Oh no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no...

K, cool. What's the link? Random screenshots mean nothing; that could be a word document.

It’d be logically inconsistent. There’d be no inner voice, or “thinking through” of a thing but only the thing itself. Material can not produce the immaterial from itself, and the mind is able to comprehend purely non-physical phenomena such as abstract mathematics absent any actual material existing in the works. Therefore the fact that you’re able to think through a thing and not just pure thing is proof the mind is immaterial.

It’s a Godel thing if you’re actually interested in checking it out.

>There’d be no inner voice
A lot of people don't have inner voices, that's where the NPC meme started. But then NPCs found out about it

I don't watch TV, I've watched maybe 3 movies in the last year

Maybe this is why everything our generation produces is shit.

>story citing one study with a sample size of 276
>"science proves that...."
fuck off. I hate that normies do the "I fucking love science" shit when they literally dont even understand how the scientific process works.

This should really only be true for children / people that can't differentiate real life from television.
Moral of the story is don't have your kids watch tv, instead play outside with them and have them play sports.

fuck i watch loads of tv

That just means they aren’t applying themselves user.

Not that they aren’t conscious.

The game was rigged from the start

I genuinely don't understand what you're saying :(

Ignore the article, the findings of the study still have implications you fucking retard. Youre just as bad as the pseuds who "fucking love science"

It's been replaced by Netflix and Youtube which are even worse.

This is retarded. Not because it’s definitely wrong (it may or may not be), but because you’re saying it as though it’s an absolutely indisputable fact. You are a retard.

Couldn't inner voice just be an "accident" or perhaps an advantageous evolution?

This is how NPC's are mass produced. Most people aren't able to think logically or interpret data reasonably. They simply are NPC's that get their software updated through TV. While NPC's themselves aren't all that dangerous because they can be told what to believe through TV, the people controlling them very well can be dangerous.

Monitor what types of messages you're exposing yourself to.

Attached: yuribezmenov.jpg (736x1042, 102K)

Baeed TV returning us to our violent and horny past.

What about online videos/YouTube?

How do people not have an inner voice? I just found out some people don't talk to themselves at all. I thought everyone did that?

Tard idealist thinking that their logic is indisputable.

Is it safe to still view sneedposts?

The study has implications, but a single study is hardly conclusive

>projection a la soi
>aggression
>speaks in strawmen
just sad really.

If we're wholly conscious. Which we're not.

We have a collection of consciousnesses that work together.

has that been repeated anywhere?
how does that withstands after peer reviews worldwide?

yeah good thing there's something more addictive in my face 10 hours a day

Rogan tier analysis

source? you don't expect me to believe in a bunch of words that could be made on fucking paint do you?

this is because dumb people mistreat their kids by parking them in front of a TV while smart people limit the amount of TV a kid watches.

the reason "scientists" would conclude something different is probably related to the big taboo on heritability of intelligence. heritability is what makes intelligence a race thing but there is only one race so that's a bit confusing for mainstream audiences.

it's a bunk study. look at the numbers. it's a sample size of 20.

A computer can do it, why can't a mind?

>using philosophy to understand what's logical
lmao

>TV turns Japanese children into Americans

Why not, indeed.

Attached: 1560120189035.jpg (665x768, 113K)

who are you quoting?
oh so there's only one study about the effect of television on the brain? i'm sure you looked that up before posting.

>thinking this
>not having the balls to realize that spending 19 hours on Yea Forums every single day is even worse

lmgtfy

The test is a controlled experiment, not just a survey based on lifetime use, hence the word "became" i.e. kids became more stupid after participating in the experiment and watching TV.

It’s okay user, pick up Aristotle’s Physics, it’s a good starting place for philosophy of the mind.

Name one (1) philosopher to ever provide a mechanistic account of the mind that allows for the perception of the immaterial.

But that doesn’t make sense if you think it through. Why would a lump of grey matter with some chemical reactions in it start to think of abstract triangles in a perfect logical system? Why has consciousness always and without fail across history done this? If I were to say to you that consciousness is mechanistic, and from purely physical phenomena; how would you then account for how it can perceive that which exists outside of the material world? If you look at it the way Godel does, you’re merely talking about a series of inputs and outputs from a physical source. Yet all of us are able to independently think through a calculus proof. Then apply that to the mind itself with the mind thinking of the mind. What input gives a higher level of thinking through to the mind that where it is able to then recursively think about itself thinking? It makes no sense that a physical thing would a priori have the knowledge of itself above itself to think of itself.

>Material can not produce the immaterial
>the mind is immaterial

Put these two together and you get another claim that you didn't even try to tackle here. The mind could not originate from the body. Where the fuck else would it originate, silly?

t. Dawkins

It's not that they can't differentiate, it's that they're brains are still developing so everything has a much greater effect on them. It's also why weed can permanently stunt brain development if you smoke it when you're a teen.

>Rogan tier analysis
Fuck off.

I mean different parts of the brain aware of different stimuli. And parts of our brain can oversee the workings of the other parts of the brain.

Idk man. Fuckin monads or some shit. Nobody even knows how to answer that question.

>It’s okay user, pick up Aristotle’s Physics, it’s a good starting place for philosophy of the mind.

Certainly not a good ending though.

You finish with neuroscience and psychology. They're the true heirs of the study of the mind.

fucking retards television has been studied since the 70s. you have literally no idea what you're talking about. you're not skeptics you're just clueless dumbasses who talk shit online. you're literally the ones this article is trying to help.

Attached: proof.png (626x605, 358K)

ur a stupid head lol

>the more hours of television the kids watched, the lower their verbal test results became
Holy shit, now it makes sense why people become NPCs.
>"here are reasons for why Trump is good and why Trump is bad."
>hours of colbert mind-control later
>"ORANGE. MAN. BAD."

Youtube vids are more conversational so probably little effect

well, no, they didn't become dumber. they failed to become smarter (at the same rate as their smarter peers). when children's intelligence is tested they are placed in relation to curves of expected development. you'd need the actual data and better statistics knowledge than my own to go deeper. what I do know is, more stimulation can make you accelerate your mental development, but ultimately you fall back to your level. this is what happens in black children raised by white cuc- excuse me - couples. they outperform other black kids in their childhood and teens but then in the end they level off and it was all for nothing. being raised in a white household means more mental training, more stimulation with abstract thoughts and certainly also less allowed TV time. it accelerates how fast they unlock their mental potential, but once it's unlocked that's it. this also applies to dumber and smarter asians raising their kids differently. you could take the TV away from the dumb kids and they would seem smarter for longer, but ultimately as adults they would "finish" just as dumb either way.

Well no shit, they were probably watching garbage anime.

does watching tv make you retarded or does being a retard make you more likely to watch more tv? I think the latter

*the appropriate place to stop is Heidegger

All philosophy since is garbage, and science isn’t an answer to philosophic questions.

>philosophy majors
lol

The purpose of philosophy should be improving people's lives.

the purpose of my dick should be entering your mother's ass

>Material can not produce the immaterial from itsel
Thoughts are material. The mind is what the brain does.

philosophers often do this thing where they arbitrarily assign borderline supernatural attributes to mundane things, and then have to bend logic in loops over itself into insanity to justify it
it isn't significantly different than trying to make a case for the holy trinity or anything else inherently illogical
most philosophers, like most people, start at a desired outcome of morality, reality, whatever, and work backwards to "prove" that whatever they believe is "true", unable to accept that there are things we just don't know yet.

Brainlet post of the year
I hope to God you're trolling

>science isn’t an answer to philosophic questions
it 100% is
anybody who doesn't believe that doesn't believe in the value of thought

>the lower their verbal tests became
um, maybe this has something to do with reading being nothing but WORDS?
"maybe if the kids don't get any exercise, their physical fitness will decline"
jesus fucking christ

neither
it's like learning different languages
the more time you spend speaking one, the less proficient in another that you might've picked up you'll be
the more reading you do, the better your reading scores
the more tv you watch, the better your tv scores, get it?
the real insight you should be getting from this study is that journalism is manipulative and dishonest

It 100% is not. All of empirical science rests on a fallacy of, “if I do thing once it’ll do thing again.” There’s absolutely no logical grounding to empiricism outside of blind faith that, “I guess this kind of works”. But that’s no standard of philosophic truth.

Bravo, Rian Johnson

Why is there no standard of truth? Does that mean that if a concept is conceivable, it has as much legitimacy as any other concept? If that IS the case, what's the point of conceptualizing anything?

>All of empirical science rests on a fallacy of, “if I do thing once it’ll do thing again.”
log off taleb

There’s a standard of truth, but it can be reached only abstractly by the mind itself. Euclidean geometry being an example of something that exists by the pure logic of itself alone and not a faulty basis.

what is the faulty basis of empirical science that philosophy has surpassed?

Holy shit, Yea Forumsedditors irrecoverably BTFO.

Empiricism has a starting basis that if you’re able to systematize a phenomena it’s observable and documentable as a truth. When in reality you can’t actually know that anything you observed will continue to do what you observed.

Putting that aside, empiricism at its core isn’t explanatory, it’s merely observational. Empiricism is totally bereft of the ability to explain physical phenomena in the sense that empiricism can only categorize and systematize at a finer resolution as science progresses. Being able to observe the motions of the universe at a higher resolution of observation with the discovery of gravity is a fantastic achievement and an advancement. The same for the manner in which time and 3D space break down inside a black hole. However that isn’t explanatory, it’s merely a higher level of systematization of observation of physical phenomena. Empiricism is incapable of explaining why the universe exists, or why you can think of abstract objects, or if god exists, because Empiricism fundamentally can’t observe said phenomena no matter how hard it tries. Getting high resolution brain scans just observes a brain, but can’t observe your consciousness. Or tell you what Justice is. That’s where philosophy will always surpass empiricism.

>being able to observe the process by which things function doesn't explain how they work
>making up purely speculative rules about the way things COULD work does
sure

for instance
>what Justice is
"Justice" is a concept created by human beings. Observing human behavior and societies will explain to you how and why it was created. Treated "Justice" as if it's an inherently occurring thing brings you to a place where you have to invent rules to explain that inherent existence, which in itself is a falsehood.
Philosophy ignores reality in favor of self-serving humanism

>Arguments premised upon defining the mind as something other than a function of the physical brain, but refusing to define what that is.

Great reddit, Yea Forums!

>Why would a lump of grey matter with some chemical reactions in it start to think of abstract triangles in a perfect logical system?
why did the eye form? Why would a lump of carbon with some chemical reactions in it start to perceive a certain type of radiation?
The answer isn't "why" but "how."
>perfectly logical
Human beings are not perfectly logical, both in how they present arguments AND in how their brains are organized. Nature is full of imperfections.

What do you guys mean by inner voice?
Are you talking about the thing of asking a question and getting an answer, or something else?
Like "What should I do today." 'I don't you retard faggot, go to the park.'