This Monkey is Better at Philosophy than New Atheists

[Beorn]

Continued Here: Philosophically Curious George and the Limits of Empiricism - Existential Comics

 

[Cellmold]

It's about predictive capabilities in assumed reality based on the scientific basal assumptions.

The main assumption being that models which have a predictive capability are more useful than those which don't, essentially you could say it's about scoring more reality points. The real problem always lies with those who don't stop to consider and instead turn an ideology (religiously based or not) into a wall with which to block dissenting opinion.

The issue isn't new atheism, it's the rise (or maybe just a more noticeable resurgence) of what I call a 'cutting' mindset, those who aggressively snip off all information that doesn't fit with their worldview, without hesitation.

That rigidity represents a narrowing of perspective and the more we cut out in service of our views and the less broad our information becomes, the smaller our potential future becomes and we stagnate. This is what is happening right now and we're moving towards a species of tautology.

PS: There are limits to empiricism, but that doesn't automatically make other assumptions true either. Hence why philosophy is considered the mother of science.

 

[indra]

Yes, the transcendental analytic.

I think the little monkey is deeply discrediting the amount of work that has gone into his little monkey brain.

 

[Cloudpatrol]

This monkey is better at mastering the Japanese train system than I am! He obviously believes in dog, but not sure about his religious beliefs...

 

[Hive]

Stay curious.

 

[indra]

I just skimmed over a monkey raping a cat thanks to this thread, and wow. Like I needed that remembrance on the vile nature of our creator's original sin.

 

[Poki]

Continued Here: Philosophically Curious George and the Limits of Empiricism - Existential Comics

But if you took five bananas ate 3 and counted 4 it would be an act of god, not realizing what you thought was three is actually one. You were just taught wrong.

Wanna play philosophy...

 

[Poki]

It's about predictive capabilities in assumed reality based on the scientific basal assumptions.

The main assumption being that models which have a predictive capability are more useful than those which don't, essentially you could say it's about scoring more reality points. The real problem always lies with those who don't stop to consider and instead turn an ideology (religiously based or not) into a wall with which to block dissenting opinion.

The issue isn't new atheism, it's the rise (or maybe just a more noticeable resurgence) of what I call a 'cutting' mindset, those who aggressively snip off all information that doesn't fit with their worldview, without hesitation.

That rigidity represents a narrowing of perspective and the more we cut out in service of our views and the less broad our information becomes, the smaller our potential future becomes and we stagnate. This is what is happening right now and we're moving towards a species of tautology.

PS: There are limits to empiricism, but that doesn't automatically make other assumptions true either. Hence why philosophy is considered the mother of science.

Isnt this what most religious people do as well? It can be abstracted beyond religion into a bigger bucket that contains aethiesm. Same mindset, just arguing over which details are true based on belief. Which is what makes it funny as hell, the arguing of the blindness over being able to see bananas and fingers as if that even matters in the world. Same with "aethiesm"...it doesnt matter. Focus on values, they stand above and beyond religion and aethiesm.

i swear the monkey is smarter then both religious people and aethiesm as a whole.

I watched a video once...undeniable logic to stump an aethest. The barber didnt believe in god and said, if god is real how come people go hungry. The religious person went outside saw a guy with no hair cut, just crazy tangled mess. Walks in and says, i dont believe in barbers, because if they existed then this guy would have a hair cut. BAM i told you. Except how many people tirn to god and still starve and die a painful death...but that doesnt count, its been rationalized away as a self defense mechanism...so...BAM, undisputable logic.

I have no issues with someone believing in god, i really have no clue...but it doesnt mean people have to be stupid about it. My GF says she should have died in her car wreck. She shoipd have bled out before the ambulances even arrived. She says God kept her alive. Ok, sounds fine to me. I dont care enough to dig in further and i dont even know if i would find an answer if i did dig into the why. I am pretty sure there is a reason, but i also have no issue other then blindness which i am aware of that it may as well be God. No issue ith being proven wrong...i am after truth at the end of the day, not to prove what i believe.

 

[Cellmold]

Isnt this what most religious people do as well? It can be abstracted beyond religion into a bigger bucket that contains aethiesm. Same mindset, just arguing over which details are true based on belief. Which is what makes it funny as hell, the arguing of the blindness over being able to see bananas and fingers as if that even matters in the world. Same with "aethiesm"...it doesnt matter. Focus on values, they stand above and beyond religion and aethiesm.

i swear the monkey is smarter then both religious people and aethiesm as a whole.

That was...er...my point? It's part of a larger issue that applies to people and has it's roots in trying to apply narrow, specific mental realms to what is actually a very broad spectrum of information.

 

[Poki]

That was...er...my point? It's part of a larger issue that applies to people and has it's roots in trying to apply narrow, specific mental realms to what is actually a very broad spectrum of information.

Had to clarify, dont want these narrowing mindset people running off about this being the issue with aethiests. i didnt see religious in the post

 

[Reborn Relic]

None of this disproves empiricism at all, honestly. Time and mathematical relationships are observable things, as we can see from this very comic. That time predates observation and is necessary to observation doesn't really affect that fact and still limits reality to the observable.

Now, if we're doing the Descartes argument, we could always just cite Hume in saying that ideas can be manipulated and extended into other ideas--for instance, if you have an idea derived from people that certain things are "good", and that some are more good than others, one could develop an idea that there is something that is "most good" without any outside interference. As to where it first came from, why are humans too small to have such a capacity innately?

 

[Magic Poriferan]

Too many people calling chimps monkeys.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Too many people calling chimps monkeys.

Is Curious George a chimp, though?

Edit: Whatever he is, he doesn't have a tail.

 

[Virtual ghost]

I admit, I am too left brained to be trully interested in this.

 

[Zangetshumody]

I once saw this brilliant cartoon that used scenes from star wars (real screens from the movie), with luke and vader, and they are talking about some philosophical thing... that is also a contentious argument between atheists and non-atheists... I wish I could remember the exact contents, but it was rather close to this subject presented by OP. Anyone have a link to where I might find this philosophical long-meme/cartoon?

 

[Beorn]

Too many people calling chimps monkeys.

I bet you're fun at parties.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

Is Curious George a chimp, though?

Edit: Whatever he is, he doesn't have a tail.

He's pretty nondescript. He looks a lot more like a monkey to me, but lacking a tail is almost solely a property of apes (unless he's like a Barbary macaque, or a celebes macaque, which he looks nothing like). Presumably the artist didn't think it through that hard.

But that's not what I was talking about, I was referring to subsequent posts.

 

[Zangetshumody]

None of this disproves empiricism at all, honestly. Time and mathematical relationships are observable things, as we can see from this very comic. That time predates observation and is necessary to observation doesn't really affect that fact and still limits reality to the observable.

Now, if we're doing the Descartes argument, we could always just cite Hume in saying that ideas can be manipulated and extended into other ideas--for instance, if you have an idea derived from people that certain things are "good", and that some are more good than others, one could develop an idea that there is something that is "most good" without any outside interference. As to where it first came from, why are humans too small to have such a capacity innately?

You are presuming too much about time, it is not observable unless you make it conceptually suited to observation, which is why Scientism is fundamentally— philosophically flawed. Time is not a fungible ['physical'] property or feature (and the contrary is empirically impossible to falsify, and so Science or Empiricism is fundamentally incapable of resolution [or a resolution that can amount to anything other than the reading of an indeterminacy— that amounts to statistical non-sense: oh wait, the new-atheists actually believe that such 'statistical models' contain something other than a figment of philosophical ineptitude... #BANDWAGONSlol ] ).

Science as a case for real Empiricism is incredibly weak, Empiricism itself is incredibly weak unless your willing to retract its domain to quite scant, relativistic and contingent measurements. The people who philosophically laid down Science knew better, which is why they spoke of "regularities", and NOT 'laws'. The same is why they spoke of MAGNITUDES, and not 'quantities' (they weren't presumptuous philosophical piss-ants like the new-atheists we see today). Only the deists among them ventured the "law" connotation; for an Atheist to adopt this language is an hypocrisy required to cover over the gaping conceptual lacuna that is the confused state of material-monism— as the case for our reality: which manifests as the impossible hope that Science can render a final answer, instead of just pretending to be on the search for one..

No game can produce an answer that doesn't uncover more about the Game's own nature than the actual field of its play- Science is not an exception; the universe is not such an outsmarted and dormant THING to be outshone by the superior avatar of worship through the mighty group-thinkers in New-Atheism... Thanks for literally taking us back to the warring Gods of the Sumerian city states. Set or Tiamat will devour you now.

[MENTION=26953]The Mask[/MENTION] , A lot of what I wrote wasn't specifically directed at you, although I do think my writing comprehensively covers the fuller intellectual-sentiment represented by your post, furthermore, I would like to specifically point out that:

That time predates observation and is necessary to observation doesn't really affect that fact and still limits reality to the observable.

^ I believe that statement is essentially tautological, isn't it?

 

[Poki]

None of this disproves empiricism at all, honestly. Time and mathematical relationships are observable things, as we can see from this very comic. That time predates observation and is necessary to observation doesn't really affect that fact and still limits reality to the observable.

Now, if we're doing the Descartes argument, we could always just cite Hume in saying that ideas can be manipulated and extended into other ideas--for instance, if you have an idea derived from people that certain things are "good", and that some are more good than others, one could develop an idea that there is something that is "most good" without any outside interference. As to where it first came from, why are humans too small to have such a capacity innately?

Yes, its a balance. Thoughts wander and we have to dig in and validate. Until validation its a mere thought that may or may not be true.

 

[Beorn]

Dunning-Kruger is a bitch.