Forum
»
ITT: I solve the most difficult philosophical/existential questions you have
07-29-2019, 04:37 PM
-
#121
07-29-2019, 04:40 PM
-
#122
Originally Posted By FailedPotential⏩
Whatever you said doesnt make ontological sense .. rekt bro!Our intuitions are flawed about things, this is why we use tools such a mathematics to prove something is correct or not.
For everyday things, are intuitions and common sense/logic apply very well.
For other things, harder to answer questions, not so much.
Why is this? We evolved and adapted to things that helped us pass on our genes, and didn't develop abilities to know things that were not necessary for that task.
To think you can solve everything with your current tools, or conceive of everything with your current tools is just... trying to think of a word... I don't even know. The fking audacity! There, that sounds good.
For everyday things, are intuitions and common sense/logic apply very well.
For other things, harder to answer questions, not so much.
Why is this? We evolved and adapted to things that helped us pass on our genes, and didn't develop abilities to know things that were not necessary for that task.
To think you can solve everything with your current tools, or conceive of everything with your current tools is just... trying to think of a word... I don't even know. The fking audacity! There, that sounds good.
Lol .. the fkn audacity is right .. fkn philosophers forgot even their own daddy socrates: No1 knows nothing
Edit: above guys comment reminded me of this dawkins vid. Anyone curious/interested enough to be reading this crap thread should watch this instead: youtu.be /1APOxs p1VFw (ah cant post links; only remove the spaces)
07-29-2019, 04:47 PM
-
#123
- l2ambo
- Registered User
-
- l2ambo
- Registered User
- Join Date: May 2010
- Location: Canada
- Age: 36
- Posts: 8,380
- Rep Power: 8260
-
-
Originally Posted By jmurat⏩
We're all watching shadow puppets on a cave wall, yet to discover the world outside the cave.Whatever you said doesnt make ontological sense .. rekt bro!
Lol .. the fkn audacity is right .. fkn philosophers forgot even their own daddy socrates: No1 knows nothing
Lol .. the fkn audacity is right .. fkn philosophers forgot even their own daddy socrates: No1 knows nothing
"Movin' ahead so life won't pass me by."
07-29-2019, 04:54 PM
-
#124
- Brozart
- dunno
-
- Brozart
- dunno
- Join Date: Apr 2007
- Location: Sydney, NSW, Australia
- Posts: 27,524
- Rep Power: 313692
-
-
Originally Posted By wincel⏩
Logic does not define existence, logic is the way by whichwedefine existence.Human brain has definite limits. You can only store so much information and compute things so quickly. That doesn't change the laws of logic, which impose strict constraints on existence.
The obvious truth is that neither you nor I can understand what's outside the realm of our ability to understand. Naturally, that's the point at which it stops - if you subscribe to and understand logic, you must admit that logic is potentially completely flawed. Sure, the reality most of us agree upon is most likely real is, well, the most likely.
But to propose that human comprehension and reason is infallible can only logically be to say "we define the universe by logic therefore the universe is defined by logic".
Your argument is "a bee is called a bee because we call it a bee, therefore it's called a bee". In that example, you understand the context, that it's relative, that language is conceptual, that different languages work differently. But you're unwilling to accept that we also have a larger conceptual context, one we cannot escape.
I also subscribe to logic, I'm not religious, I think the scientific explanations we've built are probably the best we've got, but to ignore the fact that a belief in logic is necessarily a belief is ignorance, you've followed logic to a point and refused to go beyond it.
Reason and logic are not universal truths, they're systems of human thought. To suggest that there cannot possibly be anything beyond the realm of our comprehension, that the way in which we perceive and define existence is the entire picture, is simply ignorant. It's laziness, or fear, or an inability to accept that there are things you cannot know.
fukn Brozart
I'm a hugger
07-29-2019, 05:11 PM
-
#125
07-29-2019, 05:15 PM
-
#126
- Redfish225
- Hunter/Fisherbreh
-
- Redfish225
- Hunter/Fisherbreh
- Join Date: Aug 2012
- Posts: 69,167
- Rep Power: 903956
-
-
o+p=*******
Yes, I’m right.
Yes, I’m right.
I loe e.
07-29-2019, 05:18 PM
-
#127
- Cass40
- Quarantined Finja
-
- Cass40
- Quarantined Finja
- Join Date: Oct 2013
- Posts: 29,243
- Rep Power: 441318
-
-
Originally Posted By Brozart⏩
Even now whatever that Steven Hawkins guy has come up with, there will probably be someone even smarter than him in the future, and even if humans would never come up with anything more, there probably is something more powerful than us considering how little we know or maybe will ever know.Logic does not define existence, logic is the way by whichwedefine existence.
The obvious truth is that neither you nor I can understand what's outside the realm of our ability to understand. Naturally, that's the point at which it stops - if you subscribe to and understand logic, you must admit that logic is potentially completely flawed. Sure, the reality most of us agree upon is most likely real is, well, the most likely.
But to propose that human comprehension and reason is infallible can only logically be to say "we define the universe by logic therefore the universe is defined by logic".
Your argument is "a bee is called a bee because we call it a bee, therefore it's called a bee". In that example, you understand the context, that it's relative, that language is conceptual, that different languages work differently. But you're unwilling to accept that we also have a larger conceptual context, one we cannot escape.
I also subscribe to logic, I'm not religious, I think the scientific explanations we've built are probably the best we've got, but to ignore the fact that a belief in logic is necessarily a belief is ignorance, you've followed logic to a point and refused to go beyond it.
Reason and logic are not universal truths, they're systems of human thought. To suggest that there cannot possibly be anything beyond the realm of our comprehension, that the way in which we perceive and define existence is the entire picture, is simply ignorant. It's laziness, or fear, or an inability to accept that there are things you cannot know.
The obvious truth is that neither you nor I can understand what's outside the realm of our ability to understand. Naturally, that's the point at which it stops - if you subscribe to and understand logic, you must admit that logic is potentially completely flawed. Sure, the reality most of us agree upon is most likely real is, well, the most likely.
But to propose that human comprehension and reason is infallible can only logically be to say "we define the universe by logic therefore the universe is defined by logic".
Your argument is "a bee is called a bee because we call it a bee, therefore it's called a bee". In that example, you understand the context, that it's relative, that language is conceptual, that different languages work differently. But you're unwilling to accept that we also have a larger conceptual context, one we cannot escape.
I also subscribe to logic, I'm not religious, I think the scientific explanations we've built are probably the best we've got, but to ignore the fact that a belief in logic is necessarily a belief is ignorance, you've followed logic to a point and refused to go beyond it.
Reason and logic are not universal truths, they're systems of human thought. To suggest that there cannot possibly be anything beyond the realm of our comprehension, that the way in which we perceive and define existence is the entire picture, is simply ignorant. It's laziness, or fear, or an inability to accept that there are things you cannot know.
But of course how we define God is just made up by humans but that doesn't mean there's nothing more powerful or more intelligent than us out there.
07-29-2019, 05:18 PM
-
#128
- HayZues Christi
- Registered User
-
- HayZues Christi
- Registered User
- Join Date: Oct 2007
- Age: 40
- Posts: 33,178
- Rep Power: 232547
-
-
How much of my happiness should I sacrifice for others?
Ol' 71st street. The devil that birthed me.
606 G0D.
07-29-2019, 05:31 PM
-
#129
07-29-2019, 05:35 PM
-
#130
Originally Posted By Kev1972⏩
Whatever causes homosexuality, just by being a possibility in our genetic code means at any point in time it can come back as a random mutation. People can still be born with tails.But with homosex always resulting in a dead end you would think whatever causes it would eventually be bred out of the population. Like our tails did.
07-29-2019, 05:38 PM
-
#131
Originally Posted By Brozart⏩
I am fully aware there are things I cannot know. My point is there are things God cannot know either. Mathematics and logic are universal. It is evident in the fact that a thing cannot be both true and not true somultaneously. Were that the case, then wvery single statement would be true.Logic does not define existence, logic is the way by whichwedefine existence.
The obvious truth is that neither you nor I can understand what's outside the realm of our ability to understand. Naturally, that's the point at which it stops - if you subscribe to and understand logic, you must admit that logic is potentially completely flawed. Sure, the reality most of us agree upon is most likely real is, well, the most likely.
But to propose that human comprehension and reason is infallible can only logically be to say "we define the universe by logic therefore the universe is defined by logic".
Your argument is "a bee is called a bee because we call it a bee, therefore it's called a bee". In that example, you understand the context, that it's relative, that language is conceptual, that different languages work differently. But you're unwilling to accept that we also have a larger conceptual context, one we cannot escape.
I also subscribe to logic, I'm not religious, I think the scientific explanations we've built are probably the best we've got, but to ignore the fact that a belief in logic is necessarily a belief is ignorance, you've followed logic to a point and refused to go beyond it.
Reason and logic are not universal truths, they're systems of human thought. To suggest that there cannot possibly be anything beyond the realm of our comprehension, that the way in which we perceive and define existence is the entire picture, is simply ignorant. It's laziness, or fear, or an inability to accept that there are things you cannot know.
The obvious truth is that neither you nor I can understand what's outside the realm of our ability to understand. Naturally, that's the point at which it stops - if you subscribe to and understand logic, you must admit that logic is potentially completely flawed. Sure, the reality most of us agree upon is most likely real is, well, the most likely.
But to propose that human comprehension and reason is infallible can only logically be to say "we define the universe by logic therefore the universe is defined by logic".
Your argument is "a bee is called a bee because we call it a bee, therefore it's called a bee". In that example, you understand the context, that it's relative, that language is conceptual, that different languages work differently. But you're unwilling to accept that we also have a larger conceptual context, one we cannot escape.
I also subscribe to logic, I'm not religious, I think the scientific explanations we've built are probably the best we've got, but to ignore the fact that a belief in logic is necessarily a belief is ignorance, you've followed logic to a point and refused to go beyond it.
Reason and logic are not universal truths, they're systems of human thought. To suggest that there cannot possibly be anything beyond the realm of our comprehension, that the way in which we perceive and define existence is the entire picture, is simply ignorant. It's laziness, or fear, or an inability to accept that there are things you cannot know.
07-29-2019, 05:54 PM
-
#132
07-29-2019, 06:02 PM
-
#133
- rectifryer
- enlightened
-
- rectifryer
- enlightened
- Join Date: Sep 2012
- Posts: 25,634
- Rep Power: 208783
-
-
Originally Posted By wincel⏩
Yet since it's widely theorized that this has happened multiple times there must be a secondary accounting of the rate much like time. I don't think it's unreasonable to confuse the two at first glance.You would eventually reach a singularity. Any notion of time and space beyond a certain point fails to make sense.
Tis mystery of the abyss.
Boycott foodservice industry crew
07-29-2019, 06:06 PM
-
#134
- rectifryer
- enlightened
-
- rectifryer
- enlightened
- Join Date: Sep 2012
- Posts: 25,634
- Rep Power: 208783
-
-
Originally Posted By BigBallsMcgee⏩
I've learned to appreciate the time and effort it takes to achieve some things I'll never be the best at. I call those things hobbies.What's the argument against suicide for those with crap lives that haven't improved with time and effort?
Boycott foodservice industry crew
07-29-2019, 06:34 PM
-
#135
- 3Reich
- Registered User
-
- 3Reich
- Registered User
- Join Date: Jan 2018
- Location: Arlington, Texas, United States
- Posts: 1,414
- Rep Power: 17156
-
-
Originally Posted By KirkMcquest⏩
Does a bear chit in the woods?If a tree falls in the woods and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound?
HTC crew checking in (LTC, skinny bishes, BBW's, thicc chicks all welcome)
Manchester United 4life
Snailrus Crew
07-29-2019, 06:36 PM
-
#136
Originally Posted By jmurat⏩
The cat is not both alive or dead. The cat is either alive or dead, but the result is not defined until the measurement is done. That is the point.Bruv i aint a philosopher so to hell with ontology lol... i was more implying the quantum decoherence phenomenon. A particle only takes its classical physical shape upon an information transfer event. Like the cat: ? before, then dead or alive upon observation.
Dont sit on your philosophical arguments to massage your ego. I was more arguing about why evidence should trump logic.
Dont sit on your philosophical arguments to massage your ego. I was more arguing about why evidence should trump logic.
07-29-2019, 06:40 PM
-
#137
Originally Posted By rectifryer⏩
I don't think the cyclic model is highlt regarded or widely theorized. In physics, normally, if there is no way to tell things apart then it is usually a bad idea to treat them differently. Seems to me that if things truly are periodic in the sense of poincare recurrence or something, there is still no way to know what cycle you are in.Yet since it's widely theorized that this has happened multiple times there must be a secondary accounting of the rate much like time. I don't think it's unreasonable to confuse the two at first glance.
Tis mystery of the abyss.
Tis mystery of the abyss.
07-29-2019, 07:02 PM
-
#138
- 3Reich
- Registered User
-
- 3Reich
- Registered User
- Join Date: Jan 2018
- Location: Arlington, Texas, United States
- Posts: 1,414
- Rep Power: 17156
-
-
Originally Posted By Chrysippus⏩
For a male, they are one and the same.would you rather your son be a vegan or a feminist?
HTC crew checking in (LTC, skinny bishes, BBW's, thicc chicks all welcome)
Manchester United 4life
Snailrus Crew
Bookmarks
-
- Digg
-
- del.icio.us
-

- StumbleUpon
-
-
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts