The Philosophy Thread

Here you can talk about anything (that isn't related to the other forums).

Moderator: Crew

User avatar
Zyx
Pretender to the throne
Posts: 1858
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 20:48
Location: Helsinki
Contact:

Re: The Philosophy Thread

Post by Zyx » Mon Jul 22, 2013 9:03

As Wittgenstein said, "the limits of my language means the limits of my world."
Do you has what it takes to join the Homestarmy? The guts? The determination? The five bucks? Join today!

User avatar
eMTe
Cyberflaneur
Posts: 6915
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 23:08
Location: Cracow

Re: The Philosophy Thread

Post by eMTe » Tue Jul 30, 2013 0:25

That would be true, but language tool isn't the only tool we have to interact on a social level. It's the one we use debating philosophical (pointless) issues and this is why Ludwig (not a very social person and a hero for weirdos) is remembered for this sentence, but general social interactions don't rely on language. For example, we have memories. I remember mushroom hunting with my father. I can write the series of books about mushroom hunting with my father, but nobody in the world will feel what I felt then just because he read about it. Now, how to transfer "childhood memories" into another intelligent being's mind which also has "childhood memories" to share and wants to exchange? Language (traditionally understood - as webforum posts for example) is no longer enough. The practical problem arises.

The language issue also partially explains why you didnt remove me from your Facebook friends list despite my desperate tries - you are, like most people nowadays and this common knowledge grows, aware that "language" is not equal to "human being" and human being means more than the language he uses. Also, you probably share my view that it's impossible to offend an intelligent person - only true moron feels offended when he's called a moron.

Actually, more and more people become totally aware that we all lie when using written/spoken language. On the contrary, other "tools" never deceive us. Basically, when you have sex with a woman, you don't talk. Talking isn't sexy. When you have an argument with another male in rl you also don't talk, you use your fists. Talking/reading/writing is sort of "transition" tool between our human and post-human form. This is also why you don't understand why and how compilers work. You can't grasp it, because you live in the transition period. Posthumans won't deliberate what is language

Ok, it begins to flow and I can't stop this thinking thingy. But it's not mindless, so please enjoy it. 8)
"As you have noticed over the years, we are not angry people." (itebygur)

User avatar
Scythe
Winner of CWF review contest!
Posts: 3165
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 12:59
Location: Nova

Re: The Philosophy Thread

Post by Scythe » Tue Jul 30, 2013 0:37

eMTe wrote:Basically, when you have sex with a woman, you don't talk. Talking isn't sexy.
You're doing it wrong.
When you have an argument with another male in rl you also don't talk, you use your fists.
You're doing it wrong.

User avatar
Zyx
Pretender to the throne
Posts: 1858
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 20:48
Location: Helsinki
Contact:

Re: The Philosophy Thread

Post by Zyx » Tue Jul 30, 2013 10:05

eMTe wrote:I get the feeling that you're talking about a really narrow interpretation of language, stripped out of all context.
Yes, this "really narrow interpretation" comes from the guy who recently recommended you a book where conclusion is that "every interaction equals to information exchange".

I am free from being always right and this particular understanding of freedom is what drives you backwardish freedomists crazy. :|
Do you has what it takes to join the Homestarmy? The guts? The determination? The five bucks? Join today!

User avatar
eMTe
Cyberflaneur
Posts: 6915
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 23:08
Location: Cracow

Re: The Philosophy Thread

Post by eMTe » Tue Jul 30, 2013 23:59

A lot of what you can read by me comes from discussions with people on another forums. So sometimes it's not that I don't understand something, what you read are explanations to folks who I deem not worthy and in your eyes it looks banal. CWF only pretends to be dead (I am 200% sure there are OG oldtimers who vigil for various reasons) and that's why I still post here (the other reason can be found in my pm to Scythe ;)). My thoughts are dynamic. I have ups and downs in rl, like everybody, but I post anyway. Sometimes I'm wrong, sometimes right. Sometimes it makes sense, sometimes not. Also, I am not interested in building my online persona, I can switch worldviews just like that and post whatever proves to be interesting. More, and you can read it between lines, "being right" for me hides somewhere in the middle of confrontation. You can't be right if you constantly express yourself, open yourself to criticism and wait for others to crush you. You will always find a multitude of opponents. You'll be always and constantly wrong.

Create a post with collection of your personal opinions on various subjects, just like I did. We'll talk. And believe me, I will never say that you are wrong. I will just say that you're a human.
"As you have noticed over the years, we are not angry people." (itebygur)

User avatar
eMTe
Cyberflaneur
Posts: 6915
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 23:08
Location: Cracow

Re: The Philosophy Thread

Post by eMTe » Sat Aug 10, 2013 0:48

My general problem with relativity is that it is, from the human (thus scientific) perspective, unfalsifiable. Since you need the conscious observer to decide whether things are relational or not you'll be never able to decide it, because the only beings who are able to consciously measure things, are - I know this begins to sound like rubbish - conscious.

To prove whether relativity is true or not you need unconscious observer, but unconscious observer is unconscious, so he is unable to validate (understand/process/communicate/manifest) his unconscious observations in any way. Again, to validate "unconsciously" acquired/processed data you still need conscious being. Typical postmodernist loop.

All those relativity issues together with quantum mechanics and bourgeoisie's fascination with Einstein are social/philosophical/linguistic manipulations. I'd say they're the first truly global leftist/marxist schemes.

Please remember that male is always Sun. Female is always Moon. Moon only reflects and distorts.
"As you have noticed over the years, we are not angry people." (itebygur)

User avatar
eMTe
Cyberflaneur
Posts: 6915
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 23:08
Location: Cracow

Re: The Philosophy Thread

Post by eMTe » Fri Aug 23, 2013 4:09

Webtopics are not offensive for me, it's me who is offensive for a long time and for various people. Basically, I consider the whole goddamn philosophy (together with language) a social construct, therefore I fail to understand you all, because my understanding of "philosophy" is that it must me deeply unsocial.

Example. Let's assume that I will try to unveil the hidden truths of human nature by offending people via this forum. Mod will quickly react and issue a warning on me, because such a warning (possibly ban) will prove that I will no longer pursue truths which are dangerous to society. Therefore, truths are truths as long as the one in charge lets you think that you are right.

Let me post on various issues what I really think (and know) and you will see what the philosophy is. But I assure you, you will feel more ashamed than when getting caught masturbating by your mother. Worse, you'll want your mother dead.

Shudder/king of snake.

Come to think, this whole madness begun with the simple love breakdown. What's stronger?

Tears?
"As you have noticed over the years, we are not angry people." (itebygur)

User avatar
eMTe
Cyberflaneur
Posts: 6915
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 23:08
Location: Cracow

Re: The Philosophy Thread

Post by eMTe » Sat Aug 24, 2013 22:13

For a change, since my posts in this thread are usually rather heavy, I accidentally discovered a great explanation of quantum mechanics. By discovered I mean that it was already there and I just linked it with qm, not that I discovered it.

You know one of those Murphy's laws. How long the minute lasts depends on which side of the toilet door you are.

Decades will pass, but this would probably remain the most perfect explanation of qm. ;)
"As you have noticed over the years, we are not angry people." (itebygur)

User avatar
eMTe
Cyberflaneur
Posts: 6915
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 23:08
Location: Cracow

Re: The Philosophy Thread

Post by eMTe » Sun Aug 25, 2013 23:42

Any kind of description, be it philosophy or maths is an addendum, so one cannot be 100% sure whether it is representation of reality or deformation.

It drives me crazy, wher hand, we are not able to assemble three people to play the same game, and someone to add and write a description any longer.

Maybe done is done? Or maybe it's time for PA's Wohy people are you so sure that numbers are "accurate reflection of reality"? Maths is just a language, like any other languages and it works great as a social construct and in macro-scale, but when you begin digging too deep it may collapse. Physics for example (remember that physics is based on maths) with all its notional apparatus is believed to break, according to majority of physicists, in black holes. Now, is it black holes which break the laws of physics or is physics (together with maths) only an approximate depiction of Universe and as such it is prone to errors?

What if you have an apple and an orange on the table? You can say "there is an apple and an orange on the table", but you can also say, if you wish, "there are 2 objects on the table". Now, to use the number 2 you must elevate your understanding of what you see to the more general level. To use number 2 you are REQUIRED to call both apple and orange "objects", simply because they don't have the same physical properties. Thus, the usage of number 2 forces you to forget for a while the innate physical properties of both apple and orange. This is how simplification by maths works. And this is why I am so sceptical about maths.

0, for example, is a symbol. It describes what we humans agreed to be described by it.

-1 is also a symbol. Can you tell me what -1 accurately describes?
"As you have noticed over the years, we are not angry people." (itebygur)

User avatar
eMTe
Cyberflaneur
Posts: 6915
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 23:08
Location: Cracow

Re: The Philosophy Thread

Post by eMTe » Thu Aug 29, 2013 1:05

Imo, time not only does not exist as "something that exists", but it is also an unnecessary addendum to mathematical equations, which are for a long time just theories, becoming more weird and complex as we learn that we are capable of relate pretty much everything to everything and mix everything with everything. I call it linguistic disease. If you ever dreamed to write works called "psychology of the horse" or "philosophy of swimming" you should stop dreaming, they have been written already.

People, by their nature, put things in "chronological" order, because this is how they observe and name change. For example, full cup of coffee "becomes" empty cup of coffee after a while. The problem is that what "happened" may have not required "time" to happen, it required only "exchange of spaces" which never exchanged on any timeline, because there is none. Look at things like this: we have laws of thermodynamics which probably cant be broken. We might add another law, let's call it law of space, that space can never become chronological. By this I mean that all events, like drinking the cup of coffee are just collisions between clusters of physical objects, being in this or that state of density, but they don't, NEVER happen one after another, all these collisions happen simultaneously. And there's no "they always happened like this" or "they will always happen like this", it's just their innate property that they happen all at once. Timeline is removed.

Edit:

One of the most important issues of this theory, from philosophical standpoint and you might have not noticed it at first, is that it destroys philosophical debates to the ground level, simply because since everything is always in a state of "achronological beingness" there's no longer need to divide philosophical issues into "questions" and "answers". In classical logic when you ask a question you "await" an answer. In my interpretation, questions and answers are one and the same and both are always there and available everytime, simply because there is no past, presence and future. On formal level, it's just an exchange of "space densities". One density becomes a question and another density becomes answer and they play this game, like weather fronts, but none of the front becomes decisive simply because, due to my law, the law of space can't be broken.
"As you have noticed over the years, we are not angry people." (itebygur)

User avatar
eMTe
Cyberflaneur
Posts: 6915
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 23:08
Location: Cracow

Re: The Philosophy Thread

Post by eMTe » Sat Aug 31, 2013 7:59

I was totally sober writing this. Strange.

---

As far as I know, existence is so far understood as appearing on some sort of timeline and in some sort of space. That's why in logic you need relational quantifiers, by relational I mean that there's always something that relates to something if you want to create proper equation, graph etc.

Now, if you want to break "existence" into even simplier equation or even remove all possible logic equations you must remove the concepts of timeline and space. By removing the first concept you automatically remove the reason/result/expectations notions and by removing second concept you automatically remove all relations that make up every equation. To put it simple you no longer need numbers and equals signs. Existence is broken down to existence itself, understood as something that is unrelational and ever-existing, or to put it clearer "just existing".

The concept of existence, imo, is one of many concepts that appear somewhere on the logic ladder (it floats somewhere only slightly above the bottom) where the top of the ladder is made up of hot dense soup of relations ("everything is everything") and bottom of the ladder is cleared of any relations ("nothing is nothing"). Basically all concepts float somewhere in between like weather fronts, clashing (relating) with each other trying to change the position. If our understandings of concepts (for example take "hierarchy", "hierarchy" means something completely different than what it meant for medieval people for example) change it is because the environment in which they float changes, and since logic is some kind of language it's logical to say that this "environment" is nothing more then language.
"As you have noticed over the years, we are not angry people." (itebygur)

User avatar
eMTe
Cyberflaneur
Posts: 6915
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 23:08
Location: Cracow

Re: The Philosophy Thread

Post by eMTe » Wed Sep 18, 2013 18:25

Physicalism, if you ever make an effort to read what I write, is you + your arguments.

More, physicalism is you + how strong an impact you make around you.

Consider this mind exercise. You take a walk to a nearby meadow. You stand in a middle of it and scream, as loud as you can, the following words:

"We were talking a lot lately about physicalism and the argument I proposed against it. But there's a more fundamental problem with physicalism, and it is to define it. The problem was formulated by Carl Hempel in what became know as 'Hemple's dilemma' which can be put as follows.

Considering that our idea of what is meant by 'physical' has changed over the time, especially after the development of modern science, it is natural do define 'physicalism' as the thesis that all which exists in reality are whatever entities physics says that are real. So today we think for example that everything is made of atoms, electrons, fields etc, and don't believe in things like phlogiston and the ether like we did in the past.

But now there's a problem: what is the physics we are supposed to use in the definition of 'physicalism'? If it's the physics of today, then at best it's incomplete or worse fundamentally false, since we know how much science has changed over time, and so in the future we might as well have a completely different physics then the one we currently have.

But if we define 'physicalism' according to what future physics will say, then we are in danger that the term will become vacuous because we know nothing about the future physics. For example, it's conceivable that physicists will discover that the mental is an irreducible part of nature and that mental particles exist, but then the distinction between the mental and the physical will disappear and it will be no longer clear what it means for physicalism to be true or false.

So the dilemma is that either physicalism is false if it's defined via modern physics, or trivially true by definition if we think about the physics of the future. So how do you think the dilemma can be answered?"

Now, physicalism is all about who can hear your sound waves. There are many butterflies who can hear you, probably. Or sense you, this or that way. Mice and moles will hear you for sure, afaik they have proper ears.

Now, the problem starts when you begin posting about "physicalism" in internet. Many people will read what you think and they are not mice and moles, they have another, more advanced, senses, and will not only read you, but also understand you, and understanding is nothing more than the tide is turning issue.

---

Now, Zyx is the one who refuses to answer, and if he does he does it in his typical Finnish way, Scythe is the suicidal one who answers, but in a cryptic manner and usually via pms or one-liners, Pater Alf and Drasir-Vel are the only ones who care for site, Raillo is the straightforward train-obsessed kind of guy who just writes what he feels, like Robert Mugabe, eMTe is the depressed alhoholic philosopher who pretends to be somebody he is not, Pager and Tormuse are Canadians and it speaks for itself. We have also Maz, Dizi, Darklord, Pitkin, lurking.

Are we capable of building a site? Or anything?
"As you have noticed over the years, we are not angry people." (itebygur)

User avatar
eMTe
Cyberflaneur
Posts: 6915
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 23:08
Location: Cracow

Re: The Philosophy Thread

Post by eMTe » Thu Sep 19, 2013 21:32

[quote="eMTe"]Physicalism, if you ever make an effort to read what I write, is you + your arguments.

More, physicalism is you + how strong an impact you make around you.

Consider this mind exercise. You take a walk to a nearby meadow. You stand in a middle of it and scream, as loud as you can, the following words:

"We were talking a lot lately about physicalism and the argument I proposed against it. But there's a more fundamental problem with physicalism, and it is to define it. The problem was formulated by Carl Hempel in what became know as 'Hemple's dilemma' which can be put as follows.

Considering that our idea of what is meant by 'physical' has changed over the time, especially after the development of modern science, it is natural do define 'physicalism' as the thesis that all which exists in reality are whatever entities physics says that are real. So today we think for example that everything is made of atoms, electrons, fields etc, and don't believe in things like phlogiston and the ether like we did in the past.

But now there's a problem: what is the physics we are supposed to use in the definition of 'physicalism'? If it's the physics of today, then at best it's incomplete or worse fundamentally false, since we know how much science has changed over time, and so in the future we might as well have a completely different physics then the one we currently have.

But if we define 'physicalism' according to what future physics will say, then we are in danger that the term will become vacuous because we know nothing about the future physics. For example, it's conceivable that physicists will discover that the mental is an irreducible part of nature and that mental particles exist, but then the distinction between the mental and the physical will disappear and it will be no longer clear what it means for physicalism to be true or false.

So the dilemma is that either physicalism is false if it's defined via modern physics, or trivially true by definition if we think about the physics of the future. So how do you think the dilemma can be answered?"

Now, physicalism is all about who can hear your sound waves. There are many butterflies who can hear you, probably. Or sense you, this or that way. Mice and moles will hear you for sure, afaik they have proper ears.

Now, the problem starts when you begin posting about "physicalism" in internet. Many people will read what you think and they are not mice and moles, they have another, more advanced, senses, and will not only read you, but also understand you, and understanding is nothing more than the tide is turning issue.
"As you have noticed over the years, we are not angry people." (itebygur)

User avatar
eMTe
Cyberflaneur
Posts: 6915
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 23:08
Location: Cracow

Re: The Philosophy Thread

Post by eMTe » Mon Nov 25, 2013 0:52

I am post-autistic and post-reactionist. I am also post-forum, post-administrator, post-philosophy, post-language etc. etc.

I'm always ahead. That's why I hate myself, because all those worthy knowing me love me so much they know how to react towards me. I hate them, because once they begin to love me they also begin to understand me and this is when I smell danger.

I want supremacy, not understanding by you puny fu ckers.
"As you have noticed over the years, we are not angry people." (itebygur)

User avatar
eMTe
Cyberflaneur
Posts: 6915
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 23:08
Location: Cracow

Re: The Philosophy Thread

Post by eMTe » Thu May 15, 2014 1:27

postpost musicmusic zyxzyx sorceressorceress whoevercarewhoevercares

Zyx, Polish radio begins to post things related to things related to things to things to thins to things I posting I know for a long time I posting (oh, I already know it etc) - doesnt it remind you the crime movie or program computer

Blue begins greenery
Waves become winds

Monkey Island becomes Scandinavia
Mankell becomes Central Africa

Everything becomes obvious
only eMTe remains unexplained riddle

and how and why

so many obvious and so many pleaseful canadians
so many obvious and so many pleasful canadians

you metal universe
you sense chown
you blame the man in the wheelchair

but you never blame yourself and zyx
"As you have noticed over the years, we are not angry people." (itebygur)

User avatar
eMTe
Cyberflaneur
Posts: 6915
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 23:08
Location: Cracow

Re: The Philosophy Thread

Post by eMTe » Thu Sep 11, 2014 0:08

two important things. you probably noticed them, but just in case.

when you're drunk literally every single line from even the most stupid movie sounds like truth about the world. notice it, it's important.

second thing. whenever you're feeling insecure you begin to think in numbers. well, not necessarily, you begin to COUNT like autistic/savant person. see, that's why i am sceptical towards maths, i see it more like the emanation of heartbeat (human, his fears), rather than sth coming from Universe/God
"As you have noticed over the years, we are not angry people." (itebygur)

Drasir-Vel
[insert custom title here]
Posts: 1483
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2009 15:28
Location: Denmark

Re: The Philosophy Thread

Post by Drasir-Vel » Fri Jun 30, 2017 18:22

Truth and facts are relative to the eye that sees.
Only in moments of sudden change in our outlook on life, whether one way, or other, do we notice the inherent subjectiveness of our own minds.

This is the reason for difference among all people, because nobody can really 'see' each other. Every group lives in a self-affirming bubble of "us and them".
How can you know that your sense of right and wrong is the right one?
How can you know that your ability to examine and process evidence is not compromised and twisted over time.

In order to understand, you need to trust.
And you can never trust without the risk of losing something.

This is my truth.

User avatar
eMTe
Cyberflaneur
Posts: 6915
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 23:08
Location: Cracow

Re: The Philosophy Thread

Post by eMTe » Mon Jul 03, 2017 0:47

Relativism is a fun observation, true.

The problem is, relativism is not an answer.

Neither is relativism a relativism and neither is answer an answer and neither is relativism an answer and neither is answer an relativism and...etc etc.

The point to begin is, anything, really anything is to start anything and and the point to answer is any point you really want to answer or begin with. Etc etc. There's no real starting point where you can start to feel comfortable with yourself.

The sad poimt is, you're alone at this very moment. Even your parents (if they're alive) will never tell you that you should feel compassion or empathy towards other living beings. In an information/competition world you largely rely on yourself.

I belong to an old world. Sorry.
"As you have noticed over the years, we are not angry people." (itebygur)

User avatar
eMTe
Cyberflaneur
Posts: 6915
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 23:08
Location: Cracow

Re: The Philosophy Thread

Post by eMTe » Thu Aug 17, 2017 14:30

I'd post something in this very moment, but I guess I lost the way

The overall intercultural compo of personal issues, philosophical issues, logical issues...oh

Developers developing Dune 1 (No, Zyx, I know they observe me this very moment)

JohnTurturro being like, sort of pushed towards accepting chevy chace/paul simon john goodman [MN - added ] punishment

There are kids watching, no one wil ever differentiate between kids and phiolsophers

[ok, something very personal published first time]. Finally

Sure, me missus would accept these
personal first times if they were involving money, but you know how it is

Yeah Im bad
"As you have noticed over the years, we are not angry people." (itebygur)

User avatar
eMTe
Cyberflaneur
Posts: 6915
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 23:08
Location: Cracow

Re: The Philosophy Thread

Post by eMTe » Fri Dec 15, 2017 0:24

I am of the general opinion that The World will develop into the very generic set of pros and cons.

No matter what, children, family, people, general truths, it it will eventually set still on a very mathematical and generic set of rules which will define pretty much everything. From family realtions to internet spam. Even people who dont officiallly flaneur are subjected to intellectual flaneurism, so, what if???

f*** rules for a moment. We know that living beings and Platonic truths are not the same. So, how can we be capable of speaing clearly if were not staying on the same level of consciousness

Ssssssss

Smaug

The S, Zyx,
"As you have noticed over the years, we are not angry people." (itebygur)

Post Reply