Give me your deepest/best/most thought provoking psychological or philosophical questions /b/rothers. I am in a mood for thinking right now.
Philosophy is dead. Don't aim to think within the realms you are familiar, rather explor that of which you are not.
Fuck philosophy and learn science nigger. Like real science. Not psychology but like physics or chemistry. Fuck, even biology.
Obligatory: Can jet fuel melt steel beams?
Also, is there anything truly random? If there's nothing really random, all consequences of all actions myst be predictable => no free will. If there is true randomness, who/what chooses what actually happens?
You missed the point. Learn something new. If I present a question you will apply nonscientific philosophy to it and add now new info to generate new thought it ideas. To learn a new subject is challenging. Today I finished learning how to count cards and I worked on coding. Both are skills I intend on using (currency flipped last vacation). These bodies of knowledge can be expanded on and genuinely mastered and then original thought can improve them. Philosophy lacks this. You don't want to learn something new. You want to feel smart.
Physics tells us that there is no loss when we talk about energy, only transformation
Based on this, when we die, we lose our life, which is ruled by some kind of energy
But, no energy can be at loss
Then what happens to that energy we own when we die?
It goes to the worms in the ground, friction and gets transformed into fuel for fungus and other things. Duh.
One day it will enter s black hole and come out as microwave radiation. There's your cheap immortality.
Also your question from how you assumed life means you assume consciousness is not just a physical process. You pointlessly threw God or a supernatural force in the question. It is loaded from the start.
I dont want to feel smart through philosophy i do not intend to share these with anyone but i enjoy thinking about things that you can't answer.
I realize that i won't be able to use these in any useful case but its just something i enjoy.
A better world full of Peace and Love is definitely possible. The first step to creating it is showing people The Truth, which inspires change. That is the reason why "The Truth Contest" website was created. To find, define, and spread The Truth. It will benefit Humanity in every way. So check it out and pass it on.
truthcontest dot com
>It goes to the worms in the ground, friction and gets transformed into fuel for fungus and other things. Duh.
Nah. Death is immediate, and what you're talking about takes weeks or months. When you take your last breath, when heart stops pumping, when your brain cells die, there must something as immediate that happens. Not some kind of worm food shit
Almost everything that you believe will eventually turn out to be false.
Consider that when you start to feel self righteous about something.
That is one of the most important things I have ever learned
What has you so convinced about that? There isn't some grand amount of energy stored in the human body that releases when we die. Most likely what little residual kinetic or electrical energy that remains is converted to heat energy that wouldn't even be noticeable.
See my other reply. Your organs stop conducting and the channels break Etc. the organism dies. What if the cells? If you eat a steak (dead cow) the meat or it's cells have energy. The organism is dead. That energy is lost over time or rather transferred how I stated earlier. There is no immediate break as you imply. Cells in a dead body have energy in their components.
God this. this so much. When i realized this i remember actually crying. I felt like veerthing i ever did in life or have ever known was in vain. i felt worthless .this feeling smashed me.
What are your thoughts on Singer's pond?
Is it too broad to be applied to ethics in general?
You should not cry about it. You should allow it to soften your hardest edges, and use it to enable your ability to learn and form new more appropriate opinions based on an ever increasing amount of knowledge. As you learn, your opinions should evolve.
If you knew your science then you wouldn't be asking that question. If you're moving at the speed of light (which is impossible, in case you didnt know that) then you would still see your headlights shoot out at c. Someone observing would not however measure that light as 2c. Why? Because nothing can be faster than c. It's all relative.
A man should look for what is and not for what he thinks should be.
Your two selves: Most people are not aware of the fact that they have two
different selves. You have a mind and a spirit (consciousness), and though they
seem like one thing, they are separate. The way to realize that this is true is to
realize that something has to be listening to the thoughts created by your mind.
Check it out: Just ask yourself, what is it that is hearing the thoughts you
are thinking right now?
It is your spiritual-self, the same thing that receives all life.
You cannot control life, but you can change the way you see life.
Can this be a regular bread? I love it when I see these kinds of threads on /b/
True life is perfect: You can see and experience a perfect life, because
that is the way life actually is. Our imperfect minds mess it up.
It is hard to believe from your current perspective and level of awareness,
but it is your own mind that makes life imperfect. The universe has to be
perfect to exist. You do not have to believe it; you can know it.
People think that they are not good looking enough, young enough, thin
enough, smart enough, rich enough, etc. They live on the edge of the circle
and just go around and around forever, lost in the illusions of their minds.
The mind is so close to your spirit that most people do not realize that they
are two separate things. The mind creates the illusion that it is the spirit.
Why let your own mind hurt you?
Just as you do not have to think thoughts that you do not want to think, you
do not have to feel the negative emotions and feelings the mind creates.
Hurr durr I already know all that shit.
>Someone observing would not however measure that light as 2c. Why? Because nothing can be faster than c. It's all relative.
No, he'd be measuring a photon with a wavelength of exactly 0 nm, aka a photon with (sinning against mathematics now) infinite energy. He wouldn't measure anything because he'd be completely obliterated.
It's one of the most famous ethical questions.
Singer says that if we see a child drowning in a pond, we are obligated to save him/her, even if it means we might die.
The problems arise when it is applied to things like charity.
Are we obligated to help those in dire need if it means sacrificing something of our own?
And this is the kind of Paradox you can't argue about because a is gonna say "A" and b is gonna say "B" since nobody can prove his point nor does he want to accept the other pov.
philosophy is not about learning something new, it is about alleviating conceptual confusions that come from the ways we use language
>this is why so many lawyers have philosophy undergrad degrees
Scientists have located the part of the brain that triggers aggression and could turn it off with a small procedure.
Shouldn't every newborn child in the world have this operation?
But you have to start somewhere. You start with the experiences that you have had, and you draw conclusions from those experiences.
What you need to realize (not YOU) is that there will always be new and different experiences and you need to be willing to add the elements of those new experiences to your formula and modify your conclusions.
That is the single most important process. And when you realize and accept that everything that you currently believe will evolve, you make it easier to improve and evolve.
Alright champ he wouldnt be obliterated because he wouldnt be able to achieve that speed anyways. here i did a simple google search for you since you dont want to take an anon's word for it
Ah ok i know that one but not under that name.
My answer to that would be no, we are not obligated to help people in dire need, we should but we are not obligated to. Since they do not affect us (and yes where i come from that a controversial pov)
The problem with your example is that the drowning scenario leaves no room for hesitation or variables. The child dies right away if you don't make the sacrifice.
But in the charity example, you can always help later, or assume someone else will help.
The two situations are not the same.
It would make the world more peaceful but
a: Are there other regions affected?
b: What side effects could it have? Like the butterfly effect would it eliminate rivalry or enmity? two mayor factors for progress!
i bet this faggot works at a fast food restaurant and lives in his parents basement
if something didn't originate on earth, it's an extraterrestrial. if something created earth, it could not have originated on earth. therefore if god created earth, god is an extra terrestrial.
if you are normal, you are statistically infrequent and therefore abnormal.
That's a good point, but they follow the same ethical argument.
Are we obligated to help?
Do we show a lack of ethics if we do not?
If you were in the pond, would you want or expect help?
You know you would.
Look into pragmatics. Philosophy is subjective and good logic with good argument skills is all one needs. In the real world even an English major could replace them in law school effectively. It just isn't needed. 2 philosophy degrees in the Supreme Court could argue opposing sides and it comes down to personal party affiliation in the real world anyway.
It's useless dude.
>Philosophy is dead.
Obviously a Philosophy prof talking, because if not then how the fuck do you know that, retard?
>Don't aim to think within the realms you are familiar, rather explor that of which you are not.
>the retardation of this statement is very profound, so not a prof than
Proving omnipotence exists is exactly like trying to prove something doesn't exists.
What confirms someone is omnipotent?
If he can do everything.
Go ahead and measure everything.
There's no logic because true omnipotence implies you can shove logic up your ass.
We should, but the evolution is so great, that we have come to the end where we must become SPIRIT beings, and not improve our minds further, cuz minds and taking control of human race, and it is a reason for all the wars, hunger, crime,etc in the world, think about it.
A. I believe not. Iirc, they have narrowed it down to a point
B. Physical aggression, like your fight/flight response will always choose flight. You would still be angry but will not engage in physical confrontation.
Well doesnt matter in that case i'd definetely say yes.
It should be done.
But is everyone ok with that? I am not okay with circumcision or religious rituals at birth would this fall unter the same category?
Yes and no.
You work within realms expanding on approaches more or less but little objective info is gained. You don't walk into it able to build a robot or explain a reaction any better as a rule of thumb. You may go "Oh, this is a cool way to examine this" but that's about it.
Because I know relativity (not the exact details as I'm no physician).
I know all this shit is impossible because the required infinite energy isn't the only issue.
My question was about blue shift taken to its very extreme, causing light to have a wavelength of exactly 0 nm, a photon with infinite energy.
There are many theories in philosophy that present many views on different matters. Most of them were new at te time of their creation. All of them can obviously be extended and mastered, considering there are debates on their validity. Original thought is the foundation of philosophy.
Also you could say that by learning something new you also want to feel smart, so this isn´t an argument at all. Besides each philosophical system you haven´t mastered yet (and it is very difficult to fully understand even one of them) presents soething new.
A physician is a doctor, youre thinking of a physicist.
Okay, and I answered that question saying that it would not happen along with providing you some other answers from scientific professionals. Why am I the idiot...?
If it is not categorically its own thing and wants to preside over all decisions it should be lumped with psychology and be a subset.
This further evinced the point that it does nothing on its own merit.
How can mirrors be real if our eyes aren't real?
Mastering one train of though with no new level of academic bearing is to master one's own opinion.
Logic =/= philosophy.
Logic is part of a bigger picture but to attribute philosophy to all logic is to give the field "stolen valor."
lumping an empirical science with philosophy? are you retarded? that makes no sense. it increases understanding of values, the nature of knowledge and how we come to it, and reality in general. so yes it does in fact do something on its own merit. if you aren't a philosopher, you're an inanimate object. if you don't agree with that, you have an inadequate understanding of what philosophy is.
>A physician is a doctor, youre thinking of a physicist.
>ay, and I answered that question saying that it would not happen along with providing you some other answers from scientific professionals.
Because the scenario being impossible (according to our current scientific models mind you) wasn't the fucking point and that was clear from the very beginning.
Would this pacify that autistic mind of yours?
If one were to do this (impossible) thing, what could be an (impossible) outcome?
>Why am I the idiot...?
For not comprehending (a relatively easy to comprehend) question, and just assume I'm a total retard (can't blame you for that one, we're on /b/ after all)
No. I think that what I will do is continue to gather information, form my own opinions, and always be aware that after I have gathered information my opinions may change and always be aware that what I believe to be true may not actually be true.
Scientific realism is the only defensible standpoint in philosophy of science. Furthermore, the Vienna Circle was on the right track but you must account for Popper. Science progresses through a series of theories and conjectures. There is one unchanging scientific method, hypotheticodectivism, what people like Aristotle were doing was by and large not science.
Speculative metaphysics like theology and ethics are a waste of time.
There is no such thing as a priori justification of synthetic propositions.
/PhD Candidate in Philosophy of Science out/
God, in the classical monotheistic definition, gives us purpose for existence, and a potentiality for eternity. A lasting impact and consequence for our actions or choice. An objective moral framework for the rightness or wrongness of values and duties. None of these things exist in any objective or lasting sense if God does not exist. At least there is no philosophical justification for them.
The strings in string theory aren't made of anything. Is reality just mathematics?
No, the concept behind philosophy can in part be understood by psychology is what I was getting at. The nature of knowledge can be empirically studied too since nothing is truly intrinsic. Nothing has a nature that can't be observed or recorded on some level given enough effort or time.
The merit you attributed was subjective. Did those ideas benefit science or the world in a way the world could not if the field was never formally taught? This is how the field is useless in an academic setting.
The strings don't exist. They are a theoretical construct that allows for precise predictions.
If they are measured or observed through instrumentation then they are candidates for ontological status.
No one is claiming that God isn't a dick, rather his existence in an ontological sense, gives the very *possibility* for *objective* moral values and duties, ethics, and purpose. Without God these things are impossible.
Yeah I said if one were to do the impossible (travel faster than light), then you would still see the headlights travel ahead of you. That was my answer. The other two science professionals on the link i sent you said the same. I was just stressing that it was impossible.
Mathematics are the purest form of reality because maths are always true. 1+1 will always be 2.
Of course this only applies if we assume that Descartes methodical doubt is not true.
true omnipotence cannot exist. For example an omnipotent being cannot create a 2D shape on a flat surface with angles of 180 (like a triangle) but have 4 sides. It's just not possible. Bound by logic or not that would not be possible to make.
lol, scientific realism is self-referentially incoherent without committing logical fallacies reasoning. Are you equivocating methodological naturalism with metaphysical naturalism? and then go on to say that speculative metaphysics are a waste of time? Nigga, there is NO JUSTIFICATION that scientific realism is true without speculative metaphysics. You should be ashamed if you are truly a PhD candidate in Philosophy of Science. But you probably arent, you are probably lying. At least, I hope for the sake of our future that you are. Please don't publish anything academic