its variations, for some years and applied it to everything I observed...including the trilemma itself. After noticing how common the circle appears, I kept looking for more loops to see how far it went....and it goes real deep. I have learned God exists, whether you want it or not...and I have to confess personal guilt as there have been times I wished God did not exist. But God is merciful, even though we all reap what we sow. Anyhow, modern philosophy is dead...but that does not mean philosophy itself is not dead. If you want to walk away knowing objective absolute truths exist, you might want to look under the symbols of the "⊙" and "+" (or "x") and contemplate these things deeply. Start looking for loops, that which repeats, and "intersections/crosses", that which joins/synthesizes. Reality is a series of fractals, think of everything like Russian mirror dolls or a white light going through a prism and resulting on variations of the white light. Ok, but you have many talents. This is definite! And results are impressive. Indeed. For shame of mine I never even heard of Munchhausen trilemma before. You mentioned God. Atheism of you. This theme, as you know, is close for me, too, but I see that your inspiration and emotional level of it much more deeper. Your vision of reality sharps it, and bends it how it should be bent. I know that the exhortations of mine aren't colorful, however, I'm on your side. Not knowing for sure I have feeling you're right.
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Jan 25, 2020 14:59:57 GMT
Eugene 2.0One can experiment with the 'neuroscience' claims that our emotive life is simply a construct of chemicals; though this itself does require a certain degree of bravery. For instance, serotonin and dopamine can be artificially induced either as substances or as re-uptake inhibitors. After experimenting prolifically I can totally conclude that my mind can simply overpower any such fake emotions from these substances. This shows that they are primarily a secondary or placebo effect. The list of false claims for mind-drugs is endless. More simply we can experiment with alcohol which has often had all types of emotive effects attributed to it. But once one undergoes serious self-psycho-analysis of those effects it can be easily seen that these are entirely placebo effects. Whether alcohol makes you brave or amorous or amusing or joyful or sad - is purely a pre-conceived belief falsely attributed to the substance. Telling this to a young mind, does not in any way prevent them from still falling for their own self-induced illusions. 'Neuroscience' is for the most part little different from a bunch of egotistical hooligans, just out to impose themselves on hapless subjects.
|
|
gater
Junior Member
Posts: 91
Likes: 22
|
Post by gater on Feb 11, 2020 18:08:39 GMT
Philosophy is a search for the truth, unencumbered by what we cant see or experience. Philosophers know how to apply Logic, and accept a logical conclusion as fact. Scientists only accept empirical evidence, they look through their telescopes and make theories, but until they accept eternity, and infinity, they will wallow in ignorance.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Feb 12, 2020 21:04:27 GMT
Eugene 2.0 One can experiment with the 'neuroscience' claims that our emotive life is simply a construct of chemicals; though this itself does require a certain degree of bravery. For instance, serotonin and dopamine can be artificially induced either as substances or as re-uptake inhibitors. After experimenting prolifically I can totally conclude that my mind can simply overpower any such fake emotions from these substances. This shows that they are primarily a secondary or placebo effect. The list of false claims for mind-drugs is endless. More simply we can experiment with alcohol which has often had all types of emotive effects attributed to it. But once one undergoes serious self-psycho-analysis of those effects it can be easily seen that these are entirely placebo effects. Whether alcohol makes you brave or amorous or amusing or joyful or sad - is purely a pre-conceived belief falsely attributed to the substance. Telling this to a young mind, does not in any way prevent them from still falling for their own self-induced illusions. 'Neuroscience' is for the most part little different from a bunch of egotistical hooligans, just out to impose themselves on hapless subjects. Hmm... I was thinking some chemicals did have influence on us in any case. But for sure this thought has all the potential to be solid argument. Perhaps I'll be correct if I divide pure reason from 'a calculation mind' to say that chemicals have nothing over us. Usual practical mind routine that we do daily appears as some types of connections between few things or objects. As an example, we can see one tree, but being liquidated (I mean to be drunk as hell) there may appear two or more trees at the same time. And because of this, I guess, it can be explained that some have original math vision of things while some haven't. Heyting and Brouwer the intuitionists wrote that it's not axioms, but rather abilities of mind - some specific actions (?) - allows ones to sum, to divide, and so on. That's also can give us clue why math skills help us then and only then we take some math examples as formulations. The pure reasoning is another scenario. There are no contradictions or limits in ordinary understanding. All non-equalities and barriers are taken as a part for strategies, tactical tricks and so on. So, when I'm reasoning I don't need to lay down under chemical or biological causes - I can overpass them if I do want it, and it goes through (or with) my will's demanding. Considering these two parts I can conclude that an influence of neuro-laws on me is a reasoning mind though.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Feb 12, 2020 21:14:36 GMT
Philosophy is a search for the truth, unencumbered by what we cant see or experience. Philosophers know how to apply Logic, and accept a logical conclusion as fact. Scientists only accept empirical evidence, they look through their telescopes and make theories, but until they accept eternity, and infinity, they will wallow in ignorance. What do you think about of recalling (taking 'em back) all that "big bang", "relativity", "the uncertainty principle", "instability" (Prigogine), "weird geometries", "possible worlds", etc. from science? I think that there are even more strange and undefined (firmly) terms inside the science have been hiding since... perhaps late 90's of XIX century. If we remove all that terms will science be more stable? I hope it will; at least it will be look like as something more stable and less shaky. However, it's also not so easy to exclude all the a posteriori terms from us. Daily life, on the one hand, and things that are able to be checked as facts, on the other hand, are what makes us to take some axioms. For instance, if there wouldn't be like that, we could take absolutely free forms of axioms as something true, but we never do it. We can't assume that the cows have elephant heads, or the mice are atoms. Nevertheless, all the formulations have such weird formalization principles in them.
|
|
gater
Junior Member
Posts: 91
Likes: 22
|
Post by gater on Feb 13, 2020 4:07:48 GMT
Philosophy is a search for the truth, unencumbered by what we cant see or experience. Philosophers know how to apply Logic, and accept a logical conclusion as fact. Scientists only accept empirical evidence, they look through their telescopes and make theories, but until they accept eternity, and infinity, they will wallow in ignorance. What do you think about of recalling (taking 'em back) all that "big bang", "relativity", "the uncertainty principle", "instability" (Prigogine), "weird geometries", "possible worlds", etc. from science? I think that there are even more strange and undefined (firmly) terms inside the science have been hiding since... perhaps late 90's of XIX century. If we remove all that terms will science be more stable? I hope it will; at least it will be look like as something more stable and less shaky. However, it's also not so easy to exclude all the a posteriori terms from us. Daily life, on the one hand, and things that are able to be checked as facts, on the other hand, are what makes us to take some axioms. For instance, if there wouldn't be like that, we could take absolutely free forms of axioms as something true, but we never do it. We can't assume that the cows have elephant heads, or the mice are atoms. Nevertheless, all the formulations have such weird formalization principles in them. Science is something that should offer proof, how many times have we times have we heard "Scientifically proven" - But astrophysicists only offer theory, and preach it as truth.
|
|
|
Post by thesageofmainstreet on Feb 14, 2020 1:54:24 GMT
Nature Is a Crime Against Humanity
Postmodern ethics is retrogressive, forcing us to tumble backwards into a primitive, mindless, and subhuman state. All decadence is caused by hereditary power, which excludes intelligent independent thought.
|
|
|
Post by thesageofmainstreet on Feb 14, 2020 19:20:43 GMT
The great tragedy is when philosophy sees itself (and is seen by others) as the servant of science. These 'philosophists' are then little more than petty bureaucrats whose purpose is to lick the boots of the scientists, and ward off any attempt to put science in its proper place: the servant of ethics. All genuine scientific endeavour is a solution to an ethical problem, whether to save lives (medicine), or even to win wars over barbaric masses, or to simply lay a logical grounding for new sciences. When science tries to elevate itself above ethics, the result is ego: elitists and petty hierarchies. The psychology of which is typically Freudian. The result is the collapse of that society into war, civil-war, or just degenerative dystopia. In this era, the immediate ethical question is the environment. But money-grubbing egotists, will return society to a feudal/medieval state, if they are allowed to. This is the most likely tragedy: the next 100 years sees no significant change, other than a steady erosion of life and health that will go with the decaying of the environment. The cause of this: the 'philosophist'. The noble philosopher is ready to take on the Herculean task of subduing the ego of science to its position as the pet dog of its true masters: philosophy, ethics, metaphysics. ...But science is not an abandoned child. Science is just a tool. Nothing more. We're all who do all the work. "Science" is a man, or a group of people. Also, it's not possible to divide the clear one science from another as well as one piece of mental activity from another one. Since R. Carnap said that the universal laws had the form (x)(Px⊃Qx), and science is what trying to find and explains it, how to divide the History from the Biology, if both of disciplines had the same retrospective predictions? H: "During the period of time T people lived in tremor and fear", B: "During the period of time T in people's bodies some pheromones were proliferating". he meaning might be changed. You Deserve to Die of Cancer If You Believe in Unpaid Education. That Stunts Mental Growth.Would it be philosophical, or merely cross-training, to inject views from other sciences into an isolated science? For example, you might learn animal psychology if you think a tumor acts like a herd. You might learn archaic history, human fossils, and nuclear physics if you realize that the farther we go back in time, the more radioactive decay there was; therefore mankind might have had more anti-cancer abilities back then, say in the apparently useless appendix or in men's nipples. Third, evolution at the primary state necessitated adding a lot of junk DNA, which could be activated and form a separate but unviable life-form that had to regenerate rapidly because it could never reach maturity. Or petroleum science and mineralogy using the neutrino in a satellite as a Geiger counter GPS to map the mineral deposits on the planet all the way to the core.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Feb 14, 2020 20:54:06 GMT
What do you think about of recalling (taking 'em back) all that "big bang", "relativity", "the uncertainty principle", "instability" (Prigogine), "weird geometries", "possible worlds", etc. from science? I think that there are even more strange and undefined (firmly) terms inside the science have been hiding since... perhaps late 90's of XIX century. If we remove all that terms will science be more stable? I hope it will; at least it will be look like as something more stable and less shaky. However, it's also not so easy to exclude all the a posteriori terms from us. Daily life, on the one hand, and things that are able to be checked as facts, on the other hand, are what makes us to take some axioms. For instance, if there wouldn't be like that, we could take absolutely free forms of axioms as something true, but we never do it. We can't assume that the cows have elephant heads, or the mice are atoms. Nevertheless, all the formulations have such weird formalization principles in them. Science is something that should offer proof, how many times have we times have we heard "Scientifically proven" - But astrophysicists only offer theory, and preach it as truth. I like your skeptical position. I consider this position as one of these that have a solid background. Even there's a correspond good site of it Carneades.org. "Scientifically proven" is a reporter's cliche. There's no link between a proof in science and proof as a social phenomena. What does it mean to prove something? It is the same as to check all the rules and the consequence of statements of this area that we're checking now. If all the steps are correct (the same is in coding), the body of the checking object is verified. When if it checked under scientifical procedure it will be either confirmed, or falsified. 2 + 2 = 4 is intersubjectively truth, because you don't need to take anything except this mind deities to prove it. If you object math procedure or you have solipsistic views, then all I'm writing to you is your own imagination. So, you don't need to worry about anything. By the way, speaking of bothering. I see this situation of denying or reducing ontology to be pretty weird. In my opinion, why bother about it so much? If for me it is the same then: "the world is an illusion, but I'm going to a bookstore to buy some books" & "if there will be no bookstores or books will be transparent" - I really don't care, because I won't stop being going to the bookstore. Then, "the world is an illusion, and I'm afraid to go to the bookstore, because there might be the end..." or "I'm afraid to go to kfc, because the world is perhaps nothing, but my own imagination". - I find these speculations are signs of rather worryiness (disturbance) of the person, than one's trusty thoughts. Ontology is likely to be the last thing in the world we need to be worry about.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Feb 14, 2020 21:13:33 GMT
...But science is not an abandoned child. Science is just a tool. Nothing more. We're all who do all the work. "Science" is a man, or a group of people. Also, it's not possible to divide the clear one science from another as well as one piece of mental activity from another one. Since R. Carnap said that the universal laws had the form (x)(Px⊃Qx), and science is what trying to find and explains it, how to divide the History from the Biology, if both of disciplines had the same retrospective predictions? H: "During the period of time T people lived in tremor and fear", B: "During the period of time T in people's bodies some pheromones were proliferating". he meaning might be changed. You Deserve to Die of Cancer If You Believe in Unpaid Education. That Stunts Mental Growth.Would it be philosophical, or merely cross-training, to inject views from other sciences into an isolated science? For example, you might learn animal psychology if you think a tumor acts like a herd. You might learn archaic history, human fossils, and nuclear physics if you realize that the farther we go back in time, the more radioactive decay there was; therefore mankind might have had more anti-cancer abilities back then, say in the apparently useless appendix or in men's nipples. Third, evolution at the primary state necessitated adding a lot of junk DNA, which could be activated and form a separate but unviable life-form that had to regenerate rapidly because it could never reach maturity. Or petroleum science and mineralogy using the neutrino in a satellite as a Geiger counter GPS to map the mineral deposits on the planet all the way to the core. Firstly, I think it's happening time to time even without our wish to do it. Habits and traditional things used to leak in the process of reaching the goal of some sort of science (and not only the science). Secondly, our reasoning is selfish not seldom. It's easy to appear that we can solve something just in our minds, but it isn't less important to just accept things without any unnecessary speculations. Our memory wants to show itself in some nostalgic acts as a pure thing, doesn't it? Sometimes we want to hold the reality as we want. And the last one, what we see as the junk are never to be it. There is no junk (trash), no unknown, no relativity, no instability, no random number generators, etc. All these "trashes" exist as pseudo unknown, pseudo relaitivy and so on. Indeed, what are we naming when we say "random number generator"? I don't know how particles work, and this situation is shut for me till I'll find some tools to use them.
|
|
|
Post by thesageofmainstreet on Feb 15, 2020 19:12:48 GMT
You Deserve to Die of Cancer If You Believe in Unpaid Education. That Stunts Mental Growth.Would it be philosophical, or merely cross-training, to inject views from other sciences into an isolated science? For example, you might learn animal psychology if you think a tumor acts like a herd. You might learn archaic history, human fossils, and nuclear physics if you realize that the farther we go back in time, the more radioactive decay there was; therefore mankind might have had more anti-cancer abilities back then, say in the apparently useless appendix or in men's nipples. Third, evolution at the primary state necessitated adding a lot of junk DNA, which could be activated and form a separate but unviable life-form that had to regenerate rapidly because it could never reach maturity. Or petroleum science and mineralogy using the neutrino in a satellite as a Geiger counter GPS to map the mineral deposits on the planet all the way to the core. Firstly, I think it's happening time to time even without our wish to do it. Habits and traditional things used to leak in the process of reaching the goal of some sort of science (and not only the science). Secondly, our reasoning is selfish not seldom. It's easy to appear that we can solve something just in our minds, but it isn't less important to just accept things without any unnecessary speculations. Our memory wants to show itself in some nostalgic acts as a pure thing, doesn't it? Sometimes we want to hold the reality as we want. And the last one, what we see as the junk are never to be it. There is no junk (trash), no unknown, no relativity, no instability, no random number generators, etc. All these "trashes" exist as pseudo unknown, pseudo relaitivy and so on. Indeed, what are we naming when we say "random number generator"? I don't know how particles work, and this situation is shut for me till I'll find some tools to use them. The Unabomber Was a Case of the Psychosis of a Theoretical MathematicianThe scientific method absolutely must include as its final step the question, "How can we use this?" For example, the neutrino was discovered almost 100 years ago, but once I heard about it, I realized that it could travel from the surface all the way to China at the other hemisphere and hit nothing. So when it does hit something, the rebound can be measured, locating it and determining what element or compound it is. The worst and least recognized problem in science has been that it degenerates into a plaything for useless escapist nerds. Intelligence is wasted on them; they must be forced to change or we must drive them to suicide. Most of all, they are so afraid to grow up that they don't mind college being work without pay. So it is only fit for them and Virginia Tech preppies; all enemies of manly science must be crushed mercilessly. My algebra teacher was under the same snobbish leisure-class delusion. We were studying something new, and one student asked, "What is the practical value of this?" That phrase is obscene to these pompous theorists, and the teacher blew his top. And the student didn't even mean, "How can I make money with this?"; he only meant what was its practical use within mathematics.
|
|