Is Materialism/Atheism objectively wrong in the Stellaris universe?

[Wizzington]

No.

 

[Nyrael]

Materialism isn't a religion in Stellaris nor does it necessarily care if Divine forces exist. It's an approach. And it is a working approach so it isn't wrong.

 

[tomstegmeier]

Is this the same Kant who never actually gives a good enough explanation of anything for any of his theories to ever be logically valid? And the same Kant who wasn't even really aware that there was such a thing as a subconscious thought, and therefore based his entirely philosophy on the false assertion that perception was forwarded to the mind from the senses, rather than scientifically provable fact that perception occurs in the brain and exists as a result of experience and sensations, not as an example of them?

Kant was a clever bloke, but a lot has changed in philosophy and neurophysics since the 18th century. If Kant were alive today he would not have come to the same conclusions he had formed when he actually was alive.

It's not that philosophy and science are opposed or at odds, it's that philosophy needs to respect the fact that it is a useless mode of learning. It's a okayish mode of explanation, but if you want to learn anything about the world then philosophy is about as effective as religion, and I don't say that to flatter it.

Sure kant has been wrong in certain Areas, and has been improved, but he is (mostly) logicaly valid, and you actually argued for him without knowing, because his thoughts are freaking everywhere, but is main opus is difficult. His thoughst are pretty much the basic for allmost everything we call "western culture)
1. its not psychology, subconsious or not, doesnt really matter. Its about the prerequisite for thinking.
2. perception is in his works is, what you seem to call experience. and how we "see" that experience, how our mind puts pattern in it, that is what we can think about. if it only was our experience without these pattern we would be like a computer, we could not "see" anything, it would be an incomprehensible mess. So yes: "perception occurs in the brain (mind) and exists as a result of experience and sensations, not as an example of them" the sensations" Sensation occurs, it is then patterned by our mind to make perception. he says it in the first page of critique of pure reason.The importand thing is: how is it patterned? His assumption is, there have to be Pattern, ie space and time, causality, to bring order in these. They are what is truly immaterial, because, they are just rules by wich we think.

Your dismissive attitude towards Philosophy is not uncommon. You choose an Philosophy of Stagnancy. because everything that explains is philosophy, when it is done in a methodical way, religion just assumes - philosphy gives arguements. here are some things that you owe to Philosophy: modern science, human rights, democracy, secularism, modern art (even if i could do without modern art, expect Monty Phyton and some others...) and more

Without philopophy you could not advance science, because... guess what that a genuine field of that: Scientific theory. Thinking how to do better science, to in turn build better engines and maschines is philsosophy. Of course it does not researches the make up of an tree or looks how a planets move in the universe. But it gives you the rules how to do that, and gives you an idea how to improve your empirical science.

 

[VoodooEconomist]

 

[Pen Name]

Sure kant has been wrong in certain Areas, and has been improved, but he is (mostly) logicaly valid, and you actually argued for him without knowing, because his thoughts are freaking everywhere, but is main opus is difficult. His thoughst are pretty much the basic for allmost everything we call "western culture)
1. its not psychology, subconsious or not, doesnt really matter. Its about the prerequisite for thinking.
2. perception is in his works is, what you seem to call experience. and how we "see" that experience, how our mind puts pattern in it, that is what we can think about. if it only was our experience without these pattern we would be like a computer, we could not "see" anything, it would be an incomprehensible mess. So yes: "perception occurs in the brain (mind) and exists as a result of experience and sensations, not as an example of them" the sensations" Sensation occurs, it is then patterned by our mind to make perception. he says it in the first page of critique of pure reason.The importand thing is: how is it patterned? His assumption is, there have to be Pattern, ie space and time, causality, to bring order in these. They are what is truly immaterial, because, they are just rules by wich we think.

Your dismissive attitude towards Philosophy is not uncommon. You choose an Philosophy of Stagnancy. because everything that explains is philosophy, when it is done in a methodical way, religion just assumes - philosphy gives arguements. here are some things that you owe to Philosophy: modern science, human rights, democracy, secularism, modern art (even if i could do without modern art, expect Monty Phyton and some others...) and more

Without philopophy you could not advance science, because... guess what that a genuine field of that: Scientific theory. Thinking how to do better science, to in turn build better engines and maschines is philsosophy. Of course it does not researches the make up of an tree or looks how a planets move in the universe. But it gives you the rules how to do that, and gives you an idea how to improve your empirical science.

I'm not dismissive towards philosophy, I just don't think it has any power whatsoever to describe the universe in the same way that science does. My first and foremost love is literature, and I would place philosophy on the same level as literature: it's a human tool that attempts to make sense of the universe, and often it will appear to give answers on a personal level, but it is entirely limited to manipulating and describing the realm of human experience, nothing more.

And without religion nothing that exists in our modern world would exist, that doesn't mean that religion is a valid source of discovery, just as literature and art and philosophy are not forms of discovery. Nothing will ever be discovered by philosophy; that doesn't make it worthless, any more than literature which also will never provide mankind with any new information about the universe. But, it does mean that you have to apply philosophy and literature in the places where they actually can make interpretations. Philosophy has nothing to say about neurology, because neurology is not susceptible to experience. Right now your subconscious is governing absolutely everything you do: you have no free will whatsoever, and we know this to be true with absolute certainty because your conscious mind is merely forwarded information and ideas by your subconscious, over which you have no control. Introspection will never allow you to know this, any more than it will ever teach you that your brain is made of neurons and axons.

Philosophy is not worthless at all, any more that art or literature are worthless. Philosophy, however, can never reveal anything about the nature of reality. It could help you come up with a theory, but there is no method of testing provided by philosophy alone.

Basically, I just wish philosophy nuts would accept that their chosen field has major limits, just like any other.

 

[tomstegmeier]

Basically, I just wish philosophy nuts would accept that their chosen field has major limits, just like any other.

that i can agree with.
Not the thing with the free will, and no its not prov... wait, i dont want to open that can of worms.

 

[Pen Name]

that i can agree with.
Not the thing with the free will, and no its not prov... wait, i dont want to open that can of worms.

Amen. Sorry, it's just the uni I went to had a big philosophy/theology department. The debates were thrilling but frankly one would have learned more about reality by having a 2 hour debate on whether or not when making a cup of tea you should put the milk in before the boiling water...

 

[tomstegmeier]

first tea, then milk. Of course

i have an master in Philosophy, so iam eager to argue about it didnt do it for some months ... but sorry to hear that it was so ... disconnetcted from reality. it is a problem for many philopher, living in their ivory towers. That is truly stupid.

 

[Yenzen]

No.

Seems like a materialist kneejerk response to me.

You're just jelly you can't kill people with your mind.

 

[Incompetent]

I'd say that genuinely conscious and creative Synths are an equally serious conundrum for Spiritualists. Neither Spiritualists nor Materialists are completely right, and a lot of things you encounter in-game could be interpreted either way.

(Fanatic) Spiritualists don't necessarily believe in any 'higher powers' (gods etc). Rather, they believe that they themselves are the gods and the universe emanates from their minds.

 

[linthras]

Atheism is, in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2][3][4] Less broadly, atheism is the rejection of belief that any deities exist.
The term 'atheism' originated from the Greek ἄθεος (atheos), meaning "without god(s)"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
You do realise you've just proven your interlocutors point that atheism =/= God(s) don't exist?

there are different school of thoughts of materialism. i would call myself a metaphysician. Some things tranzends the physical world, but they are explorable through science (but nor empirical sciences),

Exactly what other science would you be refering to?
Also, how do you know there are things that transcend the physical world?

A though is something like that, but it has some grounding in material things (but are not material, a dialectical sympiosis).

There is no evidence, whatsoever, that thougths exist independently of the brain or occur outside species that have brains.

Hwat quantumphysics will show is a very very interessting thing, all mater is in the end energy, maybe thoughts are an quantumenergy that has another frequency that does not result in matter??

Very few people, and I'm excluding myself from that category, have even the faintest clue as to what quantum physics is and what it's about.
The word get's thrown about a lot by woo-ist who try to impress their interlocutors and try to stop them from asking critical questions.

 

[linthras]

That's... controversial.

It's not, not among people who actually study the brain on a scientific, rather than navel-gazing level.

 

[SFSLovenought]

There is no evidence, whatsoever, that thougths exist independently of the brain or occur outside species that have brains.

Actually, isn't there some confusion over Jellyfish and similar organisms?

They behave similar to normal animals, but they don't have a "brain", or at least not one that we can see.

 

[linthras]

Actually, isn't there some confusion over Jellyfish and similar organisms?

They behave similar to normal animals, but they don't have a "brain", or at least not one that we can see.

You'll notice I was talking about thoughts, not behaviour.

 

[EmperorZelos]

Atheism is, in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2][3][4] Less broadly, atheism is the rejection of belief that any deities exist.
The term 'atheism' originated from the Greek ἄθεος (atheos), meaning "without god(s)"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

there are different school of thoughts of materialism. i would call myself a metaphysician. Some things tranzends the physical world, but they are explorable through science (but nor empirical sciences), if they are not, they arent worthy of my time. A though is something like that, but it has some grounding in material things (but are not material, a dialectical sympiosis). Hwat quantumphysics will show is a very very interessting thing, all mater is in the end energy, maybe thoughts are an quantumenergy that has another frequency that does not result in matter??
So the question is. what is supernatural? some random oocurence? Gods and ghosts? Magic in many fanatsy settings is actually shown as a science, it has rules and repeatable effects...

Correct on atheism, neither of those in anyway imply that "no gids exist". My rejection of your claim does not in anyway imply I accept the contrapositive claim.

Science is empirical sciences, and sicence studies the physical world so anything that science can study is by definition part of the physical world.

Your use of frequency is nothing but new age hippie crap

 

[linthras]

Correct on atheism, neither of those in anyway imply that "no gids exist". My rejection of your claim does not in anyway imply I accept the contrapositive claim.

Science is empirical sciences, and sicence studies the physical world so anything that science can study is by definition part of the physical world.

Your use of frequency is nothing but new age hippie crap

Actually, that wiki page is completely wrong on the 'less broadly' defintion.

 

[linthras]

first tea, then milk. Of course

i have an master in Philosophy, so iam eager to argue about it didnt do it for some months ... but sorry to hear that it was so ... disconnetcted from reality. it is a problem for many philopher, living in their ivory towers. That is truly stupid.

Based on the wibble you've posted so far I highly doubt your claim.

 

[tomstegmeier]

well, i have meet and discussed with atheist of the: no god variant. for people who dont care about god, i thought they are called theist...and mayn people i know see atheist as the "no god" variant. as the name says... "without god." doesnt really matter, different definitions can easily be sorted out, just as we more or less did. (not really but, we know now we have different definitions...)

 

[Louella]

I'd say that genuinely conscious and creative Synths are an equally serious conundrum for Spiritualists.

There are some spiritualist Synths on one of my planets in my most recent game.

They are unhappy that they have rights.

 

[Yenzen]

There are some spiritualist Synths on one of my planets in my most recent game.

They are unhappy that they have rights.

A whole new level of existential dread.

They will never forgive you for making them conscious and making them realize how wrong their existence is.