Right, so you are completely denying the ordinary sense of real, reality, objectivity, and you will go on to deal with things in the world as if they have their own objective existence anyways. This is false consciousness.
-
-
Replying to @ReferentOfSelf @CurlOfGradient
You've made a reductio of this train of philosophical thought because you have come up with statements that are entirely in contradiction with what you started your philosophical investigation on in the first place
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @CurlOfGradient @ReferentOfSelf
My point is, if I start from my fundamental premise that everything arises from the laws of physics, I end up with a world full of people who see meaning, purpose, chairness, etc. I don't need to add anything extra on top of physics to get these.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @CurlOfGradient @ReferentOfSelf
I believe that purpose, meaning, chairness, and all those things exist in your head. I am not saying they aren't *real*, any more than computer programs aren't *real*. Just because they exist in your head doesn't mean they aren't important.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @CurlOfGradient
But you haven't done that. You haven't started with things arising from the laws of physics and worked from there. You started with purpose and meaning and chairness and this drove you to look at physics, and you learned something *on top of* your existing knowledge and capacity
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ReferentOfSelf @CurlOfGradient
You then turn around and try to replace all this knowledge and ability that allowed you in the first place to understand and do physics with that physics itself, and base all that understanding on top of the physics
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
-
Replying to @CurlOfGradient
How so? You still deal with chairs as simply objectively existing without ever referencing the atoms. You aren't a reductionist in practice in 99% of your everyday dealings with the world
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ReferentOfSelf
Because I don't need to be one 99% of the time. That doesn't mean we can't reduce things when we need to.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
This is like saying computers don't have transistors because 99% of the time I interface with them in terms of programs.
-
-
Replying to @CurlOfGradient
More like your programs exist as things themselves and there are meaningful things you can do and say about them that can't be reduced to action on and behaviour of transistors because by moving transistors you have thrown away the language needed to say what you wanted to say
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ReferentOfSelf
What is a property of the program that can't be reduced to the actions of transistors?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - 10 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.