Who was in the wrong here?

Who was in the wrong here?

Attached: will you fight.png (500x655, 197.78K)

you for posting this

/thread

why is it wrong to trust the chemicals in your brain to tell you they are chemicals

While I agree that reductionism to an absurd degree is stupid, I don't feel like Mickey's argument was that well constructed, that is it isn't falsifiable

It's a circular system. It's like pointing to a lump of metal with "1 lb" stamped on it and saying, "I know that weighs one pound because it says it weighs one pound and weighs exactly as much as the weight that says it weighs one pound, which is itself."

When I ask you how you know that the weight that weighs one pound weighs one pound, you reply, "because it says it weighs one pound." When I ask why it says that it weighs one point, you say, "because it weighs one pound."

Around and around the system goes, justifying itself without need for further explanation.

You could take the "climb the ladder and kick it away" approach that it doesn't matter where things start, so long as you wind up with something valid and coherent.

But when you're discussing the meaning of consciousness and perception, and want to assert that it is pointless because it's merely the product of chemistry, you had better have a better explanation for why that makes the system pointless than "because it's chemicals" because surprise - your judgement and assertion of pointlessness is just chemicals too retard.

Mickey

Attached: PERISH LIKE A DOG.jpg (942x960, 237.83K)

What about observable data that is working completely independent of you? Systems of measurement, tests that are being run in real time where we can see that the brain is the component directly behind what we assess as "thought," "emotion" and by extent, "consciousness"
To some capacity, we are the sum of our parts, that is a meat machine being powered and controlled by electrical impulses, the distribution of chemicals and endless amounts of other biological minutiae working in real time.

Always wondered if there was context to the edit.

It’s less that Donald is wrong, per se, and more that if you accept what the data tell you in any case, you must tacitly accept that our senses aren’t lying to us. There is no way to completely eliminate the possibility that our perception is fundamentally wrong. As such, even scientific knowledge requires faith in our ability to perceive things correctly. This is different from faith in the religious sense, regardless of what some smug midwits would tell you.

I appreciate that Mickey goes from concerned to enlightened lunatic in the space one panel and then back to concerned.

that's not the original edit, the font for the other panels is too different. No one knows the context is, if there even is context.

>you must tacitly accept that our senses aren’t lying to us
Given that there have been no such cases where both our senses and our tools of measurement have fundamentally failed in any significant way, there's no reason to. It's more inferrence than assumption.

>There is no way to completely eliminate the possibility that our perception is fundamentally wrong
And that is understood by people in these fields, but as previously stated, nothing so far has been wholly incapable of explaining natural/biological phenomena and is therefore reliable.

>"faith"
If the definition you put forward is so watered down that it can apply that broadly, I think there's probably a more apt word to use. Something to the effect of "reliance" would likely suffice

Donald was factually correct, but nihilism is the road you're supposed to take toward existential enlightenment. While there's no way to disprove the idea that we're some brain in the jar or in the Matrix or any other equivalent, so far there's no evidence for that proposition while every bit of evidence we can gather indicates that there is a world and we are a part of it.

Is this the original? I've never seen the other panels before. Seems like it's tacked on

>concepts and stories that have been around for so long, but no one remembers why or what it was originally
Makes me wonder what great stories and memes have been lost to time.

Hideo Kojima's Kingdom Hearts

I would say Mickey's statement is a convincing rebuttal, but there is literally no difference between living or dying. 'Fighting' and 'honor' are worthless.

Neither
Nihilism is objectively correct but we are not objective creatures.

You seem to miss that regardless of source judgements of meaning are arbitrary, not non-existent.

Also yes, in order to use empiricism you must assume your senses are fundamentally sound, welcome to the fucking 10th century

>t. dog

Why is it dogs that are used to dehumanise in particular? To perish like a dog doesn't seem particularly harsh, especially by modern standards where dogs lead relatively cushy lives and assumedly die in the most optimal conditions in the majority of cases.

It's not that you must assume, but rather it's the only rational course of action. The other being to assume everyone's sense work differently, and that nothing is objective. At which point anyone who believes that will perish sooner rather than later.
You can ignore reality, but you can't ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.

If you gave me the choice of living like a modern mongrel shih-tzu or Chihuahua, or as a lower class redneck, I choose redneck. It's a fuck of a lot more dignified.

>Dogs die in optimal conditions in the majority of cases
lol wat
The ratio of homed to homeless dogs in the US is pretty much 50/50.
You either dramatically underestimate how fast animals reproduce or overestimate the effectiveness of shelters. Of 70 million homeless dogs only about 3 million can be in shelters at once

i used to think mickey was holding donald up by his shirt but its him washing a dish with a cloth

Donald as usual

Probably because most animals that are aesthetically relatable will act in their own best interest and towards self-preservation. But domesticated dogs will work, wait, or walk themselves to death on a masters' order.

You, for taking this naval-gazing seriously.

I think "dog" is just one of those old timey insults that changed as our appreciation of dogs grew, like how people call the gays "degenerate" even though homophobia is a traditional value so degenerating backwards would be in their favor, but degenerate refers to morals now instead of just a general word for something receding

Mickey's argument is literally "just don't think about it lol".

>Now
"DEE-jen-err-ate" is the verb form and means to break down or regress
"Deh-JEN-err-uht" is the noun form and means an immoral person and has meant as much since people were speaking fucking latin