If philosophy was valid or invalid, then it would be a science.

Thanks for giving me the time of day.


If philosophy was valid or invalid, then it would be a science. If it could be validated, then it wouldn't be up for debate. It can be agreed upon, and the consensus can be enforced by people as if it were a fact, but this consensus does not indicate validity. People could enforce any irrational consensus as if it were a fact without having any legitimate reason for doing so.


What is the right thing to do? Does this make sense? This is still entirely scientific, we may not have the data or knowledge to make the scientifically optimum decision, but just as there is the right trajectory for an intercontinental ballistic missile to strike its target, there is a scientifically defined right thing to do. The thing that is optimized and produces the best results.


Of course this depends entirely on what results oneself is trying to produce, but regardless of what they are, the right thing is the optimum thing, and the optimum thing is defined by the results, including any and all energy that was expended to reach that point, as this is a result of a loss of energy.


People lack the data to make these decisions scientifically so they rely on non-scientific philosophical arguments, but this is an entirely archaic methodology when we have thoroughly mastered the applications of science, as the scientific method could readily deduce legitimate, scientific answers to these questions if things were tested. Granted this is an insurmountable amount of data to manipulate, many things can be deduced through the same common sense that will remind a person any rock thrown into the air will fall back to earth, a pack horse with a light cart will pull that cart faster than the pack horse with the far heavier cart.


"Does it make sense?" doesn't matter in the slightest, it is only whether or not something is correct. It doesn't matter if the function of a computer "makes sense to you" your opinion and understanding of the concept is entirely irrelevant from the thing in questioning functioning.


In terms of "making sense" meaning being agreeable, usually in regards to moral, personal, or emotional objectionability, these things are also irrelevant because they don't change reality unless humans, through their own volition, act upon their perception of these things and enforce that which would otherwise naturally be unenforced. This is reasonable when science would defend this process as optimization, but just because people are acting in the name of what they percieve to be moralistic optimization does not mean that they are actually doing this in the slightest.


E.g. prisoners who can't work, disabled people who can't work logically are better off dead to save the economy money and thus be more successful, but once moral and philosophical convolution come into play, the scientific argument is invalidated by baseless delusional beliefs that profoundly influence the decision making of a human


The only relevant things are the input and output, as we cannot create an output we lack the necessary input for. When you look at science, science operates completely independently from any moral, emotional, or philosophical influence, so to convolute existence, our planet, animal life, human life, and anything else with concepts that are entirely imaginary and measurably irrelevant from the function of these things is nonsensical. The only influence these things have upon human life comes from the extent to which they present themselves as communal sentiments, which are not naturally scientifically relevant, but are only made scientifically relevant due to the fact that they artificially define the actions, behaviors, and thus reality of the human race.


A simple example of this is this. "You are a prisoner in a room. You are fed three meals a day, but you cannot eat without inserting a butt-plug in your ass and putting on a clown wig and a clown nose. This is not because it is physically impossible, but this is because your cell-made Johnny is guaranteed to kill you if you don't do this. The second you start to eat without doing these things, he beats you to death. Logically, you need to put that butt-plug in your ass and dress like a clown in order to survive, it is a necessity of life and clearly common sense, but in reality this is not true. This is only true because Johnny causes it to be true through his own volition, his own human, conscious enforcement of a standard that is not reflected in natural reality."


This is the significance of philosophy, morality, and anything of that ethereal nature. These things are "Johnny", they are only relevant if Johnny makes them relevant, and in the case of the human race, Johnny is very relevant, and this often causes people to act in manners that are contrary to pursuing and making more so scientifically, and thus naturally optimized decisions.


As for "why am I here?" that is also irrelevant. You can look at a math problem such as 2+2 = 4, and ask "why?" but "why?" is completely irrelevant to the problem at hand. It changes nothing about the problem, it is a delusional convolution that presumes something exists and is relevant, when clearly as defined by the problem, any sort of "why?" is not applicable to the situation as it changes nothing about the situation at hand.The entire world, the entire universe is nothing but math equations, so to try and argue that the question "why is this so?" is somehow a relevant question is to turn the question directly onto "Why is two plus two four?" because that's the way it is, that's how counting works, and that should be plain as day.


The question, "Why is two plus two four?" is relevant because this is the question at hand, and this why is easily answered "Four is 1111, two is 11, 11 + 11 = 1111, it is simple counting. That is why.


 The "Whys?" that are relevant are actually answerable "Why did this man beat his wife to death?" is relevant because we know for a fact that there is an answer to this question, there is a reason as to why this happened, and this is a relevant question because if this can be answered and addressed, it may be able to prevent people from being beaten to death. Knowing "why" reality exists doesn't and won't change anything about reality, so it is not relevant to reality.


These are my conclusions. The world is not an opinion, the world is scientific, nothing is up for debate. Only the conclusions we draw as we try to understand the raw, measurable, unconscious and physical reality in which we live is up for debate, but in the end this is not debate because we have transcended beyond debate. It is subject to scrutinous scientific trials that actually and measurably prove with reproducible results whether or not something is right scientifically, rather than logically.


Logically, the sun moves around the sky, the sun is moving and we are standing still, this makes sense, but science proves this logical standpoint to be false. Logic is not what determines right or wrong, logic is an attempt to make sense of things, but often, due to a lack of appropriate data and information, logic causes people to come to conclusions that are false.

The way I understand it. Non-scientific logic is not a reasonable way to come to conclusions. The human race understands that the world is entirely scientific, and treating human life, thoughts, and existence as if they are somehow different from the rest of the world, from the rest of the universe, is nonsensical when clearly the entire universe consistently and invariably functions in an explicitly scientific manner.

(Thanks for talking to me. =) I just like to ramble.)