agent_nycto @ agent_nycto @lemmy.world

Posts

2

Comments

407

Joined

1 yr. ago

It's because of historians you those things about Cleopatra

How myopic, asinine, and worst of all, willingly ignorant.

Since you have no regard for learning, enjoy doing everything from scratch.

Ah, so you think learning from history is pointless because it's not happening here and now, gotcha.

Even if it was over 50 years ago it was a significant point in history that a lot of people seem to forget, and was a major turning point for the public during Vietnam. It's also relevant to today with what's happening.

That ain't normal nor common, if you can go see a doctor. Passing out from pain is definitely not a regular situation.

So if you don't completely trust your senses, then you, in the end, agree with Mickey. Donald is freaking out because his viewpoint is that of total materialism and that everything has no value.

Mickey points out that you cannot completely trust your senses and the information we get from those senses, so being upset over an intrinsically worthless universe is basing everything on that fallacy.

You've been implying, and thus pretty easy to assume, that this implies the spiritual, what with starting this off saying that Occam's razor beats Plato's cave, but the allegory of the cave isn't saying gods or spirits are making your perceived reality. It's just saying the thing you already agree with, that you can't completely trust your senses.

So if you don't completely trust your senses, and you understand that your perception of reality is based on those senses, you should now understand what the allegory of the cave is about.

QED

Is it not equally insane to completely trust your senses? We know how they can be tricked fairly easily. Like I said before, that's one of the reasons why real science always has the caveat of "as far as we know", unwritten at the end of every discovery.

At the end of the day, you don't know, for sure, with 100% certainty, that you're not a brain in a jar. Or more statistically likely, a brain popping into existence after the universe ended and then popping out again. (An actual scientific theory backed up by the math which is wild). You simply don't. All of your existence could be a lie. You just have to make the best guess you can with what info you've got and hope you're correct. Science is very, very good at guessing within the parameters of the information we can observe, but it's always assuming what we are observing is true.

It's like, you're, idk, sitting in a cave, and like, you're watching these shadows on this wall. You can't turn around and look at what is making these shadows, so you're doing your best at guessing, like, what the heck is actually making these shadows. Something like that.

Heh, for someone who has a poor view of philosophy you sure do subscribe to it a lot.

You're fine with making an assumption, and that's ok, that's part of your philosophy.

Heh, amateur hour. Let me show you my watch.

Why does it upset you?

Some people can't afford to just move, like if they are dealing with cancer, for example.

And I'm saying that not questioning your senses is unscientific. Questioning our observations, and retesting them, is the very foundation of scientific thinking.

As for living in a purely material universe, how exactly would you test for something immaterial using material means? Would it look like weird unknown forces we can't explain or the results of tests looking different depending on if it's being observed or not?

And also are we going to throw out human experience? Are we not part of the universe? So would not the immaterial things we imagine into existence also exist?

Numbers aren't material but we treat them as real, and use them to study material things to understand them.

But you're assuming, from what I'm reading through your comments, that these shadows are cast by metaphysical forces, and I'm interpreting the allegory as how our senses are ultimately something we can't trust completely.

As accurate as science may seem, it is ultimately based on these senses. It's the best way we can understand the physical world, but science, wisely, always has a caveat at the end of every law and discovery: "... As far as we know."

This is a good thing, it means that nothing is held sacred and everything can be tested and questioned again.

And there's a trend to un fuck up pugs through breeding now, but you think that's unethical as well because that's still owning a pug.

Now I'm not sure you get what the allegory of the cave is about. It's literally trying to explain that our perception can't be 100% trusted.

I think one of the points Mickey would make is you can't entirely trust the scientific framework because it's still coming from our flawed senses. Even if everything adds up, it could still be a lie. Solipsism and all that.

I don't think anyone is talking about metaphysical idealism, but conceptual things shouldn't be written off because they are inconvenient. Numbers aren't physical, but I doubt you'd say they don't exist and therefore should be ignored, unless you're the most extreme materialist.

I'd say that mortality for humans is a social trait, because it's something that benefits a small tribe social species. Stealing is "wrong" because it's bad for small group survival, while "sharing" is good because it helps it. My that measure, humans are also inherently good because they engage in pro social behavior on an instinctual level.

The issue I think comes up with other survival traits that end in antisocial behavior. Tribalism is good for survival against other competing small social groups, but terrible when you're trying to expand social cohesion.

Do you also think animals are inherently evil because they act in accordance with their own self oriented survival?

Occam's razor is a rule of thumb not an absolute rule of the universe.

If you go with Cogito Ergo Sum, I think that's the stance Mickey is taking. You only know for sure of your own consciousness, everything else could be a delusion of the senses. You know, like shadows on a cave wall or whatever.

I'm pretty sure that if someone wanted a pug, seeing one person who did a rescue wouldn't be the tipping point.

And there are people who are trying, through breeding, to reverse the damage done to these poor animals.

So yeah, I think there are ethical ways to own a pug.

I'm gonna have to ask what you define as good because I don't think having emotions is bad, even if you're a baby