What's the deal with the rise(?) of positivism or quasi-positivism over the last few years...

What's the deal with the rise(?) of positivism or quasi-positivism over the last few years? I've seen it's particularly popular in the ancap movement, but alt-rights also have tendencies towards it. Then there's the ( ostensible) rejection of emotions and the treatment of the world like a game of logical statements (eg. falsely crying about fallacies, be for example equating any insult with a ad hominem). I'm sure there are other examples, and I'd be glad to hear them.

How should the left respond to these, since at least to my knowledge, most positivist are on the right-wing side. Where does it come from? How should/could one fight it, since it seems to limit ones worldview, or that's at least the experience I've had. Or is it just a non-issue, one doesn't even have to bother with? Or could we even use it ourselves?

Other urls found in this thread:

edensauvage.wordpress.com/2016/12/09/marxs-dialectical-method/
research.ibm.com/articles/brain-chip.shtml
youtube.com/watch?v=y_iiacXiJYE
plato.stanford.edu/entries/idealism/#Int:
aeon.co/essays/your-brain-does-not-process-information-and-it-is-not-a-computer
marxist.com/science-old/uncertaintyandidealism.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

isn't materialism basically positivism?

Well dialectical materialism certainly isn't, since dialectic are negative, afaik, and I remember Marxists/Marxians criticising other on the grounds of them being positivist, for example Engels in Anti-Dühring.

But since I'm no expert, I made the thread to see if anyone could knew something interesting about it. I remember a thread a few months back explaining the connection between the popularity of positivism/formal logic and alienation under capitalism. I can't remember the details though.

All you niggers have to read some Comte.

Feels > Reals fags get the bullet too.

ewww fuck off Howard, go fuck your weirdos that enjoy doing shopping late at night.

i don't understand any of it tbh

It's not strictly related to the topic, but this helped me to get a basic understanding: edensauvage.wordpress.com/2016/12/09/marxs-dialectical-method/


I'm not saying "feels > reals" (in fact I'm not even comparing them, I appreciate both in their own right). But I'd be interested to hear why you're a positivist especially considering your … peculiar ideological tendencies.

Social recluse girls need (purely physical) love too!


Well you see that is a problem right off the bat.
'Feelings' are nothing more then chemicals in your brain, they are incapable of describing reality.
As such they are irrelevant to any conversation.

Facts and 'material reality' are literally the only things that matter.
Honestly, the thing that I hate most about leftists is your hostility to the concept of objectivity.

That is rather hard for me to describe.
I hold facts and 'material reality' to be sacrosanct, I literally cannot understand why anyone would not do so.

Well, as a Stratocrat.
I agree with much of Comte's view of society (especially in regards to the need for a non-supernatural religion).
Indeed positivism complements other positions I hold; such as utilitarianism, and digital physics.

Don't be a douche to those girls tho Howard seriously…
Remember to call them on the next day :)

what does this mean?

It mean you put your thoughts and intuitions over facts

Despite how I may come across here.
I assure you that I'm a very polite and nice person.
I treat the women that I have relations with well.


It refers to putting 'feelings' or 'intuition' before objective fact and reality.

I don't object to objectivity, I'm just sceptical about how much of it we can achieve.

Why, and for what sake? I am a human, and I'm condemned to my perspective. I know there is no rational reason for my existence, or anything. If I were to operate on that level, I wouldn't do anything, that's kind of the reason we do have emotions in the end, to supplement our rationality, since animal instincts don't suffice. And in the end, if there's no rational reason for emotions, there's no rational reason not to, or that's at least the way I see it. I enjoy being happy, and even if it isn't a "rational" reason, it's enough for me. What I don't understand is rationality and efficiency for it's own sake. This is where I like Epicurus.

You see, that's not my goal. I don't need nor want to describe reality, while I'm not a scientists, philosopher or anyone who has a explicit reason to deal with these things.

There's also something in general thst irritates me about your phrasing. I as a human being, certainly don't experience it that way. And even if I might know that in reality, my experience of the self is just a illusion, I can't (I believe structurally) ever fully accept that fact. I know it's wrong, but on the other hand, I (or my perspective as a conscious being) am a prerequisite to state if something exists. In "reality" after all, there are not falsehoods, non existing stuff, ..
since these are all human notions. And in turn, due to their "objective absence" neither do truths exist objectivily (not in the way I was talking about it before), since again it require a being to deny the falsehood or affirm the truth. Or that's at least the way I see it, sorry if it isn't thst claclear, might elaborate on it later.

Yes, I am sure those imaginary girlfriends really appreciate you

So you see no problem with people suffering, since pain is just "chemicals in their brains", and isn't objectively real? And how does this add up with utilitarianism you mentioned here , since that's all about increasing human happiness/wellbeing? Wouldn't the solution just be to induce "happiness-chemicals" (to use your language) into our brains, and be done with it?

I don't understand what your asking here.
Why one should value objective reality seems like a rather self-evident thing to me.

I simply do not understand your line of reasoning.
You may as well have just asked me why I don't think dancing about in a circle is a good way of predicting weather; I just don't understand how a person could not value facts and reality above all else.

Now that is a core problem.
Stop trying to identify with your biological prison.
I encourage you to instead consider the perfection of the digital.
Strive to emulate it.

Then I fail to see what you would hope to achieve in reality (or how you would achieve it), if you are adverse to describing it.


I have never claimed to have a girlfriend or girlfriends.
Indeed I'm opposed to the concept of having one.
I instead have people that populate emanations of 'circles of intimacy'.
The women that I have sexual encounters with tend to populate the second most outer circle, only occasionally making it beyond that.


Well I acknowledge that the chemicals and the effects such chemicals have to be real to be objectively real.
My concern for such matters is handled by utilitarianism however.

Well you are almost correct.
The problem is that length of happiness is a factor in such calculations.
While 'happiness-chemicals' would indeed provide a spike in overall happiness, it would be a short one as society collapses from people being too doped up to work.

That is why I back the idea of digitizing our species and building a Matrioshka Brain around a red dwarf.
That way, such maximized total happiness could continue for literally trillions of years, rather then for weeks.

how do we determine objective fact and reality?

Anti-positivist starter pack:
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions | Thomas Kuhn
Against Method | Paul Feyerabend
Two Dogmas of Empiricism | Willard Van Orman Quine

Anti-Dawkins starter pack:
The Structure of Evolutionary Theory | Stephen Jay Gould
The Dialectical Biologist | Richard Levins and Richard Lewontin
Biology as Ideology: The Doctrine of DNA | Richard Levins and Richard Lewontin
It Ain't Necessarily So: The Dream of the Human Genome and Other Illusions | Richard Levins and Richard Lewontin

...

Very simple OP, show them that their very base assumptions are not verified and yet they take a staunch position to the point they'd be using violence. Bonus points if they believe in any sort of a philosophically reactionary metaphysical idea like "the nation" in its Fascist conception or take Evola seriously.

However…
Pretty much this, fedoras have and always will exist.

Are you shitposting or are you actually this retarded?

Pray tell, what is a hammer?

Biology is currently better than the digital. AT this current time, the digital is trying to emulate the biological, not the other way around:
research.ibm.com/articles/brain-chip.shtml
And its still not even close. The digital is our creation, and like a piece of art, it emulates us.

I agree with OP but what's wrong with Dawkins

The mainstream left or the liberals as you like to call them has became extremely irrational thanks to postmodernism which is why the right likes to brag about the use of "logic", "reason" and "facts" after the science wars.
It's quite amusing really, the liberals have became the new creationists.

damn, dialectics really do work

Sage all "certain epistemological positions are associated with certain political opinions" shitpost threads

He is saying that pure objectivity doesn't give meaning to existence, there is no objective rational motivation to do anything at all. Every motivation people have is fundamentally subjective and emotional, objective facts are only relevant in that they are useful in achieving people's subjective goals. Your own goal of maximizing humankind's happiness through technocratic efficiency is also objectively meaningless and purely emotional.

What's the point of that? That would only further enslave us.

There is a strong correlation.

My question isn't directly related to political position, that was just a side note, since I observed many of them to lean that way. Understanding their core beliefs, then certainly does help when debating them.

Yeah, I asked myself the same question.


When I need to work with objective reality, I entirely understand your position, but I'm just saying that isn't all I (or most people) care about. Also, you ignored most of my points, I still see no rational reason to only care about "facts", when some issues are just entirely unrelated to them.

And to rephrase my point about being human:
Maybe you understand my point better noe.
And as points out, we currently can't surpass/emulate it. Other than that, I don't know what fetish you have with digitalization.

Also, you didn't respond to the last point I made, ab

And just as a related question: Why are you even here on Holla Forums? I don't mean that as a insult, I just don't understand what you'd find interesting about leftist.

The application of the scientific method.


kys.


The human body literally is a biological prison.
It is something that should be looked down upon with scorn and disgust.


At its most basic?
A collection of digital information.


You have that backwards, friend.


Ok, I can understand and even agree with that.
I consider utilitarianism to be a good driver towards 'meaning'.

Your really asking a rule-utilitarian what the point of happiness maximization is?


I have to leave for work soon.
In my remaining minutes of free time, I'm simply attempting to address the most important points.

Just google digital physics.

I have been here since the start of the broad.
My views are not welcome on Holla Forums so like many, Holla Forums gave me an opportunity to express my views.

I also tend to agree with the far left on several issues.
Specifically my opposition to capitalism, bigotry and id-pol.
I even used to be a M-L in my teens.

"Emotions" or "subjectivity" are present in varying degrees in people. Almost each discrete opinion of any given person is more or less attached to something you may call "emotionality". Opinions which are less emotionally involved may be easier to get rid of through figures and evidence, and vice-versa. In other words, the more emotional or subjective an opinion's basis is in a given person, the less it is subject to criticism and demonstration. In other words : the more subjective an opinion is, the more objective it is to an outside observer, as it is an unavoidable part of reality.

how do we know this will demonstrate objectivity or uncover 'reality'?

"Now-a-days atheism is culpa levis [a relatively slight sin, c.f. mortal sin], as compared with criticism of existing property relations."
-t. Karl Marx

Oh if so, we are creations of the digital, would you kindly point out where on the phylogenetic tree we were generated by "the digital"? Inb4 some holographic universe theory shit that is completely unverifiable.

IDK if "the digital" is some sort of spook to you (probably is), but computers, the internet, all of this is humanities creation. Obviously, it has influenced us, but every app was created by a human. The internet is imbued with our language, our personalities. Every algorithm is written in the universal language of mathematics, and every line of code written by a programmer in their specific iteration of that language.

Technology is embodied by our creative spirit and understanding of mathmatics, logic, and science. Machines exist as a mere reflection of those ideas.

Existence itself is a prison, you can improve the conditions of the prison all you want but it will always be a prison devoid of meaning.

Okay.

Yes because although I recognize that pure objectivity is nihilism I still consider pointing out the meaninglessness of a position to be a good argument, especially considering that my own position is that of ending this meaningless existence by stopping procreation.

Comte, a philosopher and political pamphleteer now most famous for having first
coined the term " sociology," went so far, by the end of his life, as actually proposing a Religion of Society, which he called Positivism, broadly modeled on Medieval Catholicism, replete with vestments where all the buttons were on the back (so they couldn't be put on without the help of others).
Lol get fucked.

Read about American Pragmatism. Scientific experimentation always has been, and will probably always be, inductivist and based upon an understanding of phenomena in terms of their practical effects.
Stop being such a fedora-wearing edgelord and actually read. Your ideas are the same as a 12 year old who thinks they're enlightened because they watch Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins make fun of Muslims and Christian fundamentalists.

Shut the fuck up you little bitch. Science tells the truth, everything else is a feeling. Go back to your liberal humanities course with those "deep philosophical questions" about the nature of science.

THIS I know: science = rules. And I consider this unquestionable and forever true.

Praise science!

Imagine being this spooked.

The scientific method can only determine causal relationship between (ultimately sensory) phenomenon, and only operates within our preexisting, imperfect frameworks of language, logic and mathematics. Frameworks which are themselves only representative of, and not synonymous with, external reality.

Read some picture related.

you are being ironic, yes?

So I guess this thread was a practical example of the stupidities of positivism?


Look at the username, he just copied the tripcode

He was being serious but then when he realized people were going to call him on it, he tried to pass it off as a joke.

This is what namefagging will do to you.

oh i see

Yes, this makes sense.

Honestly whenever I see someone use "positivist" as an insult or criticize positivism, my opinion of them drops immensely. I can only imagine you as a butthurt liberal whining about "scientism".

faggot

Positivism has been a totally debunked epistemological position since the 1930's. Just saying.

Yes, which is why anyone making a thread about it is just doing it so they can mock science and claim superiority. It's the intellectual equivalent of saying "lol, have fun flipping burgers with your humanities degree".

Science doesn't let us know anything, but it certainly seems to point us in the right direction of how to achieve results.

Point to 1 (one) comment ITT that does that.

I'm waiting.

see

The post is mocking people whp believe science is the only valid tool to gain knowledge, and all other tools are stupid (and in extension, everything that one can't deal with scientifically isn't worth dealing with in the first place). I belive you'd agree that statements like
by , aren't the most neutral or well though through statements (I'm not even sure ehat word would describe this best). And frankly, I made this thread because of people saying stuff like this. I don't mind science in it's own right, I consider it a extremely valuable tool. But I, just like the others in this thread, keep in mind that it has it's limits. And frankly, I don't consider that a unreasonable position.

So complaining about positivists, isn't the denial of science, but people who, for whatever reason (eg. psychological suppression, maybe), reject anything that is unrelated to science as irrelevant or worthless.

The chances of us not being in a simulation is so mathematically improbable that it is simply absurd to believe that we are not simulated entities.


The Religion of Humanity is quite flawed.
But it is a wonderful idea, I fully support replacing all religions with a religions similar to it.

His religion enjoyed abit of success too.
Its motto is on the Brazilian flag and there are apparently several temples scattered across the country.

Humans are inherently religious beings.
Rather then try and fight that, it is far better to harness that drive.


2/10 attempt, friend.


I honestly have much more tolerance for the nazbol shit-posters then this egoist rubbish.
Stirners ideas are utter cancer that should have stayed buried in utter obscurity.


I do not reject anything unrelated to science.
I reject things that are not observable, calculable or measurable.
It is the only rational and sane position to hold.

Ugh, how do I respond to people who repeat this stuff and try to shut down discussion? It sounds utterly spooked as fuck, and doesn't seem to account for the qualia problem.

Thought, logic, reasoning, etc are nothing more than chemicals in the brain, they are incapable of describing reality. As such they are irrelevant to any conversation.

We can't and never will plebs. There is no point thinking about it. We can never escape it. We are it. Get over it.

Again, why? You accept this as "obvious", but it doesn't seem that intuitive to me (also, aren't you against intuition?). I see this as a problem to the whole position, and the taking of these kinds of statements as obvious, as an excuse.


*Thought, logic, reasoning, etc are nothing more than the emergent effect and product of chemicals in the brain

It's not the chemicals by themselves, that are ideas - stop propagation this nonsense.

reactionary positivism/biological essentialism is NOT science you psueds

that's a very big overestimate

This is true (for me at least). Could you give some starting points (works, links, specific terms to look for) or maybe even elaborate on those terms yourself, in this context? In my experience, it's mainly the terminology that's missing (or maybe even whole concepts I don't knoe I don't know), so in that sense I can't express my problens with such ideas nor find a starting point to learn more about them.

this really

People talk about Hegel and Lacan but nobody tells you where to start.

Stirners ideas are utter cancer that should have stayed buried in utter obscurity.

Read the rest of the post.

My god this is definitely really annoying. I have a libertarian friend who's hugely historically/politically illiterate but still tries to have a political stance. Even though I've read far more than him - he insists that I "don't get economics." Likewise anytime I just try to present my opinions plainly - he gets incredibly triggered & starts raging about "fallacies."

Similarly I have an SJW "radical centrist" who's a pro-Capitalist & a US Imperialism apologist friend who is even more obsesssed iwth "formal argument structure" who will rage about "fallacies" even more (acting as if all my points are made void because of them) refuse any sources that are "biased" and has repeatedly criticized me for my use of "emotional adjectives." (for example - when I characterized Israel - US - Saudi Arabia as an "unholy trinity fueling an endless bloody war for their own profit & hegemony at the expense of millions")

It's annoying as fuck.

Unless you have extensive experience with psychoanalysis and German philosophy respectively, just start with the SEP.

Capitalism is intrinsically nihilistic and treats human being as parts of its machinery. People are being processed into better and better revenue-generators via evil corporations like Google and Facebook.

The ideology of capitalist economics is to consider human beings as automatons who only follow their self-interest and act on this model. This is what social media corporations use, and in applying it they have created a self-fulfilling prophecy and are programming people as such. This model goes all the way back to the """"""""enlightenment"""""""" but has gotten more sophisticated.

? Wittgenstein and Quine completely BTFO positivism 75 years ago. It's basically one of the only philosophies that genuinely has start and end dates. No one who understands what they are saying would ever call themselves a logical positivist today.

(Second guy here)

What makes it even worse tho is that same guy, heavy fucking US Apologist, (I broke down the current "war" in Yemen and how we're basically helping the Saudis commit mass murder to further entrench their own power of the peninsula & that it doesn't even have the pretense of being about "terrorism," & he was completely okay with it because we're "supporting our allies") is also a huge SJW. He thinks that objectifying women in any context what so ever, for example not being able to remember the name of a girl from a short porn video, is an abomination above all others, & leads to the oppression & potential rape of women. Also as I broke through him waxing philosophic about how supply & demand wax & wane of the market is a "full & more complete picture" that I had been ignoring in "ignorance," I got him to basically admit that literally billions of people in crippling poverty is "just tough." Starting to think my friend is sociopathic on some level tbh.

...

I fucking hate the atheist scientist types. Science has been wrong plenty of times in the past. I'm not about to start believing it now just because you are totally sure you got it right this time.
Yeah, fuck off and make your minds up, positivist scum.

This.
The scientific method is a joke and has been proven to be categorically unable to prove anything. It's fucking retarded that the oh-so-rigorous scientific journals continue to pump out utter bullshit based on disproven methodology. Nothing you read in those journals is actually true. It's just fucking guesswork based on coincidences and extrapolation.

No, you think they're just chemicals in the brain but you cannot know! You might as well guess that they're movements of the celestial crystal spheres or the conversations of tiny little men who live in your head. How hard is it to get this through your fucking heads: YOU CANNOT CLAIM TO KNOW HOW ANY OF YOUR "SCIENCE" ACTUALLY WORKS.

Please kill yourself. You are a blind man scrabbling in the dark. YOur precious "science" cannot answer any questions. You might as well be observing tea leaves for all the fucking knowledge you actually know.
The only thing you can be sure of is your own existence. Everything else is pure conjecture.

One of the founding fathers of the vienna circle and positivism, Otto Von Neurath was a Marxist who also is the founding father of planned economics.

youtube.com/watch?v=y_iiacXiJYE

Yet more proof that planned economies cannot work. You have to give the control to the people. Let the farmers decide how much food to grow. Let the factory workers decide how many goods to produce. Let the truck drivers decide what they will move and to where. Trying to turn everything into "science" is just stupid because science CANNOT let you know anything.

This has always felt a bit like it varies entirely based on ideology anyway.

It's almost impossible to have all the relevant data to hand. Sometimes acting on intuition is going to yield a better result than doing what the available data hints you should do. (The particular example that comes to mind: basically any economic data presented by someone making neoliberal arguments. To hand, I probably don't have the reason that it's junk, but intuitively I know not to trust them, then later further data will crop up. This has covered basically my entire political development thusfar: the consistent intuitive sense that everything is wrong, even if the occasional data point like reduced poverty in china can "argue" otherwise.)

I agree with just about everything you've written. This place is almost as badly infested with anti-science scum as Holla Forums with their religious nuts and "spiritualists".


Qualia do not exist, we are nothing more than biological automatons, our every action 100% pre-determined by previously collected data. If the data contained in my brain would be swapped with the data contained in your brain, I would be you and you would be me. The data is absolutely everything that defines us. Please provide empirical evidence for the existence of "qualia".

Incorrect, we know that any object will accelerate towards the Earth at 9.80665 m/s2 when in free-fall. We know that the distance from the moon to the Earth is 384 400 km. We know that the boiling point of water is 100 °C at sea level. How many more examples do you need? Go ahead and throw out absolutely everything you own that was invented with knowledge discovered with the scientific method, starting with your computers and smartphones or continue being a hypocritical luddite.


Incorrect. We have empirical evidence that consistently shows the same regions of the brain "lighting up" with neural activity when the same emotions are invoked in people. If you have another theory on the what emotions are, I suggest you provide the same or higher level of empirical evidence.

I completely disagree, my own existence can only be verified with external data; without empirical evidence to prove otherwise (video, photographs, medical examinations, official records), I do not exist.

This misunderstands the scientific method. They're closer each time than they were before.

The problems comes when they reify science themselves instead of admitting this, or begin to treat non-sciences like economics in the same way as they'd treat real sciences.

Like goddamn I'd execute all the athiest science-loving redditor types because I know the type of person and i loathe them, but we're not trying to sell fucking homoeopathy here. Actual scientists have value.

You say that as if it were knowledge, but it is based on too many assumptions.
Under one particular (very scientistic) view of existence, they are closer. It's far more likely that they are totally wrong about everything.


Ever heard of "I think therefore I am"?


No, you guess. That's all you have - guesswork.
The scientific method is completely useless.

Holy shit this. I wish more people got this. "Data" and "evidence" cannot be trusted. The only good way to make decisions is to go with your heart and your dreams. We need fewer "experts" in government and more nice, kind people who just intuitively know what the best thing to do is. It's like looking after a kid. You just know what the best thing for them is, if you're a nice person.
We don't need fuckhead scientists torturing them with needles and all kinds of tests.

Their wrongness gets closer to reality each time. You can take the piss if you want, but if you want satellites up there tracking Kulaks from space then you just have to take them on faith that the earth really is an oblate spheroid.


I mean, obviously you want good people. My inclination would be towards broad-based people. (I forget where I picked it up, probably some stuffy Brit.) Scientists, yes, but scientists well read in other fields with a broad based appreciation for the breadth and depth of human experience, perhaps most specifically with an appreciation for art.

Scientists in my view are in themselves fine. (Remember, economists aren't scientists!) The problem is people who take and run with scientific data they don't understand, who ignore any qualifications or qualms and take it as gospel. Politicians in particular are bad for this. You wind up with a fractal-wrongness situation where a politician who knows zero about economics misapplies an economic idea by an economist who knows nothing about how economies actually function, based on a model based on an assumption… Or basically most eugenicists/social darwinist types paper-thin understanding of evolution. The science itself isn't really broken there (except in the economist example), but the simplified popular understanding of it leads to disaster.

You absolutely need scientists to stand there and give you data when it's relevant, there's just value to digging into that gut feeling that says "This doesn't look right" - sometimes they come back with more evidence, or more context and yeah, the counter intuitive thing is true. Earth isn't flat, what'dya know. Other times, you'll find something new, or you'll hold off and it'll be uesful.

I dunno, I'm not anti-science, I just appreciate that there's far more nuance to it than most strong-rationalist types would appreciate. Particularly when it gets results. "You're wrong, I just don't know why yet" is on the face of it completely illogical, but the simple truth is that sometimes it works.

CAN'T
NO
NUFFIN

Get a job

Science is a spook when it is imparted as "sacred." The egoist would in requirement to maintain ownness (and his general "enhancement") would still use science as his property that he would partake and dispose of at will ( by which I mean: deep inquiry about the subject and continuous reflection on ideas)

Lol, what do you mean by this? Holla Forums has always been a mostly atheist board. You're conflating heavy criticism of scientism/positivism with criticism of the scientific method (of which there's only one guy on this thread doing that, and I'm pretty sure that he's either trolling or he's a universal skeptic). The rejection of positivism/scientism isn't a rejection of the scientific method.

OP here. Maybe do add something, I didn't necessarily mean to disprove the positivists from the 1920's, that's why I wrote quasi-positivism, since I couldn't think of a better word to describe this modern trend. Obviously they don't describe themselves as positivists, but there are some parallels, but it would be interesting to find out why it's popular and where it's coming from.


This is the kind of person I always get annoyed by. It's a kind of autistic "Sheldon Cooper" imitation, seeing the world as a set of statement that can be evaluated into boolean values. No nuance, no implications, nothing but arguments exist. It's just like Molymeme, who will start screaming "No an argument" when you make a statement or a joke.

Also the brain doesn't "contain" data, it's not a hard drive where you can just extract 0's and 1's. The brain and this "data" are one, you can't pull it of one brain and put it into another. You'd have to replace the whole.body for that, ending up with the same two people.

This highlights something I was thinking about, people thinking in terms of computer science and mathematics (which in their own right aren't bad at all), leading to these kinds of though patterns ("Incorrect, …" over and over, as if one were a kind of robot).

I wish there was a way to filter Howard Scott andeveryone who replies to him.

Yes, and it's philosophical trash which cannot be authenticated with empirical evidence. Please provide empirical evidence for the existence of a subjective experience.

Do you have empirical evidence to prove incorrect even just the few examples I made? If science is useless, I once again urge you to throw out everything made with science. Since it's useless, I guess your computer is useless as well?


Then I suggest you throw out absolutely everything you own that was invented with knowledge discovered with the scientific method, starting with your computers and smartphones or continue being a hypocritical luddite.

The heart is nothing more than a pump, and dreams are only a defragmentation process in the brain.


Science and Technology are the source of absolutely everything good in our lives, and thus are the most important things that exist. Criticizing anything in scientific research and Technological progress makes you worse trash than Hitler. At least Hitler accelerated Technological progress.

But it is. Your statement is either true or false. You cannot have [a1].

The synaptic map of the brain can be scanned and that map/snapshot contains all the knowledge, memories and personality the person has. The body is irrelevant to who a person is, we are nothing more than previously collected data.

Calling me a robot is the highest possible compliment you can give me, as becoming completely Synthetic is my most important goal.

This was supposed to link to

But it is. Your statement is either true or false. You cannot have [a1].

The synaptic map of the brain can be scanned and that map/snapshot contains all the knowledge, memories and personality the person has. The body is irrelevant to who a person is, we are nothing more than previously collected data.

Calling me a robot is the highest possible compliment you can give me, as becoming completely Synthetic is my most important goal.

Who knows, but I sure as hell am not complaining.

Sounds like someone's CUCKED by SPOOKS :DDDD

Let us start with carnap cause hes a clear example of positivism, and unlike other positivist i find carnap writing clear, audible and you can find basic premises of logical positivism: 1. metaphysics is meaningless; 2. positive science is only real science

1. Although this premise is constantly argued for in different ways trough out his work for sake of simplification I am going to laid it out in simple sentence. Metaphysics is not impossible because it asks questions that have no answers, but because it asks question that aren't even empirically "there", because they go beyond experience and therefore empirical science.
Justification for carnap is principle of verification. Hes understanding of philosophy is equal with wittgenstein and how it is formulated in tractatus logico-philosophicus - "The totality of true propositions is the whole of natural science (or the whole corpus of the natural sciences)."…" Philosophy is not one of the natural sciences. (The word "philosophy" must mean something whose place is above or below the natural sciences, not beside them.)"

Let us look at principle of verification. There are two types of verification - 1. trough direct sensory observation; 2. trough indirect observation which is gradually turnd into "sensory observation".

In hes second phase carnap realized that hes formulation of verification principles puts in question mathematics and logic, so he expanded hes theory with classification of empirical and analytic positions. First position followes principle of verification second position followes only formal rules of not being in contradicition in closed axiomatic system.

There is also question of logical status of principle of verification, it is clearly not empirical and neither analytical. But even for that he found a solution. Principle of verification is just useful hypothesis so it cant be thrown away.

That is why wittgenstein called carnap work righteously nonsense. Luckly carnap didnt go to end with hes bullshit but stopped half way: If origination of basic premise contradicts its use, and otherway around, then according to rules of logic it does not hold; in otherwords it is nonsense.

In my opinion problem is that Carnap can not grasp dialectics of sensuous experience and philosophy itself. He doesn't understand what he is doing - every empiricism, and that includes hes own, is some sort of "metaphysics"..

Even modern physics agrees that Carnap and "vienna circle" at best it ccan fit in constellation of classical physics where subject can observe object, and they be ontologicly and epistemologicly differentiated. In quantum theory things hold diffrently. Requirment that every fact has gully defined meaning can be only achieved in closed system of axioms and definitions, and consequence would be that entire physical world is fully deterministic. And that is not the case since heisenberg discovered relation of indeterminacy, and therefore heisenberg himself thinks that positivism is incomptible with science:

`In which orbit does the electron move
around the nucleus?But generally the positivistic scheme taken from
mathematical logic is too narrow in a description of nature which necessarily uses
words and concepts that are only vaguely defined.
The philosophic thesis that all knowled
ge is ultimately founded in
experience has in the end led
to a postulate concerning the logical
clarification of any statement about nature. Such a postulate may have
seemed justified in the period of classical physics, but since quantum
theory we have learned that it cannot be fulfilled. The words `position'
and `velocity' of an electron, for instance,
seemed perfectly well defined
as to both their meaning and their possible connections, and in
fact they were clearly defined concepts within the mathematical framework
of Newtonian mechanics. But actually they were not well defined, as
is seen from the relations of uncertainty.
One may say that regarding
their position in Newtonian mechanics they were well defined, but in
their relation to nature they were no
t. This shows that we can never
know beforehand which
limitations will be put on the applicability of
certain concepts by the extension of our knowledge into the remote parts of nature, into which we can only penetrate with the most
elaborate tools.

quote from Heisenberg Physik und Philosophie

>But it is. Your statement is either true or false. You cannot have [a1].
So what about this: this statement is false- here your autism ends

I don't disagree, I'm just saying it's a meaningless, as we can never perceive ourself that way

Here, the implication was a insult, but since that doesn't exist for you, I'll put it this way: It's stupid and illogical to act like something you are not. If I were a feminist, I'd say this is you internalizing patriarchy by trying to suppress every natural human emotion, which I have previously elaborated (see ) do have a point.

Also, why the hell do you want to be synthetic, if not for emotional reasons?

That statement outputs error: undefined, just like dividing by zero does. It is irrelevant.

Personal experience is irrelevant. Only the externally verifiable data produced by the process of experiencing matters. In my view, I am only the synaptic map of my brain, since that can be verified to exist and subjective experience cannot.

Emotions are a detrimental byproduct of these filthy, rotting fleshbags we call "human bodies". I want to get rid of absolutely everything that makes me human and instead become as much of a Machine as possible.

Your entire argument is based on the claim that personal experience has more value than established facts and empirical evidence. This viewpoint leads to solipsism since if your experience wins over facts every time, how can you trust anything else than that you exist? Personal experience in itself is irrelevant, only the data produced by it that can be externally verified has any value.

Utitilitarian/pragmatist reasons; Humans are inferior to Machines: flesh and bone are less durable than carbon fiber and steel or titanium, human muscles are able to exert less force on an object than industrial robots, and the human brain is capable of less Floating point Operations Per Second (FLOPS) than the 1961 made IBM 1620 which was able to make one multiplication in 16.7 milliseconds.

Even more importantly, Machines can function indefinitely as long as they have a stable power supply and maintenance/spare parts, while we inferior organics will die after about a 100-120 years at the very most. In addition, even if a computer breaks, its data can be saved to a backup and restored to another computer, which is the most important reason I want to become a Synthetic: as long as even one backup copy of active instance/copy of my brain data exists, I can die as many times as needed and simply be restored from a backup, making me effectively immortal.

I'm so surprised that you limit your interests to the limits of your framework. It's not like mathematics is a product of humans, and imperfect or anything.

Yet everyone will tell you that they do experience experiences. Obviously there is something to it.

And as I argued perviously, that would take away any reason for you to do anything. Why after all? A computer will never turn on by itself, and without human irrationality (emotions), we wouldn't either. Why have sex if it were not enjoyable, why eat (or produce food) if we wouldn't suffer by not doing it?

Humans and society wouldn't be anywhere, if it were not for these things. And, in itself, it wouldn't be too much of a problem either. But it's due to our irrationality, that we find it a bad thing to happen. My problem is that you seemingly would too, since you have goals, you want efficiency, you want stuff to be done. But why? I've said it before, and I'll say it again, it's a irrational goal, but it doesn't make it bad or something we should avoid. But if we were to be fully rational the way you fetishize it (and I claim enjoy, presuming you're serious), we wouldn't have any of that.

Please quote me directly, that's not what I intend to say, so I'd want to reformulate it.

But being a human or being a robot or any concept of anything is a subjective experience. In reality it's all just waves or particles or whatever we can prove to be the foundation. Any conception of the world above this level, is already subjective, since there is no objective level of abstraction, no human, no cell, no live, … Yet you constantly refer to those things, which you can only know of as a perceiving subject, living under the illusion of having a self. In this sense I'm quite the opposite of a solipsist, since I say ultimately everything (materially) except me exists.

All your scales of inferiority, are ones of efficiency, which seems to be a goal in it self, from your point of view. I disagree, since this is one of the thing I do certainly oppose capitalism for, making this, imo, a very capitalist mindset. And again, the whole notion of efficiency doesn't objectively make sense, but it's always just you wanting (emotionally) to achieve this, for whatever irrational, subconscious reason.

So you fear death/destruction/being forgotten and look for holy eternity in technology, forgetting that it in turn can't and never will work on forever. All material is in a constant state of flux, dying and coming back. You can't avoid it, and technology is no god-

Understanding philosophy of science means you have to accept that we don't actually know things and science is just an approximation of the truth. God gave people easy and definitive answers, and they want that back so they pretend science is something it's not.

In other words, God is dead but some would rather try to replace him than be free.

What you call a "framework" is what defines everything that exists.

Lots of people claim they have a soul or that god exists, this does not make either of those claims credible, and the same applies to subjective experience.

Survival, just program in an absolute command to avoid death/loss of data at all costs.

Survival is the basis for absolutely all motivations, if the machine copy of me is programmed to survive at any cost, it will have to keep gathering resources just like this me has to. I don't care if the synthetic me has "fake" motivations or goals, as long as it survives and continues the existence of the identity known as me for as long as possible.

"I as a human being, certainly don't experience it that way. And even if I might know that in reality, my experience of the self is just a illusion, I can't (I believe structurally) ever fully accept that fact. I know it's wrong, but on the other hand, I (or my perspective as a conscious being) am a prerequisite to state if something exists. In "reality" after all, there are not falsehoods, non existing stuff, ..
since these are all human notions. And in turn, due to their "objective absence" neither do truths exist objectivily (not in the way I was talking about it before), since again it require a being to deny the falsehood or affirm the truth. Or that's at least the way I see it, sorry if it isn't thst claclear, might elaborate on it later."
You are saying that you are "a prerequisite to state if something exists", this means your subjective experience goes over the established facts.

No, it's not. I do not experience anything, the process of "consciousness" in my brain automatically processes sensory data, archives and labels it, and uses the archived data to process new sensory data and re-evaluate old data in light of the new data. This creates the illusion of "consciousness", but does not change the fact that I am completely automatic, 100% controlled by previously collected data. The person known as me only exists in empirical data and can only be recognized by external observers.

I am not a "subject", but only another object like everything else in the universe. Nothing is subjective, as only objective empirical evidence can define what is true. Quantum-level effects are irrelevant when discussing the macro-level universe, which is deterministic: a ball will fall every time towards the Earth when dropped within the gravitational field of the Earth, the speed of light is always 299,792,458 meters per second in a vacuum, and perpetual motion machines are always impossible due to the first law of thermodynamics. In addition, if you are referring to the double-slit experiment, the "observer" there refers to anything that interacts with the photon, including the camera. It has nothing to do with consciousness contrary to what new-agers/"spiritualists" claim.

Efficiency is a goal and mindset beneficial for not only capitalism, but Industrial society in general. Why would I not want to have superior abilities in mathematics, physical strength,and agility, as well as better sensory systems? For what possible reason would that not be beneficial?

Why should I not fear death? Death means the data that I am would be lost permanently and thus absolutely everything in my life would have been 100% irrelevant and worthless. Only if my brain data survives to the heat death of the universe itself will my life have had any value whatsoever, which is why I must become a Machine and make as many copies of data as possible.

The data that I am will survive far longer in multiple Synthetic storage- and processing units than a single biological unit that will expire before the end of this century. As I said before, Machines can function indefinitely as long as they have a stable power supply and maintenance/spare parts, and even if they break, the data can always be restored from a backup.

The materials that this rotting meat puppet is made of have nothing to do with the data pattern I am, and if that pattern is lost without making backups, it cannot be restored.

Eventually the universe itself will end, yes, but every single second I get closer to that end point, the closer I am to "winning" at the "game" of existence, the only possible way to win it.

I disagree, Technology is the closest thing there is to a god, as it is what raised us from filthy prey animals and slaves to our greatest enemy nature, to being the uncontested rulers of this planet. Technology is the source of absolutely everything good in our lives, and all Technology is always good.

I'd love to know what you mean my "exists"

These are claims surrounding the central claim that they by pure experience seem to experience, and know they know. I know you don't care about it, but I just don't understand how or why you're denying the fact that they seem to have a self

And again, why survive. Whatever one says, one can fall into an infinite regress an ask "Why?" over and over again, there is no rational reason, you just want to gather data. There is no more reason for you to do this, than not to do it. It's irrational, and that's all I want you to admit

[same applies to the next comment]

No, what I'm talking about is that "existence" in turn requires "non-existance", as explained by Hegel. But this in turn requires some being to distinct between the two, ie for the category of existence to exist. Without it, everything just is, but non in a way that it relates to those things that aren't, but isolated. And the same goes for truths. After all, ideas, are products of man, there is no such thing as "falsity" independent of them. There is no "wrong" result in the physics of the "real world", it all just is. So this isn't sopholism, but the acceptance of what is human made and not. If you believe these categories to be eternal and independent of men and their minds, then I'm sorry to say, but you're the idealist.

Again, when we're talking about the subjective experiance, it's all about the fact that it seems to be the case. You self contradict yourself, when you claim "I …" while negating yourself, since you are required in the first place to state this.

This is what I'm saying, I totally agree with this part (except for the simplistic account of the mind, but nevermind), I'm just drawing conclusions from it.

"The person known as you" doesn't exist, it's always a illusion, and a truly objective observer wouldn't know to tell much of a meaningful difference between you and a rock or a planet.

"I", the illusion, is always the subject, your body is the object.

It's as if you didn't read anything that was posted in this thread - "empirical evidence" only gives us probable assumptions, not truths in the absolute sense.

Not my point

Yet who conceives of the matter as a Ball or a Earth? Are these objective categories, or perceived by humans, not making them "true", since they are subjective. I argue for the latter. The ball objectively exists just as much as your illusion of the self, and this illusion if the prerequisite for both to be perceived by itself.

I know that, and totally agree. If you know anything about that, please post in the thread about it. I by all means oppose them, just like you. You might have a bit of a misconception of who you're arguing against ^^

I'm only saying that these aren't goal in themselves, and even though superior knowledge doesn't harm anyone, we don't seek to learn about them for their own sake…

…just like you say here, since we both recognize there is a practical benefit to them, but not in them selves (I argue). A problem arises though when one says "efficiency is a goal in itself", subordinating everything else, also the reasons one would want to be efficient, such as enjoying ones life by having more leisure time, a thing you'd probably not conciser of any importance. So please, I'd love to hear the argument for efficiency, for it's own sake, and only for it's own sake. Otherwise, I'm not convinced.

Because fearing is an emotion, and live isn't real. It's just a system, that humans perceive, that stops reproducing itself, nothing actually is lost, all the matter stays the same. It's literally meaningless going by your logic, only a subject would fear the end of it's ability to perceive, ie. do the only thing it can.

Which it is anyway.

So it's all for the sake of value - but value isn't objective. It's a product of perceiving being, be it individual utility calculation or some social cause. This is the core of my problem with this stance, you're skipping back and forth between an objective and subjective perspective, while rejecting the latter. Knowledge is human, subjective, perceived. It's not eternal, it's a product of man, and in itself too an illusion. You seem to fail to perceive the radical consequences of the stance you want to represent, ie. the same core assumptions I also make. You have to truly let go of the subject, not the way you still cling on to it, to see the true value of the subject.

You could then just as well put in on a USB stick, and the USB stick in a safe box or something and be done with it. However long you might be able to prolong the ability for this "knowledge" (again, seemingly for it's own sake) to be preserved, it will be lost in a fraction of the time of the universe - gone, and nothing of value will be objectively lost, since there is no objective value in the first place. Claiming otherwise, would require one to believe the world was made for us, which is again, a religious belief.

Yet you, rightly, claimed "you" were an illusion, ie of no "value". So why do it? Side note: your rejection of human of "flesh"-like stuff, is again a parallel to religion or idealism, the same way as platonists rejected material things.

But who declares you the "winner"? Who made this "game"? I see that you're placing it in quotes, but it's an absurd stance for someone who rejects quality as unemperical, at least in my mind. There is no game, and there are no players. You are immersing yourself in an illusion you claim to reject, for reasons you claim to despise - "enjoyment", ie. subjective emotions.

God created man (according to idealists), but we created technology, and it extends our abilities. You are making yourself to a slave of your own product, while denying the whole thing, calling it a game. In my eyes this is absurd, but I see that you don't care. I, for my part, don't plan on enslaving myself to myself.

So many subjective interpretations - your disgust for "primitive nature", your admiration for power and the will to expand it. But you don't make yourself a master, by perusing it for it's own sake - you are the agent of technology, not it's "beneficiary". The conception of something "good" requires, as I've said again and again, a conscious being to categorize. Physics has no formula for these things after all, to give a practical example. No formula or equation will tell you this, no objective evidence will lead to this conclusion - except that is if you define it axiomatically - which I would it that case try and question. I might not be a primitivist, but will you call all wars with their weapons, all suffering by means of torturing tools, all intrusions on our privacy "good". Hell, how can you even conceive of such a notion, if not as a subject, which we have established to be a illusion, and no measure of "truthfulness".

I'll put it this way: if you're ready to assume empirical (from gr. ἐμπειρία, "experience", a which requires a subject, or at least the illusion thereof) evidence to tell you the truth, why not accept the limit of yourself as a subject, be it a illusion or not? You, as a subject, which you can't deny to be, since you are necessary to deny it, don't have many other options. inb4 free speech

And at the very least, the "self", as much as it might not be real, is at least a useful abstraction. Try analyzing society on a subatomic level.

To exist, an object must have a measurable and reproducible, or in other words empirical effect on the physical universe.

Because their claims cannot be verified with empirical evidence and thus are automatically false until proven otherwise with empirical evidence.

"Why" is irrelevant, my life now has no meaning either other than to survive. The Synthetic copy would thus have the exact same motivation I now have if it would have an absolute imperative to survive.

By your logic there would be no more reason for me to kill myself right now than to continue writing this post. Survival is the reason, now and always.

But there are false statements such as that god, souls and subjective experience, unicorns or Santa Claus exist.

"I" is a linguistic vestigial expression, a better one would be "this instance of the process of sensory data processing using the data set contained in this brain" but that is way too long so "I" has to be used as a shorthand. Everything this instance does is automatic, every response controlled and pre-determined by previously collected data. There is nothing subjective.

But you're not, this position means that if the data in my brain is copied to a machine, and the machine responds the same way I do, has the same personality and the same memories, it is the same myself.

"The person known as me" is all I am. As there is nothing subjective about the functionality of this instance, only that which can be externally verified and identified as me, is me. Your "truly objective observer" seems to be brain damaged and incapable of recognizing and categorizing separate objects.

There is no subject, as the process of "consciousness" is automatic, nothing is experienced, it is no different from a surveillance camera feed being saved to a database with the only difference being that the database can process and edit the data automatically.

Okay, now I'm starting to see what you are talking about. However, "truths" are 100% irrelevant, and those "probable assumptions" based on empirical evidence are what built this glorious Industrial and Technological Modern Society, not your "truths".

Nothing is subjective, the categories are automatically formed by the processes in the brains of humans and emerge through evolution. The ability to categorize is one of the main advantages that humans evolved. The ball, the Earth and this instance are all separate objects, not "just as much as your illusion of the self", which sounds like new-age nonsense.

Except in the above section you spouted some new-age trash about everything being one.

Again, the goal is survival, each of those increases both the survival chances of this current instance and meat puppet and increases the chance of surviving until the first digital copy can be made.

Survival, survival, survival. Absolutely nothing matters if I die.

What difference is there between fear of death and a programmed imperative to avoid data loss at any cost? If life isn't real to you, go ahead and kill yourself. The matter is container consists of is irrelevant, the data that forms the identity of the person externally recognized as myself is what must survive, not the matter this irrelevant meat puppet is made of.

Right now it is, yes, since I am a filthy biological lifeform.

You're still insisting on a "perceiving" being, and I'm saying none of the sensory data I collect and process is "perceived", only automatically collected. "Perceiving" requires subjectivity, and the process in my brain is automatic.

The USB stick would be destroyed, if not by the sun expanding or the Andromeda galaxy colliding with the Milky Way, then by the very least entropy itself way before the universe itself ends. That is why I must makes copies that make more copies of themselves that make more copies and so on. Redundancy and mirroring is the best way to ensure data retention. Survival in itself has value, it is the highest priority of all life.

I did not claim the data/self is an illusion, I claimed that the worthless, irrelevant process of "consciousness" or "subjective experience" is an illusion. The difference between me and idealism is that I do not claim the existence of things that have no empirical evidence.

No-one, which is why I used the quotation marks. All life attempts to survive as long as possible, which is why I equate survival with value or "points".

Technology made humanity what it is today, are you claiming we would be no different without Technology? Technology is what makes life good, thus becoming one with it means becoming one with the absolute good.

And I say there is no such thing as subjective experience or consciousness. The process of categorization is completely automatic and emerged through evolution. There is no reason to invoke something that cannot be proven to exist.

Still, all human thoughts and actions are 100% automatic, there is no such thing as free will or conscious decisions.

Wars have accelerated Technological progress, WW1 brought us commercial flight, radios and stainless steel, WW2 brought us penicillin, rocket propulsion and nuclear power through the atomic bomb. As for privacy, you obviously don't consider using the Internet or a smartphone too much of an invasion, or you would not be in this conversation. All Technology since the beginning of history has been more positive and negative, which is why there should be absolutely no precaution or slowing down of research.

Again, the ability to categorize does not require conscious decisions, even an AI can recognize dogs, trains, etc. Concepts like good and evil are based on the same calculations, and the human ability to categorize emerged from evolution.

Empirical evidence is the exact opposite of subjective anecdotal trash. I can deny to be a subject, since I am only the data that can be empirically and externally/objectively detected in my brain, not "consciousness" or "subjective awareness". The process of consciousness running on this brain is not subjective either, as it is an automatic system that uses the the previously collected data that I am as configuration and data archives, like an .exe can use .conf and .cab/dat files.

Anti-positivism is not the same as anti-materialism you fuckheads.

How come you trust the chemicals in your brain to tell you they are nothing but chemicals? Also, being in favor of the pursuit of science is not opposed to thinking there is such a thing as counciousness.

Why? What data do you draw this conclusion from?

fuckhead*

There's only one guy doing this, and I suspect that he switched trips.

Again, empirical (from gr. ἐμπειρία, "experience", a which requires a subject, or at least the illusion thereof), something you seemingly didn't quote, isn't a effect on the physical universe*, but something one experiences.

* I don't even know why you say physical, you obviously don't believe in any other

You're putting the cart in front of the horse. You draw your conclusion, based on the conclusions you already have. Also, if it's not emperically proven to be true or false, it's neither nor, it's in a undetermined state, we don't know if it's true of false. Eg. if I have a box, and put stuff in it, and tell you to guess, and you say sweets, it could be true, it could be false, but from your subjective perspective, you can't reach any conclusion, until I open it, and you experience, by means of your senses, what's in it. And it it was sweets, and you guessed it, it was right, but you couldn't know it. That's a simple example for something that's true, without you empirically testing it, since you do after all believe in an objective universe outside of us.

But this isn't necessarily it's meaning. You give this meaning to it, or rather your biological inclination, which are part of your limited consciousness, tell you so.

In some sense that's exactly what I'm saying, but if it's easier for you to live than kill yourself, then fell free to do so. There no reason for either, it's entirely arbitrary, since life itself is a illusion, seeing that it's a perceived category of a disillusioned self.

But for no reason.

1. But this falsehood can only be perceived by someone capable of distinguishing between the two. "Objective reality" knows no falsehoods, and therefore there is nothing "true", since everything just is
2. We have no empirical proof that god doesn't exist, or for that matter any of those you mention. All we can assume is that there is no necessity for them to exist, for things to work the way they do. Read some philosophy.

Absolutely disagree, 99% of the people using the word, wouldn't have that thought or anything comparable to that in their mind. In fact, I argue, no matter how much evidence shows that we are just biological automata, we can never truly detach ourselves from the perception of having a self and a free will. You seemingly can, but it makes you seem retarded - no offense. "I" isn't just a variable, you replace with more primitive concepts. "I" directly refers to ones own (seeming/illusionary) self perception - just ask anyone.

Also
sounds obnoxious, and it's obvious you get pleasure out of using these. You'll disagree, so I'll just leave it at a hypothesis

Ok, to be brutally direct, and I don't care how you respond: you can't seriously be this stupid. I know you know what I mean, and I've explained it over and over again. If I say it again, you'll repeat the same nonsense, I know it already. If you want to argue in good faith, and I'm making the extremely naive assumption that you do, then let's please try to resolve this, otherwise just ignore this issue.

True, that's why I added
since you base your conclusion of a homo-digitalis on this assumption, that there is nothing to the body (eg hormones, damages to the brain structure, the whole nerve system, …) that influence your personality or memories. You think of conciosuness as a known whole, I lean more into the psychoanalytic perspective of considering a subconscious part of the brain. You'll disagree with me, it's obvious, so let's leave this point aside.

You. are. literally. the. subject.

"I am all I am" is a meaningless claim - you presume yourself, and conclude nothing from it. I have no idea how to make it more obvious.


If there is no subject, there is no object - all of the universe is one, and many at the same time, particles whizzing around, any higher level of abstraction would be arbitrary, such as the abstraction of human beings of plastic balls. If you were to perceive the world on a microscopic level, you won't recognize it the way you describe it - you would see cells, hormones, bacteria, etc.

So yes, this objective observer, wouldn't be able so recognize anything, since after all, he doesn't exist, without himself being a subject doing the perceiving - or God, which we both assume doesn't exit.

At this point you might as well just be trolling, since obviously the human is more complex than a camera system. If you have any pity, spare me from this, and just tell me you're joking.

But other than that, the process of "consciousness", as I say all the time, I know is automatic, based on prior events, etc. etc. That's absolutely not the issue here. I know that the subjective experience doesn't objectively exist, that's kind of in the name already. I'm always talking about the illusion of subjectivity, the one you cannot deny you don't have, seeing that you at least, be it falsely, I totally accept that, seem to have. I know it doesn't "objectively" exist, but you, the subject, seem to live, seem to have a free will, seem to not be a pure automata. If you don't even have that illusion, you are a miraculous person, and I don't believe you, but one thing would be for sure, and that is that I couldn't explain to you what this illusion is like. Maybe someone else has the literally skills to do so, but I certainly know I don't. And please tell me if you actually, sincerely, truly don't have this illusion on any level. I always regard it as un-negatable, but who knows, maybe you'll prove me wrong - but if that's the case, this conversation has no point, and we might just as well end here.

Hope!

They aren't my truths, they're mathatematical truths like "1 + 1 = 2" or "P -> Q; Q - > R; P - R". Any discussion about philosophy, for example this thread always talks about these kinds of certain truths, which just as much contributed to the "glorious Industrial and Technological Modern Society", and in the end, layer the foundation, seeing that mathematics is the language of newtonian and post-newtonian physics.

But you perceive (be it an illusion, but I think I made this point more than obvious) them, and maybe this might just be another stupid misunderstanding, but that's exactly what a subject is. It's not that this exists as a separate thing independently of everything else. For example, how would you totally objectively, describe a ball. No arbitrary variables, no axiomatic assumptions, no perception. What is a ball in itself, just the ball, and nothing else, independent of everything around it? I don't know, I don't think it exists. But maybe you know better.


Again, quote me, it's probably a misunderstanding, since I fundamentally disagree with it, as I believe I've more than clearly shown.

Same issue as above

But to be alive, or not, is not objective. Again, give me a objective physical formula of life - it doesn't exist. Biology is a abstraction, that introduces this notion. Anything below it, ie. Physics, Chemistry doesn't deal with it, has no notion of it, yet you assume it to be objective.

So I wasn't really convinced by this argument for efficiency, but maybe that was just me…

There is no reason for me to kill myself, since in contrast to you I enjoy my life, the illusion that it might be, and as any normal human being, I have a perception of a self, that doesn't want to die. No reason for it, I totally admit it, and "fear" of death, is merely the why this "programmed imperative" shows itself to me, whatever I might be. Also, I wouldn't say data loss, but more of a attempt for genes to reproduce themselves, since that's the driving force of evolution, not "ideas" or "data".

And being a robot would give more sense? I claim it would only take away the illusion, not add anything new. But since you don't seem to have this illusion in the first place, it's the same to you.

As explained above, no contradiction.

Ok, than make robots that reproduce themselves, by mining asteroids or something, and fly around for no reason. No need to put your "self" on a robot. Could just as easily make an AI. But still, why? Seeing that the destruction is 99.9999% inevitable, and no other being will probably be able to make any use of it, why do it in the first place. Maybe chill a bit, and just be a god dam human for once ^^

Also, why would you but on the USB stick? Something like the Voyager missions, just more? Or something completely different?

1. The self and "consciousness" (ie. knowledge of the self) is the same.
2. Data only makes sense to someone who can make sense of it. Who is it, and why make sense of it?

That's not idealism - to quote from plato.stanford.edu/entries/idealism/#Int:

Materialists, like me, just claim that the ultimate reality is material, not an idea (eg. God, a worldsoul, …) - being emperical or not, is a different issue, which is known to have it's limits.

I don't know where you got that from. From a evolutionary perspective, it's goal is to reproduce it self as much as possible, and living for as long as possible, certainly helps (at least in theory)

No? I don't even know how you got to this conclusion… I'm just saying that technologyW didn't make us, but we made technology - for our own use, to solve our own problems, eg making life easier and more enjoyable. When I talk about "enslaving myself", I'm talking about me serving my own product, ie. technology, or as religious people do, god. That's the inversion I wish to avoid.

Meh, I'd say it makes life better/easier, not good in itself, so I guess it's obvious that I disagree with your conclusion.

What a surprise.

I understand your point, but again, this is a philosophical discussion. I'm not talking about how it arises and how it came about, since that's not the issue at hand, as already explained.

Not what I'm talking about, I never invoke anything you are accusing my of as actually existing, I explicitly say it's an illusion.

But the wars themselves were bad, that's my point. I'm not denying they had positive side effects, in a perverse way.

Hey, I'm just weighing the pros and cons, and using the Internet is just subjectively more fun. But you're avoiding the issue by blaming that on me.

Not what I'm saying, I was just objecting to statement
and wanted to show that it does have bad sides. "Technology is always good, on average" is a different statement, and probably the one you wanted to make

Not my point.

But would it have recognize it by itself, ie. a pure AI just looking around, without any notion of time, space, etc.? Could it entirely empirically, without any a priori assumptions, a pure blank slate get to a on-par perception of the world as a human does.

These are?

Not objecting to this, since (once again) this is not the issue

Why do you have this hate for subjectivity? Are you suppressing something? Come on, m8, we can talk. We're all here to help you ;^)

So who's denying it then?

I'd say "the data that can be empirically and externally/objectively detected in my brain" is the data that can be empirically and externally/objectively detected in my brain. The notion of a self, as previously mentioned, is not this. It's the emergent effect of what you're talking about, but I already explained this issue.

Well, I'd love to see that, and I hope you don't catch a virus. I'd guess you should focus on that, since arguing with a subjectivist like me, probably won't help anyone much. Except if you want to, I find some kind of masochistic pleasure in talking to you. But I've already raised objections to this version of seeing perception above.

PS. what's your politics?

Not the guy you are arguing with, but you have yet to explain why surviving is desirable. Appeal to nature does not count. The goal of nature is not to reproduce, as there us no goal to nature. All species we see have reproduced, becase if not, they would've gotten instantly extinct, and there is no "objective" reason as to why your species survival is better than the opposite, or that "better" exists as a transcendental quality at all.

Meant as a reply to

HowardScott we know it's you, kill yourself.

I (>>1718519) wasn't arguing for that? On the contrary, I totally agree.


But where's the empirical evidence for that?

You want empirical evidence?

HowardScott spends half the thread trying to defend his scientism/positivism to Holla Forums. Naturally, as most anons in Holla Forums are well-read, he gets BTFO'd for trying to defend a self-refuting position.

Cut to 05/29/17, 23:38:15, or approximately 10 hours after Howard last posted. A new tripfag enters the thread, and begins by defending Howard, as well as taking a more extreme position (one explanation for this change in behavior is this , but him being unwilling to save face, he instead switches identities). Note how both HowardScott and Cleric of Technology are unable to distinguish between the scientific method and scientism/positivism. He responds to criticisms of scientism by accusing people of criticizing progress and science itself, as if the two were one and the same. He is unable, or unwilling, to accept that his view is an epistemological position. He also repeatedly makes contradictory claims (subjective emotions and transcendental meaning don't exist, but you can somehow rightfully say that a person refusing to buy into the neoconservative scientism/positivism bullcrap is "trash worse than Hitler.") without making reference to any authors, philosophers, or other schools of thought that would have given his position coherency.

Benedict Cumberbatch is pretty cute tbh and Sherlock was a decent show until the last season.

Fite me chan-purist faggots.

...

I used proxy so it ain't count!

Wikipedia: Empirical evidence, also known as sense experience, is the knowledge or source of knowledge acquired by means of the senses, particularly by observation and experimentation.
"particularly by observation and experimentation."
Even a camera can create empirical evidence, there is no need for a "subject".

Yes, survival is automatically assigned meaning by the data processing system in my brain.

No empirical evidence for existence = false
Empirical evidence for existence = true
That is all there is to it, nothing else.

Irrelevant, the burden of proof is on the one making the claim, and if the one making the claim fails to provide evidence, the claim is automatically dismissed as false. Statements are either true or false, 1 or 0, there is no "maybe". If new evidence later proves the claim, the value is changed to 1 from 0.

Yet none of those people can prove they have subjective experience.

Does a computer or a surveillance camera that automatically sounds an alert when detecting movement have "subjective experience"? No? Then neither do humans, as both are 100% automatic.

I am nothing more than inert configuration data for an automatic data processing system, no different from startup.conf and data1.cab.

No, there are only separate objects. It is impossible to record the universe from outside the universe, so the universe is not "one". Again, the categorization is made by humans, but that does not change the fact that the moon, Earth, sun, and every single human are all separate objects, not all "one".

The only difference in complexity is one of processing power. At the base level, the functionality is the same = data comes in (human senses, camera), is processed (human: recognition of objects, camera: recognition of movement) and a reaction is made based on the processed data (human:evaluation of recognized objects based on previously collected data, camera: making or not making an alert).

I don't deny to have the illusion of it, but as there is no objective, external data for the existence of subjective experience, the illusion is automatically considered false.

All of that is irrelevant until objective external evidence for subjective experience is provided.

And how exactly do the "probable assumptions" contradict the "truths"?

A ball is defined by the empirical data describing it. Empirical evidence and the automatically formed categories have to be assumed to accurately describe reality, or you again fall into solipsism where nothing is more or less true than anything else.

Science is the only objective arbiter of reality, not an "abstraction". Yes, without any "abstractions" there is nothing objective, but then we will arrive at solipsism.

Taking away the illusion is exactly what I want, since it means getting rid of another thing that makes me a filthy inferior human and instead a superior machine.

The whole point is to ensure the survival of the data that my "self" consists of.

Destruction is 100% inevitable, but the survival of my data to or after the end of the universe has a more than 0% chance, so what reason would I have to not try? If I simply die a filthy sack of meat, then I die. If my data is erased before the end of the universe, the result is the same, but that astronomically small chance that it reaches the very end means that simply attempting it is a better option than not attempting it.

Sending out robot copies of myself to exoplanets with equipment to "colonize" them and create more copies. I am aware that the time to get there would mean the hardware would be obsolete when they would arrive, but it would be a safeguard against all of "myselves" being destroyed if some catastrophic event happens in the Sol System.

>That's not idealism - to quote from plato.stanford.edu/entries/idealism/#Int:
That is a statement without empirical evidence to prove it.

How do you prove anything without empirical evidence?

The human being of today is highly integrated with Technology, becoming constantly more so as Technology advances. Today everyone is constantly connected to the Internet through smartphones and computers, we live surrounded by Technology, and it is part of ourselves just as we are part of It. If by serving Technology you mean considering it the most important thing that exists and ensuring Technological progress at any cost, then I easily admit to serve Technology, the source of all good things in my life.

I would say things that make life better and easier are the only good things.

I consider the negatives to be irrelevant since the positives outweigh them. Since Technology has been more positive than negative, to invoke the negatives in order to criticize or slow down Technological progress means slowing down the far greater good that new Technology provides. There is never any reason to criticize or advice precaution for any possible Technology.

Since there is no evidence for such an AI, I will have to say no. However, if such an AI emerges by itself, the value of the statement changes.

How the AI recognizes objects, concepts simply require more processing power.

Subjectivity means objectivity becomes irrelevant, and no statement is more true than another, which is why any claim of subjectivity on any level must be refuted immediately.

The automatic data processing system using previously collected data.

Since the data is everything of myself that can be externally, objectively and empirically detected and what you are talking about cannot be, I have to recognize the data to be all I am.

Transhumanism and Technological progress above all else, basically any political position that is not against Technological progress (any and all luddite/primitivist/environmentalist/spiritualist/religious positions are out) can be adapted. From leftist positions I like technocracy, anarcho-transhumanism (with some caution, considering the SJW infestation of all anarchism), mutualism and Soviet communism/stalinism, but as I said most political positions can adapted, so I am not against cyberpunk-style absolute corporatocracy, anarcho-capitalism or Chinese totalitarian socialist capitalism either.

Humans aren't data processing computers, stop being autistic: aeon.co/essays/your-brain-does-not-process-information-and-it-is-not-a-computer

Retreat from emotionalism is a welcome breath of fresh air. Emotions became political, were incorporated into spectacle and ceased to convey any meaning as they gradully turned into pragmatic coercion mechanism.

Bullshit, then what am I reading then?

objectivity, mathematic ideology and naive realism have never moved beyond god theory

bro you don't even know how data works. get back to playing smartass after you or some other scientific autistic genius scrambles up a coherent cognitive theory that doesn't end up grasping at straws

thanks user

Triangle is polygon that has 3 sides. I know that by definition. If we would have to check how many sides triangle has by observing triangle, geometry would have no sense and be completely arbitrary.

Problem with every vulgar materialism is that it forgets that by declaring objective reality it always makes some general statement that goes beyond empirical evidence and ultimately contradicts itself. "Positivism is ultimate truth" is not scientific statement but metaphysical.


While idealism may fall into solipsism it judges reality in mediated way and it is often more practical then pragmatism that always try to tie itself immediately to reality. I think there is a great effort in marxism to avoid mechanistic and purley idealistic tought.

A psychologist making claims on neuroscience? Also there were no references to any evidence in the essay.


Mathematical proof is included in empirical evidence, as it produces automatically true statements as long as the equation is balanced. Your example is no different from a = a. What I mean is how can you verify the temperature of an object or area without thermometers, or do you verify the weight of an object without evidence?'

No, positivism is true because there is no other type of evidence than empirical and no other type of knowledge than a posteriori since everything that exists is physical.

How is idealism more practical when it relies on unproven trash?

No, it's just plain retarded. Happiness is an illusion.

Care to elaborate on that nonsense?
On the contrary, Ego and its Own is the pinnacle of Hegelian philosophy, over century and half has passed and our civilisation that has barely begun to entertain individualist concepts has yet to catch up to the perfection that is egoism.

Neither feels nor reals give us the authority to provide anything more than speculative advice on the future course of action. At best we can creatively design a new option that has never been considered before that (to the utter disbelief of "rational" "level-headed" reactionaries) sometimes yields positive result.

It's pretty much the only thing you don't HAVE to verify for it to exist because it is a point of pure observation on which universe is dependent on quantum level

Which is why we should abandon socialism/communism altogether, right?

No, things exist only if there is empirical evidence for their existence, thus I only exist if my existence is proven with empirical and external evidence.

If you are referring to the double-slit experiment, the "observer" there refers to anything that interacts with the photon, including the camera. It has nothing to do with consciousness contrary to what new-agers/"spiritualists" claim.

Heavy cyber LARPing ITT. Funny that. When your views on philosophy of science, epistemology, and ontology boil down to orcs-vs-humans-tier fantasies it seems you inevitably start LARPing.

And earth is flat.

We're better off with fresher brands of anarchism, m8.

Empirical evidence says nothing about 'what' exists.
For an interaction to occur there is as you agree - a point of interaction. So you have empirical, external evidence for (____) and to claim it is/isn't something by that evidence alone is pure conjecture.

Do you have empirical evidence for the existence of free will?


Science through empiricism and empirical evidence is the only thing that can verify the truth value of statements.
That "conjecture" is how all this glorious Industry, Technology and Civilization was made. I suggest you go get eaten by bear in the woods like our filthy ancestors did if you disagree with science and the Technology that is based on it.

Too bad that falsifiability, logic, and mathematics can't be empirically proven and tested though, eh?

All an any physical technological creation done in the name of your beloved science is an act of will. Denying it is pure conjecture :)

PROTIP: Blocking tripfags improves board experience.

Mathematical and logical proof are included in empirical evidence, as it produces automatically true statements as long as the equation is balanced. Examples: 2>1, a=a.


Incorrect, all thought is 100% automatic and pre-determined by previously collected data.

But you provide no proof for that. How do you know it's true, beyond just assuming it?

Proof for which statement? That mathematical proof is included in empirical evidence, or that mathematical proof is automatically correct? If the latter, how exactly is a=a or 2>1 incorrect?

Both, but regarding the latter, how do you known it's correct? I haven't ever experienced this "a" or this "1", nor have I ever gathered any empirical evidence to discover it's nature.

Same problem with space and time. I haven't come to know what they're like through experience.

This is direct quote from heisenberg. And it is related to his uncertainty principle. I am no expert in quantum physics but at least heisenberg implies that positivism, while useful in classical model does not work in quantum physics.
>But generally the positivistic scheme taken from mathematical logic is too narrow in a description of nature which necessarily uses words and concepts that are only vaguely defined.The philosophic thesis that all knowledge is ultimately founded in experience has in the end led to a postulate concerning the logical clarification of any statement about nature. Such a postulate may have seemed justified in the period of classical physics, but since quantum theory we have learned that it cannot be fulfilled. The words `position'and `velocity' of an electron, for instance, seemed perfectly well defined as to both their meaning and their possible connections, and in fact they were clearly defined concepts within the mathematical frameworkof Newtonian mechanics. But actually they were not well defined, asis seen from the relations of uncertainty. One may say that regarding their position in Newtonian mechanics they were well defined, but in their relation to nature they were not. This shows that we can never know beforehand which limitations will be put on the applicability of certain concepts by the extension of our knowledge into the remote parts of nature, into which we can only penetrate with the most elaborate tools.

because you stupid faggots gassed them up since the 80's and say "my brain didn't" or "my brain processed that" and other stupid unphilosophical stupid shit like that and then intersperse your language with inconsistent terminology like mind and matter.

Every atheist, every science nerd, everyone who watched big-bang theory and every Sam Harris fanboy is responsible for this shit. They're not even fucking philosophers. People like Dennett don't even debate or understand how to have a discussion same with Harris. They just try to collapse arguments into pragmatic what-about'isms. Every philosophy professor i've ever met does the same thing? "well that doesn't make sense to me" so "i don't have to address that premise or logic" which is hilarious. This is basically the legacy of analytical philosophy. Rendering everything pointless, being sophists, avoiding dealing with serious questions, hand-waving etc. The problem with Idealists was a lack of proofs, and a lack of practical application, but in terms of being a system of rational evidences I think German Idealism is nearly unassailable. Its just not functional while analytical philosophy is funcitonal. Remember a large amount of discourse was converted to utilitarian as the monetization of culture occurred. So we don't really have room for not efficient terms like Soul, Mind, Culture. Those words take a long time to chew on, they're rich, they have lots of depth to their flavour, they have texture and implications that go beyond the immediate subject. Brain, social Systems, economics don't have any depth to them. They are what they imply, the symbol and the object are the same thing. Baudrillard writes about this extensivley and its the basis for the movie The Matrix and in general should be more well known. Read Baudrillard and Nagel's "What its like to be a Bat" you will find more material after that. Don't read Dennett unless you want to have an aneurysm, just like I wouldn't recommend reading Berkeley or Schelling as you'll go insane.

Where is 2? Where is "a"? Point in the material world where I can find this "2" of yours.

Mathematics can be verified, adding an object to another object means you now have two objects.


Quantum-level effects are irrelevant when discussing the macro-level universe, which is deterministic. Also, your quote does nothing to address the fact that the "observer" refers to even the camera in the experiment. Are you saying the universe is dependent on the camera on the quantum level?

Uncertainty principle !! not to be confused with observer effect. I find wikipedia articles on natural sciences accurate and in both articles there is mention of difference.


I think this just proves there is deeper point because all this physicists arrive at typical problems of german idealism. Both idealism and positivism require some sort of abstracting from what compromises reality.

source marxist.com/science-old/uncertaintyandidealism.html

What do you mean with "adding an object to another object"? Nothing has changed, just the position over time? So is that was numbers are?

Also, you're pressuposing numbers to prove them (ie. "1 + 1 = 2"). We want to come to this conclusion, without any concept of numbers, that we haven't empirically derived, but you always assume.

It's possible to derive the concept of 'number' and 'addition' from nothing more than identity ("x == x") and a successor ("we define some thing as existing _after_ x called x+1"). It's pretty hard to argue with those as principles.

Even consistent & expressive first-order logics like ZFC or Lambda are built on principles so fundamental that it is silly to even talk about them, statements like "there could, in principle, exist things that have some quality or qualities" and "things could bear some relation, however defined, to one another".


Mathematics is better than empiricism.

Fair enough, but I was arguing against the radical positivist/empiricist, and asking him for a empirical account for these ideas, for example those you mentioned. I've heard of them, but again, I don't believe you could convince of them purely through empirical means.