-  [WT]  [PS]  [Home] [Manage]

  1.   (new thread)
  2. [ No File]
  3. (for post and file deletion)
/phi/ - Philosophy
  • Supported file types are: GIF, JPG, PNG, WEBM
  • Maximum file size allowed is 1000 KB.
  • Images greater than 200x200 pixels will be thumbnailed.
  • Currently 626 unique user posts. View catalog

  • Blotter updated: 2011-01-12 Show/Hide Show All

There's a new /777/ up, it's /gardening/ Check it out. Suggest new /777/s here.

Movies & TV 24/7 via Channel7: Web Player, .m3u file. Music via Radio7: Web Player, .m3u file.

WebM is now available sitewide! Please check this thread for more info.

Anonymous 16/12/24(Sat)23:39 No. 12763 ID: 0f36a6 [Reply] [Last 50 posts]
12763

File 148261917389.jpg - (39.24KB , 446x413 , Tinfoil euphoria.jpg )

https://richarddawkins.net/2016/06/yes-there-have-been-aliens/

Why are atheists so obsessed with aliens and other conspiracy theories? There is literally no credible evidence for their existence. Is it because they are immature manchildren?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox


86 posts and 30 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Anonymous 17/09/13(Wed)18:37 No. 13112 ID: 6af4de
13112

File 150532062922.jpg - (67.83KB , 1000x795 , aluminum-foil.jpg )

https://www.qub.ac.uk/Connect/News/Allnews/QueensresearchshowshowanalienobservermightdetectEarth.html
>QUEEN’S RESEARCH SHOWS HOW AN ALIEN OBSERVER MIGHT DETECT EARTH

>might

Maybe , perhaps, not unlikely, probably, could be...such is the solid "evidence" that tin foil wearing manchildren can muster. It's so compelling that maybe they should call Scully and Mulder.


>>
Anonymous 17/09/18(Mon)10:25 No. 13135 ID: 6a082a

>>13112

That's a nice roll of foil. You can produce a lot of sophisticated anti-mind reading devices with that!


>>
Anonymous 17/09/26(Tue)18:10 No. 13187 ID: 51c08f

>>12763
Many "atheists" prioritize undermining the religion they "left" over exploring the possibilities of living without a belief in a higher power and are essentially practising an inversion of their "previous" religion. They probably hold that finding, or proving the possibility of extraterrestrial life, will instantaneously unravel all the tenets of the religion they have come to despise.

Much of our theology, and particularly Abrahamic nonsense, conflates humanity with divinity to some degree. It's probably the same biased perspective that leads "abductees" to imagine alien life in forms they are familiar with: humanoid, bipedal, evolved, etc. It is easy to mistake that--although the predominant life form on Earth--humans are not special in the universe.

Then, if I may make an argument: not to side with the "atheists", but it is indeed such limiting theology and arrogance that is at the core of the "debate" over extraterrestrial life. We know that atoms are structures with particles and it appears those particles may have substructure as well; even single-celled organisms are collections of numerous levels of structure; a collection of organisms is an ecosystem, the various regional ecosystems of our planet form a global ecosystem, or planet has weather because it orbits a star at an angle; its position in the solar system is determined by the gravitational influence of the sun and other planets on its rotating mass, ours is one of countless systems in our galaxy, which is one of many in our galactic cluster, a substructure held in a lattice-shaped superstructure that spans the known universe.

The universe is a fractal shape, with systems of life within systems of life. I think it is only a matter of time until we realize this is true from the tiniest sub-atomic particles to the most unfathomable structures we can observe. This does not disprove the existence of a higher power; rather it is evident that we are some small piece of a much greater whole. Perhaps we are the leaves on a tree, or the grass on a cattle ranch, but I find it very unlikely that we are the end-goal of all existence--existence should set better goals for itself.




Selfish and speciesist behavior as 'genetic reproductive strategy Anonymous 17/09/02(Sat)07:35 No. 13093 ID: d5439c [Reply]
13093

File 150433055760.jpg - (9.63KB , 332x336 , later homo.jpg )

Here's a spicy one. It's pretty simple too. Maybe I don't know what the fuck I'm talking about. Anyway, enjoy.

...

If a human does something to seriously harm and deprive fellow humans, or even something to seriously harm and deprive other species (for example, making them go extinct), is this poor and unintelligent 'genetic reproductive strategy'?

For example, let's just make some random, kind of exaggerated scenarios.

In scenario 1.) Elon Musk finds a way to reproduce by budding. The police try to stop him, so he is left with their choice to either surrender, or destroy Earth and create a self-sustaining colony on Mars. So, out of supposed good 'genetic reproductive strategy,' he goes through with the latter option. Sure, he succeeded in propagating his unique DNA more than otherwise, but he also destroyed the all species on Earth, one of which was carrying 99% DNA similar to him (humanity).

Another scenario, 2.) humanity finds a cure for cancer, but it involves killing all of the other primates. Humanity goes through with the plan, and all other primates are dead. Humanity helped itself thrive and prosper more by eliminating cancer, but what about the fact that many of those primates contained 95% similar DNA to humans? Humans succeeded in propagating the DNA that is unique to humans over the other primates, but they also hurt biodiversity and made it so that there will be no remaining primates if humans go extinct.

So is speciesist and extremely selfish strategy really beneficial 'genetic reproductive strategy'? Is it not better in terms of genetic propagation to focus on maintaining the biosphere and prolonging human existence, or is that unique DNA so much more important than the DNA in common?

...
Message too long. Click here to view the full text.


>>
Anonymous 17/09/02(Sat)08:21 No. 13094 ID: d5439c
13094

File 150433326223.jpg - (284.45KB , 1229x1171 , 1504332049595.jpg )

in another thread, one poster replied:

Genetic selection is not even about propagating your exact genes, it is about the continuation of the series that contains your genes. Of course, the many bloodlines are codependent, and the least dependent have less agency. A human doing something harmful to other humans leads to 1/ reducing fair competition thus reducing gene selection 2/ reducing the amount of reproductive partners he could have, considering half of people are the opposite sex because of the Fisher's Principle. Depriving other species is also bad because human intelligence is basically partial retrocausation, thus human action has an impact against the natural equilibrium, and Earth being a chaotic system(see pic) implies the consequences aren't predicted nor that equilibrium is restored quickly after. Now in terms of biodiversity, diversity is more present in a complex being like a human than in a simpler animal. Diversity can be measured in many ways but consider this: are apes more likely to spawn humans than humans are likely to spawn apes? Humans choosing to survive without cancer is safer than apes being put in charge to maintain the Earth's biodiversity. Humans have a huge potential along their power to destroy, the two are inseparable for an intelligent species.

>is this poor and unintelligent 'genetic reproductive strategy'?
Yes.
>So is speciesist and extremely selfish strategy really beneficial 'genetic reproductive strategy'?
No,
> Is it not better in terms of genetic propagation to focus on maintaining the biosphere and prolonging human existence, or is that unique DNA so much more important than the DNA in common?
Wrong. There is a unique DNA, we are propagating a set of DNA sequences, I don't pass my exact DNA, I sacrifice it to make a random mix with other's DNA. Also "and prolonging human existence" that is the case of curing cancer, even though you just said humans should sacrifice themselves with cancer if that meant killing all the apes. Shitty question wording.


>>
Anonymous 17/09/03(Sun)06:18 No. 13104 ID: d5439c

and another poster:

You are assuming that genes make long term decisions and try to determine the outcome of their strategies.

It is really just a bunch of programmed behaviors that happen to succeed or fail based on the environment.

"Kill wolves and eat those fuckers" works until there aren't any wolves left.

Then some other strategy works better. "Cannibal everyone and eat their brains."

Until a disease kills cannibals and not non-cannibals.

On and on and on in the circle of life.




Classical vs contemporary cynicism Anonymous 17/07/24(Mon)23:36 No. 13029 ID: c6a2e5 [Reply]
13029

File 150093217160.jpg - (42.89KB , 480x353 , IMG_4204.jpg )

Were the classical cynics more positive people than contemporary cynics? People use the contemporary word with such disdain. The classical cynics are depicted as people who were humorous and witty hobos. Contemporary cynicism is associated with general distrust of society, while simultaneously, an increased callousness and ability to manipulate society.

Sorry for the English. What do you guys think about this?


5 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Anonymous 17/08/24(Thu)17:00 No. 13080 ID: 9fd7e5

Here's the next line of thought: what do you take from the different flavors of cynicism to apply to your modern day life?

While all of modern society has at least some version of modern cynicism present in most levels, there's a lot about chan culture specifically that echoes the classical cynics' gleeful mockery of and contempt for the arbitrary mores enforced by normalfag society.


>>
Anonymous 17/09/02(Sat)05:20 No. 13090 ID: d5439c

>>13080
Modern society has these hooks.

There's an endless supply of products (medicine, contemporary music, technology) that grab you by your interest and thrust you into the machine. Then, once your mind has been shaped by the machine, the most common kind of escape is a mental breakdown (maybe via psychosis or hallucinogens). Even then, there's never a total escape.

Lots of hobos would just have their laptops stolen and therefore wouldn't be channers. Diogenes would have to register with some kind of State funded service in order to eat.


>>
Anonymous 17/09/02(Sat)05:23 No. 13091 ID: d5439c
13091

File 150432263878.jpg - (138.94KB , 1124x1428 , don't believe in any of that.jpg )

>>13080
>>13090
maybe modern cynics are spiteful towards society, because they have been trapped and shaped into being a certain way that doesn't align with their values




do /phi/ even logic? Anonymous 16/10/31(Mon)07:59 No. 12694 ID: 82c3eb [Reply]
12694

File 147789714257.jpg - (49.35KB , 482x489 , 11.jpg )

Solve it


1 post and 1 image omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Anonymous 17/02/27(Mon)12:50 No. 12838 ID: eaf6f5

6


>>
Anonymous 17/08/05(Sat)12:05 No. 13059 ID: ff4656

>>12694
I'd say 3


>>
Anonymous 17/09/01(Fri)11:33 No. 13085 ID: 187352

6




Epistemology / Mathematics Anonymous 17/08/24(Thu)05:33 No. 13079 ID: 4617cc [Reply]
13079

File 150354561671.gif - (79.23KB , 600x374 , Doggie.gif )

What are your views on pathway independence? Does such a thing exist and what does that mean to you?

A) On the face of it pathway independence may not exist. I end up at different times at the same place by picking a different route such as the "scenic one." Please lets have a nice discussion about this.

When is pathway independence applicable??

B) ETHICS driven arguments qua "The ends justify the pathway (means)" are welcome

C) 4 + 1 = 5 = 2 + 3 | 4 + 1 ==/= 2 + 3


>>
OP 17/08/25(Fri)15:32 No. 13081 ID: 315d96

What are you??? All Zombie-lurking basement-dwellers??? Answer my epistemological crisis bitte!




Anonymous 15/11/16(Mon)06:19 No. 12321 ID: 21c12c [Reply]
12321

File 144765119047.jpg - (12.31KB , 541x329 , quill-pen.jpg )

Is there really a right and wrong?

personally I believe that there is none, life is pointless.

thoughts?


33 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Anonymous 17/07/18(Tue)05:33 No. 13011 ID: 73f57f

There is a point, we just don't know what it is yet. So the point until then is to try to find out.


>>
Anonymous 17/07/25(Tue)03:58 No. 13032 ID: 14f7e1

Has anybody here asked OP for clarification? That's the only way to really answer their question.


>>
Anonymous 17/08/14(Mon)19:12 No. 13071 ID: 564822

Morality is subjective. I think the only right and wrong is how well you do you in life. If you are a depressed lolcow everyday that bitches then are most likely in the wrong and if you live life well and have fun they you are in the right. Ya dig?




humanity anonimus 17/07/02(Sun)21:41 No. 12988 ID: 486e31 [Reply]
12988

File 149902448359.jpg - (534.70KB , 1440x1440 , 2016-05-25 03-22-26~2~2.jpg )

Why we are not united? , it s stupid to fight each other , is not better to spent our energy for grow up together?
All the Nations want to have the primacy of something that cause most of the problem on the Earth like the war , economy and political crisis, the hungry , ...
We are Human , we not need a bigger television or beautiful dress , we need to understand to stay togheder


>>
Nero Rand !HZseOmXfoc 17/07/06(Thu)16:02 No. 12996 ID: 7d4565

>>12988
> Why we are not united?
Do you mean, why are we not united?

> it is stupid to fight each other, is not better to spent our energy for grow up together?
No it isn't. Not everyone is out for each others' benefit and life is finite, so putting yourself out for another person becomes an immoral/unethical act toward yourself. Mutualism, can lead to it not being an unethical act against you but systems or a direct line of cause and effect ought to be drawn back to you to benefit you to make it so.

> All the Nations want to have the primacy of something that causes most of the problems on the Earth like the war, economy and political crisis, the hungry, ...
Arguably, it is that drive that has dragged humanity forward. Ancient logic from the greeks, european thinkers forging deductive reasoning from inductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning leading to the scientific method, the scientific method creating the glories of humanity.

Liken that, it was the pursuit of reason that standardized how people could relate to each other. Religion didn't unite humanity, but rationale did.


>>
anonimus 17/07/06(Thu)20:38 No. 12997 ID: 431c9b

No no and no , fight to each other can only take is in a slowly ruins.

You said "Arguably, it is that drive that has dragged humanity forward". Yae i think the same but we grow up only if that discovery is shared with all .

" Ancient logic from the greeks, european thinkers forging deductive reasoning from inductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning leading to the scientific method, the scientific method creating the glories of humanity".this is true , i cant say nothing more

" Not everyone is out for each others' benefit and life is finite, so putting yourself out for another person becomes an immoral/unethical act toward yourself".We have to change that!

" Mutualism, can lead to it not being an unethical act against you but systems or a direct line of cause and effect ought to be drawn back to you to benefit you to make it so".mmm ok

"Liken that, it was the pursuit of reason that standardized how people could relate to each other. Religion didn't unite humanity, but rationale did". Yea fucking true , the religion can only divide us

I have an example for you : if in the future we can survive only with a specifical discovery , you think that this discovery is shared with all to survive together? I dont think so .
This is a immoral act , think about that


>>
Anonymous 17/07/25(Tue)04:07 No. 13034 ID: 14f7e1

>Why are we not united?
Hmm?

>It is stupid to fight each other.
Usually. I think more people are becoming of the opinion that diplomatic solutions are usually better than getting into physical conflicts.

If you are asking why we oppose each other at all, it's because we can't all agree. We all have different opinions on what is good, what is bad, and what level of altruism people are supposed to have.


>All Nations want to have the primacy of something that. That is the cause of famine, war, etc.
I agree to an extent. If everyone was perfectly altruistic, then there would be much less fighting.

Hypothetically speaking, there could still be fighting, like in iRobot, where the machines dominate humanity and kill some of them because they coldly decided what was best.


Message too long. Click here to view the full text.




Free Will Anonymous 16/12/23(Fri)13:13 No. 12759 ID: 4da869 [Reply]
12759

File 148249522875.jpg - (44.44KB , 515x248 , FreeWill.jpg )

You have 10 seconds to prove why this guy isn't 100% correct.

Pro tip: you can't.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4k07oeDFUg


13 posts and 3 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Nero Rand !HZseOmXfoc 17/07/06(Thu)15:59 No. 12995 ID: 7d4565

Oh yeah... Cracked was technically right, but there is no proof (thus reason to think) that there is anything above all the subatomic mechanics measuring and wielding them (thus no reason to live for them)...

Meanwhile, atoms and molecules create a complex structure of neurology that is a mostly closed system. So it is close enough to free-will that it only matters when applying physics.


>>
Anonymous 17/07/17(Mon)15:57 No. 13009 ID: 86f262

What is free will
Isn't it free will whether i decide or not to take another cup of coffee?
Is there now two different universes, where i have and haven't taken the cup of coffee?

I would believe that free will does exist, but its similar into a situation where i can pick a card from the deck: I myself chose the card, but as an outcome it will still be one from the 52.


>>
Anonymous 17/07/25(Tue)03:59 No. 13033 ID: 14f7e1

>>12995
this




Nothing matters Anonymous 17/07/13(Thu)06:34 No. 13003 ID: 8bb3c7 [Reply]
13003

File 149992048614.png - (24.02KB , 300x250 , zYRkhfZY9Y-2.png )

We all die alone, because of this nothing we do inherently matters. There is no point to life, there is no point in living. Enjoy if you can, exist if you wish, and die. Thus is the lot of mortals


6 posts and 1 image omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Anonymous 17/07/21(Fri)23:02 No. 13026 ID: 1e9233

>>13025
So "thinkers" (as you define them) don't think that because they're thinkers? I know you have a more convincing way of explaining what you mean that doesn't involve the fallacy of begging the question...either that or this is all bad-faith trolling.


>>
Anonymous 17/07/22(Sat)04:00 No. 13027 ID: ed9c1c

>>13025
Then what do “thinkers” believe is the answer? Or does your “thinker” believe there is no answer? Can’t you argue that you will have an inherently better and happier life with this hedonistic ideal?


>>
Anonymous 17/07/25(Tue)03:57 No. 13031 ID: 14f7e1

>>13003
>ambiguity
>contradictions
>opinions

oh.




Philosophy of Science Reyichiroh Makioka 17/07/15(Sat)07:20 No. 13006 ID: cbf243 [Reply]
13006

File 15000960419.jpg - (6.22KB , 213x237 , ダウンロード.jpg )

We need a website that allow to anonymously submit&check scientific articles.

Enumerate the required functions.


>>
Anonymous 17/07/23(Sun)04:12 No. 13028 ID: 1e9233

Such a website would be straightforward to toss together. There are versions of wiki software that would seem ideal for such a task.

Of course, a Research Paper Wiki would have all the same strengths and weaknesses of better known projects such as Wikipedia. Namely, you create the potential to democratize knowledge, accelerating the process of peer review and the spread of new discoveries. In practice, however, the project might ultimately reflect the biases of a few dedicated/stubborn sperglords. This could take the form of wikigroaning or of more serious methodological and philosophical bias.

Despite their flaws I still tend to use and appreciate various wiki websites. I like to think that I can acknowledge their limitations and biases while still getting pieces of information that would be much more inconvenient to track down otherwise. I'd support the general principle of the project, though I'd pay close attention to the execution of and the culture surrounding it.




Delete post []
Password  
Report post
Reason