Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

WARORK93 wrote:I have a question for you Joey...

If you are so convinced that philisophical arguments have no place in a scientific world, so convinced that nothing can come of the discussion of philosophy, so convinced that you are right in your deductions...

Why are you posting in a thread all about all the things you claim to be irrelevant? I'm sensing some other intentions besides "enlightening" all of us as you put it...

I'm just saying, I know that if I see a thread I find non realistic or silly, I jsut ignore it...

More amusingly, the claim that "philosophy is irrelevant" is a philosophical claim, and the argument made in support of that claim is a philosophical argument.

dogma wrote:
I'm guessing you didn't read one of his more serious works, because Russel was one of the founders of the analytic tradition that deals in formal logic; which rests on the scientific method (which was developed by philosophers).

I no longer have the book since it's been a few years since I tried to read it, but I think it was The Problems of Philosophy.

dogma wrote:
No it isn't, there is a distinction between those factors which determine X and those factors which communicate X to an observer.

Perception is irrelevant. If you don't know something, more fool you. The distinction is not important.

Joey wrote:

Nerivant wrote:
Something being true and us knowing something is true are two different things.

No they're not. Our perception of the world is soiled by our own humanity, everything we perceive is untrue to a certain extent. We are animals with animal emotions. We should be grateful for what rational capabilities we have.

Our ability to perceive doesn't directly change the properties of what we perceive.

dogma wrote:
More amusingly, the claim that "philosophy is irrelevant" is a philosophical claim, and the argument made in support of that claim is a philosophical argument.

That's because bullshitters (I refuse to use the term "philosophers" so as not to lump them in with ancient thinkers) dally the world up as they see it. If they say something is so, then it is so. It is therefore impossible to prove anything to them, as they will perceive the world as they wish.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Nerivant wrote:

Joey wrote:

Nerivant wrote:
Something being true and us knowing something is true are two different things.

No they're not. Our perception of the world is soiled by our own humanity, everything we perceive is untrue to a certain extent. We are animals with animal emotions. We should be grateful for what rational capabilities we have.

Our ability to perceive doesn't directly change the properties of what we perceive.

No but it's fething irrelavent. You may as well argue about the properties of a fictional universe (as elsewhere on this site). The two are equal.
Both argue about abstract things that are of no importance.
Both regard themselves as far, far more important than they actually are.

Joey wrote:
Both argue about abstract things that are of no importance.

Importance is a philosophical concept.

Joey wrote:
Perception is irrelevant. If you don't know something, more fool you.

So, perception is irrelevant, but a person who does not know X is more a fool than a person who does know X, where knowledge is defined by perception?

Are you trying to claim that whether or not someone is a fool is irrelevant?

Joey wrote:
The distinction is not important.

But it exists, and therefore a statement made to illustrate it is not contradictory.

Two questions:

1. WTF are you all blathering on about?

2. Could someone pass the bong?

Joey wrote:Because poor people who're thick take Media Studies and are ridiculed for it.
Middle class people who're thick take philosophy and expect some kind of respect (though most people in technical fields are dismissive of their 'acheivments').
It irks me, is all.

Ah, as I expected, the problem is with people and not the subject...

This is something I can relate to on some level being in college...but is more a problem of human pride and vanity than it is with the subject of philosophy...

Joey wrote:
That's because bullshitters (I refuse to use the term "philosophers" so as not to lump them in with ancient thinkers) dally the world up as they see it. If they say something is so, then it is so. It is therefore impossible to prove anything to them, as they will perceive the world as they wish.

Oh, sweet irony.

dogma wrote:

Joey wrote:
Perception is irrelevant. If you don't know something, more fool you.

So, perception is irrelevant, but a person who does not know X is more a fool than a person who does know X, where knowledge is defined by perception?

Are you trying to claim that whether or not someone is a fool is irrelevant?

Joey wrote:
The distinction is not important.

But it exists, and therefore a statement made to illustrate it is not contradictory.

You've out-worded me. I concede.

CT GAMER wrote:Two questions:

1. WTF are you all blathering on about?

2. Could someone pass the bong?

I have no idea.

Also, we have to prove the bong exists, first.

dogma wrote:

Joey wrote:
That's because bullshitters (I refuse to use the term "philosophers" so as not to lump them in with ancient thinkers) dally the world up as they see it. If they say something is so, then it is so. It is therefore impossible to prove anything to them, as they will perceive the world as they wish.

Oh, sweet irony.

I'm really tempted to sig this, it encompasses a lot of what happens on Dakka OT...

Spam post

dogma wrote:

Joey wrote:
That's because bullshitters (I refuse to use the term "philosophers" so as not to lump them in with ancient thinkers) dally the world up as they see it. If they say something is so, then it is so. It is therefore impossible to prove anything to them, as they will perceive the world as they wish.

Oh, sweet irony.

I am happy to accept my own lack of existence because I don't really care. I just want to get drunk and ingest as many chemicals as possible while I have the chance.
But telling other people randoms gak you made up in order to look clever is just pathetic.

No. Science is conducting research to generate evidence.
Philosophy is talking bs. The only way you can link the two is by using philosophy bs (i.e. spamming words until the people you're talking to lose interest).

Joey wrote:
No. Science is conducting research to generate evidence.

Why are you conducting research? Why are you trying to generate evidence? What is research? What is evidence?

Nerivant wrote:

Joey wrote:
No. Science is conducting research to generate evidence.

Why are you conducting research? Why are you trying to generate evidence? What is research? What is evidence?

Using a question mark proves nothing. Nor do words, actually.
We've gone full circle. It is infantile to "question everything". Accept your own animal existence.

Joey wrote:
We've gone full circle. It is infantile to "question everything". Accept your own animal existence.

Every answer started as a question.

Nerivant wrote:

Joey wrote:
We've gone full circle. It is infantile to "question everything". Accept your own animal existence.

Every answer started as a question.

Right. And what you just said had no relevance to anything that I'd said.
Is it so hard to accept that life is meaningless and random? And that you'll die without anyone or anything caring?

Joey wrote:

Nerivant wrote:

Joey wrote:
We've gone full circle. It is infantile to "question everything". Accept your own animal existence.

Every answer started as a question.

Right. And what you just said had no relevance to anything that I'd said.
Is it so hard to accept that life is meaningless and random? And that you'll die without anyone or anything caring?

It was completely relevant. Why not question everything, when everything was questioned? If we didn't we wouldn't know anything.

Also, that last bit is completely philosophical.

Nerivant wrote:
It was completely relevant. Why not question everything, when everything was questioned? If we didn't we wouldn't know anything.

Also, that last bit is completely philosophical.

But questions ARE irrelevant without context.
Why does 2+2=4?
Why are trees green?
These are pointless questions.
Any question that is not founded on quantifiable grounds, i.e. mathematic or technical, is a question of human nature, you are simply questioning your own soul.
And there is nothing there.
This is the great irony of "big questions". You're only REALLY questioning yourself, and since there is nothing there, you will never find an answer. But there'll always be questions.

Joey wrote:
Any question that is not founded on quantifiable grounds, i.e. mathematic or technical, is a question of human nature, you are simply questioning your own soul.

Any question that is founded on quantifiable grounds can be linked back to philosophy.

Nerivant wrote:

Joey wrote:
Any question that is not founded on quantifiable grounds, i.e. mathematic or technical, is a question of human nature, you are simply questioning your own soul.

Any question that is founded on quantifiable grounds can be linked back to philosophy.

F13, actually.

Nerivant wrote:

Joey wrote:
Any question that is not founded on quantifiable grounds, i.e. mathematic or technical, is a question of human nature, you are simply questioning your own soul.

Any question that is founded on quantifiable grounds can be linked back to philosophy.

Yes...by philosophic reasoning. Why is it so hard to accept that we as humans are irrelevant and the only real things in the universe are mathematical?

Joey wrote:
Why is it so hard to accept that we as humans are irrelevant and the only real things in the universe are mathematical?

You realize that statement is contradictory, right?

Irrelevance and "what is real" are both philosophical concepts. They're not mathematical concepts.

Chowderhead wrote:
F13, actually.

Some of us have F13 keys, actually.

Joey wrote:
But questions ARE irrelevant without context.
Why does 2+2=4?
Why are trees green?
These are pointless questions.

While the question regarding 2+2=4 is definitely esoteric, it is important when thinking about number theory, set theory, and a host of other concepts fundamental to math. It isn't pointless, its fundamental to the effective use of mathematics in science, it isn't simply a given.

The question regarding trees being green isn't quite so fundamental, but can be regarded as important both in terms of the mechanics of light, and the physical constitution of trees.

Joey wrote:
You're only REALLY questioning yourself, and since there is nothing there, you will never find an answer. But there'll always be questions.

Of course there are always questions, that's true even in hard sciences.

More to the point, there is apparently a thing, the self, which is being questioned, so there is something there. And, since people don't wander aimlessly about the planet, it seems that they manage to find answers when asking questions of themselves.

Nerivant wrote:

Joey wrote:
Why is it so hard to accept that we as humans are irrelevant and the only real things in the universe are mathematical?

You realize that statement is contradictory, right?

Irrelevance and "what is real" are both philosophical concepts. They're not mathematical concepts.

By YOUR definition.
As I have said before, "philosophers" make up the rules as they go along. Every disagreement is itself an affirmation of their own philosophical beliefs.
It's not !maths=philosophy.
But since every rational train of thought leads to the inescapable conclusion that life is finite and running out, it's irrelevant.
"Philosophical questions" are an attempt to escape this. They are the hissy fit of an 8 year old child who's just figured out that he'll die.

Joey wrote:
I am happy to accept my own lack of existence because I don't really care. I just want to get drunk and ingest as many chemicals as possible while I have the chance.

If you don't exist, then how can you get drunk?

Joey wrote:
But telling other people randoms gak you made up in order to look clever is just pathetic.

And yet more irony.

Joey wrote:
But since every rational train of thought leads to the inescapable conclusion that life is finite and running out, it's irrelevant.

But mathematics stay relevant... how, exactly?

dogma wrote:
While the question regarding 2+2=4 is definitely esoteric, it is important when thinking about number theory, set theory, and a host of other concepts fundamental to math. It isn't pointless, its fundamental to the effective use of mathematics in science, it isn't simply a given.

The question regarding trees being green isn't quite so fundamental, but can be regarded as important both in terms of the mechanics of light, and the physical constitution of trees.

Those questions were supposed to be examples of why questions are pointless. Throwing words at something doesn't prove a point.
I may well come across as a dick but unless something can be explained in logical axioms, I don't buy it.

dogma wrote:
Of course there are always questions, that's true even in hard sciences.

More to the point, there is apparently a thing, the self, which is being questioned, so there is something there. And, since people don't wander aimlessly about the planet, it seems that they manage to find answers when asking questions of themselves.

No, people wander the planet with chemicals telling them what to do. Those chemicals are a mixture of genetics and environment. There really isn't much more to human nature.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Nerivant wrote:

Joey wrote:
But since every rational train of thought leads to the inescapable conclusion that life is finite and running out, it's irrelevant.

But mathematics stay relevant... how, exactly?

Well I quite enjoy being on bridges that don't collapse.