Wait, empiricism is actually based? How the fuck did we get from Humean radical, double-edged skepticism and epistemological minimalism to the hyperrationalist objectivism LARP of "empiricists" in the 21st century?Why is it that every time I ditch 3rd and 2nd degree sources and just go straight to the actual authors, I find out that the underlying theory is much more sensible than whatever their ideas are mangled into in popular culture? Is this phenomenon what Baudrillard was talking about?
>>25085486You have to find the esoteric meaning.
>how did we go from [reddit] to [reddit]it is a mystery for the ages
Scienticism isn't really descended from Hume, it's more from the 19th Century and Darwinism since that posed a serious conflict between religion and science. Hume attacked the epistemological foundations of Christianity but he was also an extreme Tory, he wasn't out to upend society.
If Empiricists are right and reason is just discursive calculation over sense data inputs, with no noesis/intellectus, why isn't AI, which has access to way more data and computational power, doing the work of a hyper genius in the arts and sciences? Instead it's a glorified search engine, or at best a useful tool is guided each step of the way by man. It's almost like reason is more than just Bayesian analysis.Our quiddites are coming back.
>>25085486Skepticism is contra natura and has no use in life outside philosophy. Once Hume's arguments were deployed, there's not really a big leap from his empiricism to positivism.
>>25085504>picrelimagine actually coming up with this. christcucks are the most retarded people to ever pretend being interested or learned in philosophy
>>25085560Yeah, Christians and Muslims hate philosophy...
>>25085556>why isn't AI5$ that you have no understanding of AI>doing the work of a hyper genius in the arts and sciences?Yep called it. Short answer is that AI relies on the data that it is fed, meaning that causal links between data A and data B has to be given to it before it performs any work. To that end AI can't access the world like we do. But otherwise, it would be (and has been) able to infer causal chains based upon patterns fed to it aswell as perform well in arts and sciences.>It's almost like reason is more than just Bayesian analysisNot really. Our reasoning is the same as AI, except we dispose of intentionality (or at least the appearance of) whilst AI does not.>>25085560They're peak midwits sophists who cling on a dead narrative that they've integrated so deep into their personnality that they're unable to see through.
>>25085600This is a cope response. The vast majority of scientific analysis is quantitative. People have tried feeding vast data sets into AI. If science really worked as Empiricists say, in their idealized Bayesian models, then why isn't getting all the data fed to it that comes of the instruments. That is, afterall, the EXACT same quantitative data human scientists have access to.But now the cope is, "no you need to have a body and feedback from it," which starts to sound a lot like "no you need to be a living organism because science isn't just pattern recognition."Shit cannot even run a vending machine you could give to a 10 year old: https://futurism.com/future-society/vending-machine-claude-disaster
>>25085600>Not really. Our reasoning is the same as AI, except we dispose of intentionality (or at least the appearance of) whilst AI does not.
>>25085560It's because it's a base axiom in Christianity that you never question God's existence or the truth of the Bible, because if do so too rigorously you risk going to hell. So, when they see a philosopher willing to challenge his own assumptions, it's completely foreign to them. They genuinely believe that a person questioning their own argument makes it weaker.>>25085504I also want to point out that denying one's faith is one of the graver sins in Christianity, even if for pragmatic reasons. Not that this is surprising, Christians don't actually follow the bible or Jesus' teachings.
>>25085629From the Patristics on there are apologetics that deal precisely with doubts about God's existence and there are all sorts of questions about the Scriptures, that's how they made the Canon.Christianity ≠ your blinkered view from American Evangelical fundementalism.
>>25085556You make a few category errors.The idea being that if you increase the reasoning ability of a person they will operate at the frontiers of science is fairly laughable. People at the top of their fields are pararationalist freaks of nature. All other intellectual traits they have ultimately play second fiddle to an ineffable intuition, and their deductive skill in general might be higher than average, but success in their domain isn't driven by it. Someone who advances our understanding of the proto-Afro-Asiatic language will probably not do so well trying to advance graph theory, and vice versa. There is no increase to deductive power you can have that will allow you to climb to the top of a field. Human intellectual limits are primarily structural, not procedural. Increasing procedural power does nothing to produce a real genius like Newton. If you ever actually interact with someone who is a "giant" so to speak, this much is plainly obvious.Secondly, LLMs are not reasoning systems for any other domain but linguistics. Now, logic and so on are generally understood as manifestations of embedded structures found within human language universals, and this would track with our findings on LLM behavior, as they can occasionally produce coherent deductions in domains besides linguistics, and the reliability generally correlates to their fine-tuning and training set. Of course, reasoning in these other domains is extremely inefficient for an LLM's architecture. The more formal the reasoning, the worse the efficiency becomes. That being said, they are absolutely 99th percentile in linguistics, which manifests as preternatural translation skills. Where most models fall apart in translation skills is that they aren't specifically trained to operate in the two relevant cultural frames, which leads them to create "correct" translations but with very atypical structure (to the point that they can become incorrect as a result.)And finally, we have to consider that the "foundation" principle also applies here. Just as there are different foundations of mathematics and computation, which though mutually compatible have varying efficiencies and wildly different thought models, there are likely to be different foundations of "mind". It shouldn't come as a shock. Octopuses, slime molds, etc. all have observable indictments of the naive models of minds.
>>25085607>That is, afterall, the EXACT same quantitative data human scientists have access to.Yes, which is why AI has indeed managed to bring out some results in using the same methodologies that men gave it.To that end, AI has managed to discover new drugs, has predicted 3d structures of all protein (something which humans weren't capable of), has been capable of simulating weather models better than human etc.Again you literally don't understand AI. AI doesn't have access to a perfect replica of our world. In theory, we could feed it the exact scientific methodology that we have as of now in x field, aswell as all the data that it requires, and it will be able to perform the same tasks that humans do. The reason that it doesn't is because we haven't done so and because there are many implicits in which results that we use and discard which aren't available to the AI unless specifically instructed.>But now the cope is, "no you need to have a body and feedback from itTopkek are you saying that the ability to observe new results rather than having it spoonfed is "cope" ? >which starts to sound a lot like "no you need to be a living organism because science isn't just pattern recognition."The whole point is that AI only accesses a representation of our world that needs to be constantly fed to it. We do the same too but have a much bigger array than AI.>Shit cannot even run a vending machinePeculiarities linked to how it functions (like embedded moral functions in it).
>>25085689>play second fiddle to an ineffable intuitionYou're agreeing with him dumbass.
>>25085701You clearly haven't actually read anything about the examples you are voting because they are absolutely not AI making these discoveries mostly autonomously. It is being directed at every step.>Running every scientific paper in a field and all the exact quantitative data human scientists have access to isn't the same thing because, uh, reasons.
>>25085702A machine capable of deciding most sentences in third-order logic is definitionally performing intuition, because our notion of reason doesn't work at that level, so it's fundamentally operating outside of "reason". A non-rational logic underlines the overburdening of semantics here.Third order logic is one in a non-enumerable, non-finite collection of hyperlogics. If we can agree that these higher order systems which are extremely confounding have an abstract, generalized idea of "reason" that applies to them, which is different from and much broader than mere human reason and 1st/2nd order logic, then sure we are in agreement.The problem then becomes that Humean "reason" is pegged to human reason, which lives at the level of 1st and 2nd order classical logic. Thus, he is in agreement with Hume. The disagreement just ends up being one of semantics.
>>25085504Christcucks really think the fact that atheism makes them sad means that it's factually incorrect
>>25085578That's not philosophy. That's just continually making assertions and emotional appeals without evidence
>>25085735>It is being directed at every step.>why isn't the AI prompting itself its questions ?So I was right, you do know nothing about AI. >isn't the same thing because, uh, reasonsIt is the same thing lol. Did you not understand what I've said multiple times ? Globally speaking, while the process is the same, the limitations on data, the implicit norms in research that haven't been fed into data, and the lack of intentionality by the AI prevents it. However, it is very much capable in certain scenarios of reaching the same results as humans do.Genuinely, you could've asked questions about how empiricism has similar modes of reasoning as ai, which would've prompted a nice and polite discussion on a topic you don't know about. Instead, you just came in thinking that you had OWNED the materialist and physicalists with your perfect counterexample. It's like your incapable of writing anything else than pure sophistry and demagogy but in a very commercial and social-media friendly way. You didn't even try to give counterarguments, you just reiterated your argument presuming that your premise was correct.As a final guess, I'd say traditionalist christcuck that believes that the hard problem proves God
>>25085686And yet for about 1,000 years none of these apologists come to the conclusion that it's all bullshit. Even if we assume that Christianity is the true religion, that's highly unlikely. The reason why is because they're not actually questioning their beliefs, they're merely pawns of greater institutions looking for a way to preempt criticism. They start with the conclusion they want to come to, then work backwards to find reasons to support it, which is ass backwards.
>>25085600>answer is that AI relies on the data that it is fed,lmao, the fucking ironyyou probably think computers have centres and are 'single things' as if a computer has actually ever 'computed' anything and not just blinked transistors in an arbitrary pattern to which we attribute significance
>>25085486
>>25085778>A machine capable of deciding most sentences in third-order logic is definitionally performing intuitionExcept it's not deciding, it is testing billions of pre figured keys in billions of pre figured locks, never knowing where any key should fit or if it will fit until one happens to fit because it has the right arbitrary voltage.Computers do not know, computers do not think, computers do not experience, computers are nothing but extremely complex puppets or clocks wound up before hand. Saying a computer does anything is like a puppet master in 1800s who only needs to release a lever for his contraption to mimic animation that the animatronics are alive. "I'm not directly moving them clearly they're moving themselves!"
>>25086076Or in other words.There is ZERO difference between a mechanical computer the size of a planet performing the identical calculations that supercomputer LLMs, except scale and speed. One only uses moving levers the other uses voltages. But no one would call the former alive even though it reproduces everything the latter can do with just more time.Just as any computer can run an AI program the only difference is time. Because that's all they are: complex algorithms.
>>25086076Not only is "decide" the correct verb that's been in use for this particularly topic hundreds of years, your reply isn't even coherent. You can recognize that words map to notions, and that the notions are what matter, enough to assert an injective interpretation completely at odds with age-old jargon which is great. Yet you can't even recognize that playing adlibs here doesn't change anything. The combination of symbols doesn't change the underlying substance. While you can assert your own very specific usage of the term completely unprompted, nothing of what you say is actually relevant to the substance being communicated.Further evidence of this:>it is testing billions of pre figured keys in billions of pre figured locksThere is no configuration in which a machine utilizing such a construction capable of evaluating most sentences in third order logic. Well-defined mappings are as capable of operating in third order logic as a volley ball is capable of performing arithmetic.>computersSuch a machine is definitionally not a computer.Ignorant and combative. See me after class.
>>25085686Lactantius believed the earth was flat
>>25086094Extra credit:>Because that's all they are: complex algorithms.Third order logic is fundamentally not decidable by any algorithm. Said machine is capable of performing algorithms, but is not limited to such and the fundamental principles it operates on are completely besides anything you as a human being are capable of conceiving. Your confidence only serves to lay your ignorance bare. Try developing a little bit of epistemological humility so you stop barking like a dog every time you detect motion.
>"I don have any friends. i will post on /lit/ and argue because i could not bring myself to say a single thing during my tutorial at college today.
>>25085486Meme answer: Baudrillard wound up with a near total critique, so it might not be fair to say he's Humean outside of the influence he had on the influences of Baudrillard. The outcome of Baudrillard's extensive critiques of substance leave him in a position where he basically has to agree with Hume whether he likes it not. This is something like saying you have an idea of substance to start but due to the extensive nature of the process you have to sever this but you rejected Hume's solution, so you wind up with a substitution but the outcome is one which happens to be in agreement with Hume.Serious answer: Hume advocated for bundle theory. The rationalists of the time hated it since he rejected substance and the implications of the theory are such that you basically just invent your identity out of your perceptual and experiential data, so whatever you think you are changes. It's not possible to my knowledge to refute bundle theory but it also doesn't purport the same level of explanatory capacity and it does have limits. The reason why modern rationalists use it are numerous, think of it like the quickest, easiest, and minimal resource consuming system for performing a calculation. It's so exceptionally good at the previous parameters that you can use it anywhere, it has no native requirements so anyone can create a model, for lack of better words, and offer it to anyone else with the greatest garuntee the other person can use it. As this relates to your question the tertiary and secondary sources may have their own substance residue, Hume's bundle theory is more like a deep learning program, instead of someone else taking the original and putting a substance in for something else you literally just get a bundle that works without a substance. No bare particulars though, so if you're more concerned with substrate then you're not likely to be interested but without those it's also hard to deny bundle theory the advantages it offers. This is kind of like saying whatever you think your identity is also happens to be the biggest obstacle you have in learning.
>>25085812Sure, but I bet you think its rad when people like Derrida and Richard Rorty pull shit out of their ass. Then its acceptable.
>>25085807It doesn't though. Smugness comes with a price, which comes with getting gangraped by Muslims.
>>25086143>>25086161If I write 1+1=2 has the pixels in your screen computed it?
>>25085486>How the fuck did we get from Humean radical, double-edged skepticism and epistemological minimalism to the hyperrationalist objectivism LARP of "empiricists" in the 21st century?By each successive generation being more and more consistent with the initial premises. Past secular thinkers are carrying inertia from non-secular worldviews that give internally coherent justification for basic common sense things, which they agreed with because they made sense but were not supported by the worldviews they espoused and developed. Hyperrationalist objectivist LARP is a consistent outworking of the de facto solipsism that subjectivist empericism has at its core, combined with the inertia of wanting to "be rational" and believe in an objective world outside of sense perception with no internal justification for it.
>>25086044This is retarded mate. If they came to the conclusion that Christianity is false we simply wouldn't call them Christians. The fact that 100% of Christian philosophers are Christians is true by definition because of how the lable work you mong. If Saint John of Damascus had come to the conclusion that Islam was the truth we would call him an Islamic thinker, etc.
>>25086044Name one athiest thinker we concluded that Christianity was true. No, can't think of one. Athiesm must be dogmatic.
>>25085807>>25085486>Why is it that every time I ditch 3rd and 2nd degree sources and just go straight to the actual authors, I find out that the underlying theory is much more sensible than whatever their ideas are mangled into in popular culture? Is this phenomenon what Baudrillard was talking about?people just don't want to understand one another
>>25086044>Even if we assume that Christianity is the true religion, that's highly unlikely. >The reason why is because they're not actually questioning their beliefsThe only people who actually question their fundamental beliefs are people who are unsure of their current position, or have no position, and are looking for a position, and they question their current beliefs from the perspective of alternative beliefs they want to replace their current beliefs. You always have to question beliefs from a perspective. So committed empiricists/atheists/materialists don't actually question their beliefs, and their lip service to saying they do is performative. This is a room temperature IQ take.
>>25086541>The only people who actually question their fundamental beliefs are people who are unsure of their current position, or have no position, and are looking for a positionThis is false.
why does /lit/ use big words? my head hurts...
>>25085486>Why is it that every time I ditch 3rd and 2nd degree sources and just go straight to the actual authors, I find out that the underlying theory is much more sensible than whatever their ideas are mangled into in popular culture?Regression to the mean.>smart person invents something>midwits rephrase it incorrectly>morons repeat what the midwit said, half-rememberedIt's like a human centipede except if you have half a brain you can just not do that. It's never been a better time to read primary texts, you shouldn't get your info pre-chewed unless you are literally too dumb to read the primary text in which case don't bother.
>The final sentence, it is probable, which pronounces characters and actions amiable or odious, praise-worthy or blameable... depends on some internal sense or feeling, which nature has made universal in the whole species.>...morality is determined by sentiment. It defines virtue to be whatever mental action or quality gives to a spectator the pleasing sentiment of approbation; and vice the contrary.Based!?
>>25085486Literally marketing. And it started instantly. Serious skepticism is hard and the hoi polloi don't even understand its value. They just want a stick to beat back the people who have been asserting intellectual authority over them for several centuries and a pat on the back for seeing past sophistry. Ironically, whipping up the unwashed with a new set of "science" themed sophistry and totems is far easier and more effective than trying to convey precise and sound thinking, so that's all one does outside of the spaces where people really care about such problems.
>>25086763>this is false.Prove to me that this is not bait.
>>25086541>I can't just entertain ideas, so no one can>And they're all lying about it!
>>25087056what does that have to do with the price of fish in china? literally not what the topic was about
>>25087103I'm aware that you lack the ability to examine any claim you make critically, you literally just said that in the post I responded to. No point arguing, you have as good as said you don't believe it is possible to argue in good faith. Might as well say nothing then.
>>25087117entertaining different ideas is nothing close to legitimately questioning your own views, dipshit. the only way you could confuse them is if you believed in nothing substantial, which was already covered by my first post
>>25087117>I'm aware that you lack the ability to examine any claim you make critically,What do you use to critically analyse anything if you don't work from any assumptions? All reddit atheist types can do is project and assume everyone is as mindlessly dogmatic as them. You're religious fanatics, the dumbest branch of Christianity.
Morality isn’t real. Religion isn’t real. Self is real. Causation is not unique in any way, all rationality is built on pragmatic associations for the purpose of reward seeking. Induction is the definition of rational, as it is a good way to get you more good stuff.
>>25086532https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_converts_to_Christianity_from_nontheismYou're missing the point, though. It's not "Christians never convert", it's "when Christian thinking and institutions are culturally dominant, and used as they're supposed to be used, straying away from Christianity is impossible."Christians can convert, by all means, but only if they abandon the retarded way of thinking that Christian "philosophy" promotes.
>>25086541Do you believe that Hume wasn't a committed atheist?
>>25087893>"when Christian thinking and institutions are culturally dominant, and used as they're supposed to be used, straying away from Christianity is impossible."When and where exactly was this?Thinking Christianity was a perfect brainwashing machine is just ignorance of history. Paganism, apostasy, and heresies (what you would call "failures of brainwashing") all happened at every point in history. Sure, it was the middle ages, disagreeing with your ruler's favorite doctrines was bad for your health, but it wasn't airtight brainwashing.
>>25087225>all rationality is built on pragmatic associations for the purpose of reward seeking. Induction is the definition of rational, as it is a good way to get you more good stuffYou would like Bergson, anon. I think.He indeed argued human intelligence (and language) is a tool, just like a piece of stone, developed by the primitives to operate pragmatically in the world. Therefore philosophical commitments should always look to go beyond language Very naturalistic premise and he ends up in quasi-mysticism by defending his form of intuition
>>25087893>the retarded way of thinking that Christian "philosophy" promotesnod an argumend
