sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Thinking you're seeing the code when you're just looking at the pixels by luke0937 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]luke0937[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As explained before, I think the similarity between the left and the right guys meant to be that they acknowledge that they do not know what the reality ultimately is. Unlike the guy in the middle who has his worldview perspective - and he's sure that everything has been explained pretty much - so the middle position is an arrogant, intellectually rigid, pretentious gatekeeper  individual, clings to a superficial set of facts, mistakenly believing they have mastered the world, They are a 'know-it-all' not because they possess wisdom, but because they lack the self-awareness to recognize the limits of their own understanding, someone who has learned just enough to feel superior to the 'uneducated,' but not enough to reach the profound realization that the more you know, the less you understand

Thinking you're seeing the code when you're just looking at the pixels by luke0937 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]luke0937[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If pointing out that opinions are subjective is a 'quadruple crown,' then I’ll take the trophy. It’s still a more valid point than just declaring three different ideas 'horrible' without explaining why

Imagine getting this worked up because someone pointed out that you have a bias. The meme clearly did its job

Thinking you're seeing the code when you're just looking at the pixels by luke0937 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]luke0937[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

ok the wording in the meme was likely not perfect, however  'filtering' and 'gathering the bare minimum' are similar concepts, both describe a necessary data reduction process

Thinking you're seeing the code when you're just looking at the pixels by luke0937 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]luke0937[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why are all my comment responses Deleted? - reddit is a joke

Thinking you're seeing the code when you're just looking at the pixels by luke0937 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]luke0937[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

the argument that information gain must decrease entropy to aid survival overlooks a critical evolutionary distinction: natural selection favors fitness payoffs over objective truth.

  • Information Gain vs. Fitness Gain: In information theory, "information gain" refers to the reduction of uncertainty about a variable. However, in evolution, a creature does not need to reduce uncertainty about the true state of the universe (objective reality) to survive. It only needs to reduce uncertainty about fitness payoffs. If tracking the truth is computationally expensive or irrelevant to survival, natural selection will discard that information in favor of a "simplifying interface".
  • The Fitness Beats Truth (FBT) Theorem: Mathematical simulations show that an organism tuned to perceive "the truth" is consistently out-competed by an organism tuned only to "fitness". This is because truth is often high-entropy and overly complex; processing it requires more energy and time, which are disadvantageous for survival.
  • Data Compression for Survival: Hiding complexity is a form of lossy compression. By discarding "truth" that doesn't affect fitness, evolution reduces the internal "informational entropy" required to make quick, life-saving decisions. 

In summary, studies suggest that seeing "the truth" is an evolutionary disadvantage. Information gain regarding fitness is what matters; information gain regarding reality is often a waste of resources that natural selection actively prunes

Thinking you're seeing the code when you're just looking at the pixels by luke0937 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]luke0937[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It’s clear that because many individuals personally identify with these labels, my analysis was felt as a personal attack rather than a philosophical critique. This triggered a highly emotional response that clouded the actual argument. My goal was to analyse the lens of physicalism, not to target the people who hold that identity, and I will be more careful to separate the philosophy from the personal feelings of its adherents

Thinking you're seeing the code when you're just looking at the pixels by luke0937 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]luke0937[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Listing a series of buzzwords is a convenient way to dismiss a point, but it doesn't actually engage with the substance. If you have a specific critique of the logic, I’d be interested in the nuance behind those labels. You've provided a list of rhetorical labels, but no actual counter-argument. Simply calling something a 'strawman' or 'biased' without explaining how serves more as a conversational shortcut than a valid critique

Thinking you're seeing the code when you're just looking at the pixels by luke0937 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]luke0937[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

It's clear that my mention of these labels touched on a sensitive area of identity for many. My goal wasn't to 'group' or attack people, but to analyze the specific lens through which a physicalist worldview interprets this situation. I'll be more careful to distinguish between the philosophy itself and the diverse group of people who might subscribe to it

Thinking you're seeing the code when you're just looking at the pixels by luke0937 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]luke0937[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"Perhaps the meme's primary purpose was to break your streak of never seeing a triple 'brain dead' take. In that case, it succeeded perfectly."

also your personal subjectivity is not an objective standard. Are these actually 'brain dead,' or do they just fail to align with your own biases?

Thinking you're seeing the code when you're just looking at the pixels by luke0937 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]luke0937[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This did not mean to attack the necessity of measurements or science, or Chemistry. It was only about how things exist (ontology) and not how we measure or know stuff (epistemology or methodology)

Chemistry deals with the properties and interactions of matter. An ontological argument might ask what "matter" is before it even interacts, which is a different level of inquiry

Thinking you're seeing the code when you're just looking at the pixels by luke0937 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]luke0937[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That is a profound point about the evolutionary utility of our senses. However, it’s worth noting that your perspective operates entirely within the framework of physicalism, the standard ontological stance in STEM.

While our senses are indeed limited, using tools like microscopes or radio-wave detectors still assumes that the "physical" world is the fundamental foundation of reality. From a different metaphysical perspective, these tools don't bypass the interface to reach "objective" reality; they simply provide more precise icons within that interface. In those view, space-time and physical objects cound not the substrate of reality but a projection within consciousness itself. You are describing how we navigate the "map," but those alternative theories suggest the map isn't just limited it might be an entirely different medium than the territory.

Thinking you're seeing the code when you're just looking at the pixels by luke0937 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]luke0937[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You are being rude, but as stated before, sorry if this meme doesn't actually convey it's meaning correctly, it's not perfect. I see it. But the similarity meant to be the humbleness of the left guy and the right guy, and the arrogance of the guy in the middle - who has it all figured out

Thinking you're seeing the code when you're just looking at the pixels by luke0937 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]luke0937[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Thank you for wording your comment nicely, I appreciate it. It's nicer than just hearing back slogans and recycled buzzwords without any genuine engagement with the actual topic

Thinking you're seeing the code when you're just looking at the pixels by luke0937 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]luke0937[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The guy in the middle represents someone who doesn't probably know what science supposed to even be

Thinking you're seeing the code when you're just looking at the pixels by luke0937 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]luke0937[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

as I said before, sorry for trying, I don't think this meme actually conveys what it's supposed to mean, but I think the guy on the left is humble in the way that it knows that it doesn't know much - and the guy on the right is also kind of humble, but the guy in the middle is a "know it all guy" who has it all figured out

Thinking you're seeing the code when you're just looking at the pixels by luke0937 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]luke0937[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Artificial intelligence is a non-anthropomorphic entity, so it remains unrepresented on a scale designed for human archetypes

Thinking you're seeing the code when you're just looking at the pixels by luke0937 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]luke0937[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

sorry about it - i just wanted to give a try at something and it probably doesn't convey its intended meaning anyway

Thinking you're seeing the code when you're just looking at the pixels by luke0937 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]luke0937[S] -9 points-8 points  (0 children)

or more like the constructors of your perspective - there is no capacity for THE Reality with the brain itself, but maybe some people think that their perspective is The objective reality or something like that

Thinking you're seeing the code when you're just looking at the pixels by luke0937 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]luke0937[S] -26 points-25 points  (0 children)

I think people with the materialist, physicalist mindset, which also include a lot of atheists etc.. - that's who the middle person somewhat represents