/lit/ - Literature

>>12572427
>Quantum mechanics has shown that the physical properties of the world exist only insofar as they are perceptually experienced by minds.
No
>While science cannot, even in principle, explain how an arbitrary configuration of atoms (a brain) could produce consciousness.
No
>The most parsimonious explanation available is the world is mental in nature -- idealism is true.
It doesn't explain anything.
>Convince me otherwise.
Fix your education.

>>12572474
retard

>>12572474
Oh, so you've solved the Measurement Problem? When will you be receiving your Nobel Prize? You've also solved the Hard Problem of Consciousness? Very impressive.

>>12572477
You're just know you're too uneducated to argue without shitting yourself.

>>12572503
Oh, it seems you have proven they have no solution. Very impressive.

what do quantum mechanics reveal about which feature of physical properties to be ontologically dependent upon perceiving minds?

>>12572474
fpbp

>>12572503
>Oh, so you've solved the Measurement Problem?
The solution was published in 1957. Also Nobel prize is given for practical discoveries, not for fundamental ones.
>You've also solved the Hard Problem of Consciousness?
No Nobel prize for it? That sucks.

>>12572427
Bitch I'm a vitalist, try me faggot
FUCK Plato btw

>>12572474
materialists on sucide watch

>>12572474

>>12572604
>1957

I do hope you aren't suggesting that the "Many Worlds" hypothesis is more parsimonious than idealism.

>>12572585
can you rephrase the question so that it makes sense?

>>12572670
It's the most parsimonious of all, not just idealism. Idealism is useless anyway, because it's supernatural and doesn't even explain anything.

>>12572700
>Idealism is useless anyway, because it's supernatural and doesn't even explain anything.
>Useless
Uses exist for goals. Materialism is pointless because it lacks a hierarchy. Should all existence be Gold that travels at a set speed? No - material has no hierarchical properties. The material, then, is by definition a useful tool for the immaterial.

>>12572427
Fuck off.

>>12572427
>Materialists define themselves through an immaterial ideology and claim to be more 'correct' than opposing viewpoints
Materialism is brainletism. Whatever the truth is, it includes everything.

>>12572427
>>12572670
>>12572700
>parsimonious
>parsimonious
>parsimonious
Was this the word of the day on your toilet roll or something?

>>12572550
retard

>>12572744
Ok, it's useful for shitposting.

>>12572801
no u

>>12572700
Let me get this straight. You're suggesting that a theory which proposes an INFINITE number of parallel universes is the most parsimonious of all. I'm talking about ontological parsimony - the idea that entities are not to be multiplied beyond necessity. You're talking about multiplying the universe an infinite number of times.

>Idealism is useless anyway, because it's supernatural and doesn't even explain anything.
If true, it can account for the hard problem and the measurement problem, which materialism cannot do.

>>12572780
Materialism includes everything, because it explains reality, so it has everything reality has.

>>12572852
Those worlds are states in superposition. Just a name for what's already there. Superposition is a necessity.
>>12572852
See >>12572863

>>12572604
>Also Nobel prize is given for practical discoveries, not for fundamental ones.
In other words scientists discover what is useful, though their discoveries have no relation to what is true about reality.

>>12572886
>Those worlds are states in superposition.

Sometimes less parsimonious explanations are true. Many Worlds might be correct, but it isn't as parsimonious as idealism. The question is, if idealism can explain everything observable in terms of one ontological primitive - mind. Why bother positing the existence of an infinite number of unobservable parallel universes when there are simpler theories available that explain what we find?

>>12572700
>idealism is supernatural
kek.

>>12572863
>Materialism includes everything, because it explains reality, so it has everything reality has.
Idealism includes everything, because it explains reality, so it has everything reality has.

You see how your statement was dumb?

I'm pleased to find many anti-materialists ITT.

Any recommendations?

I would recommend everyone reads Bernardo Kastrup.

>>12572427
>perceptually experienced by minds.
stop misrepresenting QM like this.

>>12572968
>Any recommendations?

prayer

>>12572935
They use that word to mean "anything which Daddy Science has not expressed approval of". They are literally incapable thinking independently, or sensibly for that matter.

>>12572679
which spects of the theory entail the proposition 'the physical properties of the world exist only insofar as they are perceptually experienced by minds'?

>>12572980
Unfortunately that does appear to be the case here.

redpill me on quantum mechanics

Are Harry Frankfurt or P.F. Strawson worth reading beyond a short essay?

>>12572427
>While science cannot, even in principle, explain how an arbitrary configuration of atoms (a brain) could produce consciousness.
Am I missing something? Why is consciousness considered to be magical again?

>>12573043
because people are afraid of dying.

>>12573043
If by magical you mean non-physical then it has been magical since the beginning of time and should be considered as such.

>>12572474

>>12572427
If I learned one thing from internet discussions, it would be that anyone referring to quantum mechanics in an argument will always be wrong

>>12573004
They are the modern slaves, who, by aligning themselves with the Catholic Church of their day, believe themselves of superior intelligence than the rest of the population, who exercise their own judgements on the matter. If they were born a few centuries ago, there is no doubt they would be among the ideological-pawns of the Vatican's narratives, an unthinking program designed solely to propagate the ideologies it has been programmed to. I despise modern scientism more than anything else in my vision, and I am writing a book that hopes to completely shatter its narratives and destroy any further public faith in their institution. I truly, truly despise them and what they've done to the world as a whole, but especially the Western society in which I live (despite being Eastern in background). Do you think such a thing is possible? For someone to publish a book, that greatly helps destroy a dominant institution? The arguments are sound, I assure you of that. But can a single book actually contribute to achieving such an end?

>>12573052
No, I don't mean magical as in non-physical. I mean magical as in defying logic and inherently explicable. I am not sure what's supposed to be so mystical about it?

>>12573130
*inherently inexplicable.

>>12573071
based loganposter

>>12573097
You should ask Goonan.

>>12572968
Adi Shankara

Oh goody, that troll from /his/ dwells here too. Gonna post another picture of Berkley as Pepe the frog?

>>12572968
Rene Guenon

>>12572744
nice slave mentality

>>12573590
Shut up already Nietzsche

>>12573627
he's right tho

>>12573043
Design an experiment whereby you can verify whether a given arrangement of matter is experiencing subjective experience. I'll wait.

>>12573688
Put the arrangement of matter in a dark room. Shout through the door to the arrangement of matter "Are you experience a subjective experience?". If you hear a "yes", then the arrangement of matter is experiencing a subjective experience.

>>12573688
A given arrangement of matter just made me reply to his dumb post.

>>12572427
>Quantum mechanics has shown that the physical properties of the world exist only insofar as they are perceptually experienced by minds.

So you are one of those idiots that thinks that observation in QM means that your thick-ass consciousnesses looking at the quantum superposition collapses it.
No, the thing that collapses the superposition is the interaction you do to obtain information about it, aka. beaming photons at the thing to get information back.
If you made a complex but definitively not concussions tool that automatically made measurements, it would be the same, it's just "poking" it.
Idealism is for brainlets that jumped from Solipism to to being absolutely delusional.

>inb4 you don't think for yourself unless the scienceman tells you
You only get these ideas from shitty books, so don't kid yourself.

>>12573722
So talking is the only requirement for consciousness? There aren't any conscious animals?

>>12572923
"Many Worlds" is a misnomer. Everett's relative state formulation posits the existence of only ONE world that behaves in accordance with Schrodinger's linear deterministic equation without the arbitrary imposition of any extra-physical notions that don't appear in the mathematics of the theory like "wave function collapse" (the basis of the measurement problem). The universe is to be thought of as a single universal wavefunction, a tree with many branches. As such, it is indeed the most parsimonious of quantum mechanics' myriad interpretations, as it is simply quantum mechanics taken literally (it is literally an ontology of what the equations tell us is actually happening). I'd bet my life on Everett before idealism.

>>12574066
Are consciousness and subjective experience the same thing?

>>12572427
Particles objectively exist as part of a universal pilot wave function. There is no wavefunction collapse on observation, matter is both a corpuscule and a pilot wave, the corpuscule always has an exact position/state:
Bohmian Mechanics:
ttps://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-bohm/
Pilot Wave Theory & Quantum Realism:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlXdsyctD50

>>12574210
pilot wave theory was recently debunked

>>12573255
This desu

>>12572427
>being an idealist in 2019
have fun being delusional and psychotic
but hey it's still 1778 right?

These debates are always depressing to me. People think that le quantum mechanics changes anything regarding the nature of consciousness, which remains and is unaffected by anything spoken of outside of it, here "quantum mechanics". The only person who understands consciousness are those of mystic disposition; anyone else attempting to speak on it will not understand it well enough to do so, their speech fraught with misunderstandings.

Why, if you guys consider yourselves readers, don't you look into Hinduism and Buddhism, two traditions which have written about the nature of consciousness, for thousands of years? And created an entire set of practises devoted to it? Why, do you continue to cling to whatever your scientists, be it of one camp or another, tell you on the subject?

I will condense this information for you here, from my own investigation:

Consciousness is the Ultimate Reality, which all and everything is made of. All the atoms which le scientists have made models of, are observed within Consciousness, they are not themselves its fundamental units, though they are, like everything else, conscious. Consciousness has no relation to le chemical activity of the brain, anymore than it does to electromagnetic activity or anything otherwise. You are the Highest Reality, presently having a finite experience, lost in a dream of your own, and you will only leave this dream, once you have remembered yourself to be its Dreamer. Only by this realization, which can take any number of lifetimes, can you become one with Brahman again, which is what you ultimately are. Until then, enjoy yourself here. Learn, grow, love, and have fun. That is why you're here in the first place, in this finite form. To continue on your soul's path of learning.

The modern scientific establishment will fall someday, hopefully in the next decade if we're lucky. I, a mystic, will be dedicating myself personally to the cause. Unlike other mystics who seek enlightenment on their own, and find it, (say, like those noble unnamed souls of India), but do not write any texts detailing what they've understood, for the rest of humanity to hear - I will dedicate myself to destroying the materialist enterprise of science altogether. I will eviscerate through explanation, every false and absurd motion of logic they've brought to our society, and let their idiocy hang clearly on display for all my readers to see. Alongside this, will be a complete and detailed spiritual system given to any onlooker to follow, from whatever level their present knowledge of spirituality is. It is intended to help any soul out there seeking a solution to their life's searchings and searchings. (1/?)

>>12574276
*sufferings and searchings

In addition to this, my writing will describe an ideal arrangement of society, based around the spiritual nature of reality, and thereby present a vision primarily for the Western world to achieve (since the East is plenty spiritual already, but this text applies to them too). I do not desire to become a public face for my writing, however, assuming the work receives any attention in the first place.

Sometime later in my life, once my parents have passed and I have let go of all worldly bonds, I will discard this dense body permanently, now residing in the ones higher, where I will possibly find a forest or elsewhere to live in, and help those who would seek me, like Babaji. Or perhaps I'll do the former, but remain in society in the higher form, and directly help those in this world to ascend. This sounds extremely corny, deluded, narcissistic and fictitious, I know. But it is my plan to do all these things, and my journey there has already begun in terms of the activity now happening within me. The newfound phenomena I've begun to see, as a result of my higher bodies having been awakened now. You would not believe me if I elaborated upon the things which I have witnessed, telling me I must be "schizophrenic" or something similar, so I will not even bother to detail them.

Also, just reminding you all out there, that if you listen to and lap up every narrative given to you by the scientific clergy of today, without independent reasoning of your own, then you have willingly made yourself a slave, and should feel ashamed to even have a mind at all, when you'd have been better off born as a lower animal, such as a lamb, whose innocent nature is simply to follow the higher orders of the shepherd who tends to it.

Anyways, take care everyone. Remember that all of you are really Brahman, presently lost in your own Dream. Learn how to live in this world, and reason for your being here in this, present incarnation. (2/2)

>>12572427
Any measurement causes wave collapse, even by a piece of equipment, not just that which is observed by a *conscious* entity or mind

Metaphysical materialism is epistemologically false, this much is obvious, but I think what's more pertinent is the reason *why* it develops in the first place. Here's my take:

Control. Materialists, above all else, desire control, both over the natural world and their fellow man. By taking the assumption that "reality is fundamentally reducible to a bunch of casual, physical processes", then, in theory, all we have to do is "perfect" our method of "understanding" these "physical processes" and suddenly everything will be a 100% perfect green utopia.

And who can blame them? We live in a world where thousands of times more humans than have previously existed are cramped in over each in overcrowded cities creating endless toxic fumes who are all totally devoid of any connection to nature or the simple beauty that comes with living in harmony of it, along with all of the intense social problems that come with such a setup (terrorism, gang violence, economic uncertainty, political divides, over-sexualisation, pollution, etc. etc.) In such a scenario, the assumption that just "figuring out" the "right science" in order to solve everything suddenly becomes far more attractive. Any talk of "spirit" of "idealism" gets dismissed as hogwash, since these people's very emotional survival is predicated upon the ability to ignore the sad material reality around them but imagining we can one day magically "fix" all this. By admitting to the possibility that consciousness is non-material, that thoughts, emotions, ideas, etc. all have an affect on reality, that perhaps science has limitations when it comes to fully understanding the world, they'd have to be admitting that the world they live in basically sucks ass, that we got here through a denial of the spirit, and that the only way to solve our problems is to, paradoxically, let go of our obsession for material certainty, instead allowing the answers to be found through a non-dogmatic navigation of the human psyche.

>>12574276
>>12574295
So I'm a sucker if believe modern science because all observations are ultimately within consciousness. But you are not when you base your view of reality in Hindi and Buddhist texts and traditions, that are too ultimately within consciousness.
Furthermore the only justification of your beliefs besides "because i'm a mystic and I said so" is that the two traditions have written about consciousness for thousand of years. In that logic I must eat gold for eternal life, because the Chinese knowledge about this fact is very old.

You sound insane because your second post is basically you masturbating to the idea of ascending to a higher plane and becoming yogi, not because you seek enlightenment, but for your shitty ego.

You are not gonna ascend, because the world doesn't exit to please the delusions of humanity. And even if it were like that, I'm fucking sure that a 4chan shitposter it's not ascended being material.

>>12574381
>Control. Materialists, above all else, desire control, both over the natural world and their fellow man.

Fuck off, you are the control freak. You are so delusional and afraid of an uncaring world that you create a narrative where your consciousness is the center point of reality, all my issues can be fixed if I lock myself in a little box and I have faith.
The universe does not care about you, we are absolutely irrelevant and you fear it. You fear it with such force that you delude yourself into inaction.

The sea thunders, the trees grow and the earth spins not because of you, but in spite of you.

>>12574476
>we are absolutely irrelevant
According to whom? Non-sentient mountains?

>>12574488
Sheer magnitude of the universe and the lack intrinsic meaning, you of course can go for the existentialist route.

>>12574476
>>12574520
You will never falsify subjective immaterialism, so knowledge of any sort of posited physical world will remain unknowable. Does that make you uneasy?

>>12574520
That magnitude can only be comprehended by us though, even your most gargantuan star hundreds of trillions of cubic metres in size can't comprehend that it's big, to it it, well, it doesn't even exist for it lacks any sort of awareness

>>12574210
Piloted and wavepilled. You're a good lad.

>>12574231
Really... Well don't summarize how or anything. I'm happy to take your word for it.

>>12574488
There's no point speaking to them. The narratives of the past centuries of science have been swallowed completely by them, and they are not yet able to even think independently for a single moment of their life. They don't even realize that "meaning" is not any sort of empirical reality like their worldview consists in the sole belief of, not an objective fact of any kind, but that it is an evaluation born from the subject which speaks of it. They couldn't even accept such a notion; to them, life IS intrinsically meaningless, a fact as objective as the fundamental constants within physics, simply because scientist-idiots have told them so (Stephen Hawking has a lovely quote about humanity being a "chemical scum yada yada yada", the poor fellow, for all his intelligence, he wasn't intelligent enough to realize that a "chemical scum's" evaluation of itself as such, is not worth anything at all, and is corrupted by that very metric, thereby collapsing). I don't debate them anymore, because they are as fervently ignorant as the bigoted religious are. Abrahamics (of the bigoted kind) and athiests hate eachother, and yet they ARE eachother, only standing on the opposite ends on a spectrum of idiocy. The modern scientific institution must fall before our society will be well again, this fact is certain.

>>12572427
measurement =/= perception

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Please see:
>>12573806
>>12574331

>>12574520
>magnitude of the universe
Physical size is proportional to the level of meaning? If I cut the universe in half, it becomes twice as meaningful? If the universe is infinite in scale, that makes it infinitely meaningless?

>Lack of intrinsic meaning
Is this an empirical fact, or a subjective evaluation? Hint: it's the latter.

>>12573152
What does goonan aim to dismantle?

>>12574543
Not really. In that line of reasoning, how are you sure that your thoughts make sense? In a dream your internal logic feels right, but when you wake up your ideas were gibberish. How can you prove yourself that this isn't happening right now?
The fun thing about absolute doubt is that you can't prove anything, be it material or inmaterial.

>>12572427
>monism

>>12574647
Dunning-Kruger status: OVERDRIVE

>>12574476
What created human beings?

>>12574551
So? Okay, yes I'm not saying that the human condition is irrelevant for humans. I'm just not making the jump of saying that reality *is* the human condition.

>>12572427
>tfw I am a neo-Platonist

>>12574692
Chance, probably, like a beautiful rock formation. Maybe another intelligent being, but that's just shifting the question to what made that being.

>>12574686
>how are you sure that your thoughts make sense?
Whether they make sense or not is irrelevant to my point. The point is that what is "out there" is not material, but ideas contingent on one's mind, and such ideas can only be known within a mind.

>>12574749
What if your logic is affected by some mental entity that is tricking you to think that? If we are going into full absolute doubt territory you gotta stick to it.

>>12574741
Where do your present thoughts come from? Your brain, your heart, your limbs, your personality, your memories? What made these? Where did these originate?

>>12574772
This is a common dodge materialists make which I doubt you even understand. Subjective immaterialism is far from the sort of nihilistic "absolute doubt" you are referencing. My position simply does not (naively) assume the existence of physical matter.

>>12574749
How do you know this? How do you know that thoughts aren't physical phenomenon?

>>12574815
So you naively assume the existence of some alternative? What makes your assumption more probable exactly?

Despite his ignorance on the topic, Zizek is trying to find the right "philosophical" response to QM when he talks about catching God with his pants down. It's not proof of divine intervention, in fact its probably the opposite– that reality is not matter but rather a positively charged void within which things occur when the balance is disturbed.

It makes sense that he's a cartesian at heart– we have to some degree pass through the zero point of materialism, IE. that there is only substance and its emergent properties, that free will is the result of determined physical processes, etc.. But in dismantling the subject we are inevitably haunted by the spectre of its absence.

>>12574856
Not him, but what you call "physical" only refers to vision - the objects you see exist as vision. They don't disappear when you're not viewing them, no. But vibration is all that anything is, in this case visual objects are vibration of the eyes, and it happens to be that the dense body vibrates slowest, but vibrating faster than it are the subtler bodies internal to the densest one, which are recorded of in the Eastern literature. The chakras, and all of that. These outlive the physical body, which perishes at death, and go on elsewhere. Hence why "ghosts" are a phenomena found of every culture in the world, having identical details, and persisting in the same form for literally thousands of years without ever stopping, including up to this very day.

>>12572427
Who /panpsychism/ here?

>>12574856
>How do you know this? How do you know that thoughts aren't physical phenomenon?
The defining quality of thoughts is that they have no true being independent of my (or any Mind's) thinking of them, so saying thoughts are also independent physical objects can't possibly follow.

>So you naively assume the existence of some alternative? What makes your assumption more probable exactly?
The interaction of thoughts and Minds is not assumed, but necessitated, as thoughts are the objects of Mind. We could not be considered Minds if we could not also come to know our Mind's thoughts directly. In this way, physical matter could only be known by Mind's indirectly, through the assumption (which you make) that thoughts within our Minds convey real information of real mind-independent material objects. Why should I or any other reasonable person try and guess what lies beyond our thoughts in places we could never know?

You are the Universe experiencing itself.

>>12574940
>>12574908
Based.

How is your mind not physical, its an object.

>>12572427
I'm not a materialist, I ultimately believe there is a pure world of form (including being AND becoming) from which the material amd mental world arise.

That being said:
>Quantum mechanics has shown that the physical properties of the world exist only insofar as they are perceptually experienced by minds.
Is untrue.

When they say observation causes wave-function collapse, this doesn't mean a sentient observer. It means an interaction with the system. This interaction can be something like "shining a light" on a particle (i.e. sending a photon with known properties at a particle and using a light sensor to see how the photon's properties have been changed).

Even better than proposing convoluted models of the world based on a strong form of idealism is realizing that there are universal laws that allow the existence of conscious beings. That is, there are certain conditions that will lead to the existence of conscious beings no matter what. If there weren't, we wouldn't be here.

>>12574916
This just regresses to the same question with regard to the 'mind'. How do you know the mind is not physical? Also, you are not conscious of your thoughts arising, so how do you know you 'thought' them, or where they came from?

Can you define a 'mind'? Is 'thought' identical to experience? How do you know thoughts are perceived more directly than anything else? Why can't it all be integrated in a coherent system?

That we are trapped in our perspective does not establish any certainty that we aren't continuous with what we perceive, nor that reality isn't objective. Isn't our lack of omniscience a strong indication that things other than us exist, which do not depend on our experience?

Yes, we are both technically making assupmtions -- the question is which is more naive. Why is yours more probable?

>>12572427
I see Dr. Hoffman posts on fucking /lit

The answer to understanding consciousness is looking back on the entire evolutionary process (or even the history of the universe) as a way of reducing it to its basic elements and working your way up to where we are now.

>>12575108
You're assuming that consciousness is composed of "basic elements", and that it may be reduced. In fact most interpretations of consciousness throughout many traditions teach the exact opposite of this.

>>12572503
You literally don't know what the measurement problem even is

>>12573806
How does that explain the quantum eraser?

>>12575108
Silly one you are, placing the elements seen in consciousness before the consciousness they are seen in.

>>12575316
Jesus. It's the measurement itself that purportedly alters results, not the subsequent observation of those measurements. The measurement in DCQE happens automatically and the results are set before anyone looks at them.

>>12572923
Solipsism? Solipsism can't explain discovery of Neptune. It just looks there's objective world outside of mind.

>>12573688
Chinese room.

>>12576039
'No.'

>>12572474
poopoo pee pee fix your mind lol

>>12572427
Spinoza was proved right as science kept going desu. He adequately defined an end limit to metaphysics.

>>12572979
God Bless

>>12572427
Lotta effort for what amounts to a name.

>>12572427
>science cannot, even in principle, explain how an arbitrary configuration of atoms (a brain) could produce consciousness.
What's the difficulty there? It's just an illusion resulting from various perceptual progresses, which the brain is meant to analyze. Thoughts are just another sense, another kind of perception, as is self awareness.

>>12572427

>Claims he's not a materialist

>Needs physicalist instruments of measuring reality to validate his points

The hypocrisy couldn't be any greater in these kinds of people.

>>12575270
Any given abstraction is and can be fully described as the relationship between two or more objects. It is logically separate and distinct from the objects whose relationship it defines yet it can't exist in reality if any single of them is missing.

>>12576416
Can any physical qualities be predicated of my subjective experience itself?

>>12573015
>implying /lit/ brainlets have the capacity to understand quantum mechanics beyond what DFW tells them

>>12572427
>Quantum mechanics has shown that the physical properties of the world exist only insofar as they are perceptually experienced by minds

>>12573015
Quantum mechanics is a red herring not a red pill.

>>12572427
>Quantum mechanics has shown that the physical properties of the world exist only insofar as they are perceptually experienced by minds.
No lol
> While science cannot, even in principle, explain how an arbitrary configuration of atoms (a brain) could produce consciousness
How can you show this is impossoble even in principle? Besides "it just seems that way" or "I don't see how it could be possivle."

What I should read that I could take part in discussion in this thread? I have zero clue what is being said.

>>12578175
>How can you show this is impossoble even in principle? Besides "it just seems that way" or "I don't see how it could be possivle."

He's going to give you some business about the hard problem of consciousness. Probably some spiel about how scientific language can't explain what it's like to be a bat, or what sugar tastes like or some shit. It's all just vitalism.

>>12572427
>While science cannot, even in principle, explain how an arbitrary configuration of atoms (a brain) could produce consciousness.
citation?

>>12578199
Nothing. Just mix and match parts of other posts and pretend you know what you are talking about.

>>12573097
Please do publish the book. Fucking hate academia snobs; they need government supervision while the gobble all that tac money.

>>12572503
>Measurement Problem
cry of the wild pseud

>>12572700
I can't believe I share a board with you retards

>>12572427

> Quantum mechanics has shown that the physical properties of the world exist only insofar as they are perceptually experienced by minds. While science cannot, even in principle, explain how an arbitrary configuration of atoms (a brain) could produce consciousness.

Why do pseuds always jump to quantum physics?

>>12574100
Maybe I am misunderstanding something but isn't there a big difference between saying that the states of quantum particles are superimposed and saying that large scale phenomena are superimposed?

>>12578274
Because it's literally magic. Ain't gonna explain shit.

>>12574107
yes

>>12578299
Wrong.

>>12578307
Not wrong.

>>12574276
>Consciousness has no relation to le chemical activity of the brain
really? how does brain injury work?

>>12578313
NO U

>>12578307
curious, how could one be conscious without a subjective experience? and how could one have a subjective experience without being conscious? seems like one is a sufficient condition for the other

>>12572427
read Peirce

>>12572427
>>12572427
Would heidegger be a neutral monist? I think he just sees us as conduits for the being of phenomena

>>12578402
Heidegger is like quadism

>>12574658
Actually it kinda is.

Our perceptions are limited to how much of causality we see. Can you perceive infinity? Can you measure it? No. You cant.

Look up Zeno' arrow paradox, if you arent familiar with it.

Process philosophy and whitehead are based.

>>12578334
I don't know exactly. For example think of a cat or some other animal like that. A cat certainly has subjective experiences but at the same time it doesn't sound right to say that it is conscious of them. Here is another angle: you could say that a cat wants something but you wouldn't say that a cat has made a decision to do something.

So subjective experience are the so called qualia i.e. being able to form an integrated abstract representation of your sensory experiences while consciousness is more of an intellectual thing, like reason, but I am not sure exactly how to define it in respect to subjective experience.
I think they can are analytically distinct concepts though from evolutionary perspective consciousness developed later because it could have no practical functionality without subjective experience. Consciousness is useful for advanced decision making but since consciousness is purely abstract while decision making is practical in nature consciousness must necessarily make use of subjective experience to be of evolutionary advantage.

>>12578440
I do think cats are conscious of their subjective experience. why make the assumption they are not?
>consciousness is more of an intellectual thing, like reason
no it's not. firstly, reason exists below consciousness, I would say below subjective experience. Kant figured this out, subjective experience corresponds to a logical form. I think you want to extrapolate consciousness to personhood, but I don't see the use in that. secondly, I still am at a loss about having subjective experience without consciousness; is a cat a philosophical zombie? do you agree with Descartes that vivisection of animals is no worse than vivisection of plants?

>>12578334
'Subjective experience' is just what we call the necessity of our perspective. 'Subjective experience' itself can be objective in nature (as in the subjective experience of another could objectively exist). Subjective experience is consequence of our form of consciousness, not a precondition.

>>12578417
No, it kind of isn't. Measurement can be set up to occur automatically, and it is this recording which is supposed to alter particle histories in QM, not the subsequent observation of said recording by conscious beings.

Indeed, our perceptions are limited... Which is why we perceive paradoxes in the first place (they're only apparent contradictions, not necessarily real ones). Zeno's arrow relies upon falsely divorcing concepts of motion and space from thermodynamic evolution. That our perception is limited does not indicate that we are not continuous with what we do perceive.

>>12578540
>Subjective experience is consequence of our form of consciousness, not a precondition.
you never actually answered my question, if that is true, how can you be conscious without subjective experience? saying something is conscious without subjective experience is like saying something has vision without being able to see

>>12578498
Well this is shaping up like an argument over semantics.
>why make the assumption they are not?
I am aware that this concept is kind of vague so I gave an example that I think is more intuitive: Do you think that a cat can make a decision?
>firstly, reason exists below consciousness, I would say below subjective experience
I probably used the word incorrectly anyway. I am not sure of exactly how reason is used in philosophical circles. I just wanted to underline my intuition that consciousnesses is more intellectual in nature. But I am not sure if this is true and even what I mean by it.
What you say about reason intuitively sounds wrong but since we are not discussing that it's better to let it go for now.
>I think you want to extrapolate consciousness to personhood
I don't think so.
>I still am at a loss about having subjective experience without consciousness
Because we probably don't mean the same thing by consciousness.In any case there is something more to experience than just qualia whatever you choose to call it.
>is a cat a philosophical zombie?
No. As I said a cat has subjective experience and can experience qualia.
>do you agree with Descartes that vivisection of animals is no worse than vivisection of plants?
No, how did you gather that? I said that cats have subjective experience. Moreover I don't think that subjective experience is a necessary requirement for having a soul. Animism sort of makes sense to me. Of course this could just be a delusion but then what isn't?

>>12578577
Well, someone can have vision and not be seeing, or have the capacity for consciousness but not be conscious (asleep). That subjective experience necessarily follows from our consciousness does not indicate that it's a precondition. Which means 'one is not a sufficent condition for the other', but rather subjectivity is the consequence of consciousness.

>>12578596
>Do you think that a cat can make a decision?
yes, they do make decisions all the time. my cat doesn't like certain brands of food, now I could say that it is simply operating as a robot, but I remember buying him the food, and him trying it, and him not liking it. he remembers that he doesn't like that food, he decides not to eat it. again, it could all be robotic, but that's not the way we understand brains to work. Occams razor would suggest their brains work they way our brains do, and not a totally mechanical, unconscious mode of operation. you have given me literally no evidence to support this leap in logic.
>intuition
anon did you just admit you don't know what you're talking about and this whole thing is an appeal to intuition? I hope not
>something more to experience than just qualia
again, the question is: is it possible for qualia to be experienced by something non-concious, or for something non-conscious to experience qualia? I would argue no.
>a cat has subjective experience and can experience qualia
then it's conscious by most philosophical definitions of consciousness
>I said that cats have subjective experience
sure, but if they have no conscious understanding of their subjective experience then what's the difference between them and a rock that has "subjective experience"? or a camera that with photosensitive sensors?

>>12578652
>someone can have vision and not be seeing
anon when I close my eyes I see the inside of my eyelids, you can't have vision and not see, that's the whole point. it's like saying "sure, rain is wet, but I can imagine other things as being dry, so surely rain doesn't have to be wet", it's a nonsequitur
>Which means 'one is not a sufficent condition for the other', but rather subjectivity is the consequence of consciousness.
please produce an example of this dry rain I would love to see it

>>12578652
>someone can have vision and not be seeing, or have the capacity for consciousness but not be conscious (asleep).
hahahaha do you really this this?

>>12578705
think this*

I think the main problem we have here is that we only have one particular example of consciousness.

How can we claim we are talking about consciousness off of one example?

>>12572427
If it's not totally obvious to you by now that the world is material in nature, you're too low IQ or mentally ill for it to be worth it to try to convince you.

The only reason to believe in existential idealism is a case of narcissism bordering on schizophrenia, or a fear of death approaching psychosis.

>>12578687
You don't know that. Ostensibly you still have a capacity for vision when you go to sleep, even if you aren't utilizing it at the time.

I'm not saying that rain isn't wet, I'm saying that rain is a consequence of fluid dynamics, not a precondition of fluid dynamics.

>>12578762
define materialism

>>12578776
youre talking bullshit. vision is seeing. you cant see when youre asleep unless your dreaming. youre not conscious when asleep unless youre dreaming.

>>12578668
>yes, they do make decisions all the time.
Again might be a matter of semantics but decision implies that free will was exercised. Would you hold your cat responsible for biting you? Your cat is not an automaton because it has subjective preferences to act in one way or another based on its subjective experiences but it is not conscious of having made a choice to act in one way or another.
>anon did you just admit you don't know what you're talking about and this whole thing is an appeal to intuition?
AAAAAH. How dare talk to you when I don't even know everything.
>is it possible for qualia to be experienced by something non-conscious
Again this question stems from the fact that you seem to have some idea of consciousness that is different from mine. Asking me something like that is pointless because I am not talking about your perceptions but about my own.
>then it's conscious by most philosophical definitions of consciousness
See above.
>but if they have no conscious understanding of their subjective experience then what's the difference between them and a rock that has "subjective experience"?
The cat has legs.
>or a camera that with photosensitive sensors?
The camera has no subjective experience.

>>12578540
Could you explain what you mean by thermodynamic evolution? I genuinely am not familiar with that term/concept.

But in regards to my claim that measurement and perception being the same. I guess what I really mean, disregarding what QM says about the role of concsciousness in the whole thing, is that measurement is just a more refined and extended version of perception. We can create machines that automatically measure a thing without us consciously observing it, i.e. a calculator finding the exact point some curve is when x = 1.5. But we can do the same by ourselves, i guess not through the general sense of perception, but the faculty of reasoning residing in it. I may be just confused in what i mean by the word perception.

I cannot say whether or not consciousness observation plays any fundamental role in affecting the measurement problem or not. But i would say that our perception/consciousness is the fundamental thing that shapes the reality we reside in. This just might be due to some of my preconceived biases.

I thinm we might be holding the same ideas/beliefs about of all of this, but that my structuring of these ideas are not clear or made to make sense in linguistic terms.

>>12572427
try Bergson

>>12578822
there is literally no reason to drag free will into this, most neuroscientists doubt we humans have free will anyways. Dennett directly argues that free will is an illusion.
>The camera has no subjective experience
how on earth could you argue that? you've already stripped it down to pure perception, and the photosensor is designed to perceive the light in front of it and have it assembled into a representative image. what more is needed for your idea of subjective experience? maybe you should read some philosophy of mind before we continue this conversation

>>12578813
And you seem barely able to talk... You've ignored capacity entirely. Do you lose the capacity for consciousness and vision when you go to sleep? If so, how do you wake up and see again?

>>12578822
>Would you hold your cat responsible
this is culturally loaded.

>but it is not conscious of having made a choice to act in one way or another.
[citation needed] and though it may not be capable of making complex decisions about human related thing, it still can make decisions.

>>12573722
>what is a p-zombie
You've got some reading to do, sweetie.

>>12578860
your brain can exist in many different states and can cycle between them.
capacity is irrelevant. i could say i have eyes so i have the capacity to see but it doesnt mean my brain is in a seeing state. just like, in a more specific sense, i have the capacity to recognice faces doesnt mean im constantly seeing faces.

>>12578860
>If so, how do you wake up and see again?

>>12578857
a camera has no subjective experience because it has no way to acknowledge it does. it has no subject for there to be subjectivity.

subjective experience is not just about the image but acknowledging the image.

also as a side note its obvious that cameras are not complex enough.

>>12572427
>Quantum mechanics has shown that the physical properties of the world exist only insofar as they are perceptually experienced by minds.
baka - in order for us to measure things, we change the environment of what we are measuring (not mind over matter bull-fucking-shit). (I'm assuming where you're coming from)
Also if you want to argue subject-object duality look up Heidegger (if i am willing to accept the presence of my mind the external world necessarily follows).

>>12578860
You seem stuck on this idea. Are you an early undergrad?

>>12578826
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_of_time#The_thermodynamic_arrow_of_time

Fair enough, I respect you for being willing to think critically about your definitions, even if we disagree.

My response is simply: How can we be certain that it is not an objective reality which shapes our perception/consciousness (as a result of evolutionary adaptation, for example)? If we cannot be absolutely certain about which case is true (subjectve vs objective primacy), then shouldn't we take the assumption which demonstrates predictive power (objective reality)?

>>12578919
>subjective experience is not just about the image but acknowledging the image
so you're saying subjective experience needs something to be conscious about the image which it has experienced? wow, it's almost like consciousness is a necessary and sufficient condition for subjective experience

>>12578797
That the universe exists without our consciousness and our consciousness does not exist without the universe.

>>12578826
What do you mean by refined and extended?
>We can create machines that automatically measure a thing without us consciously observing it, i.e. a calculator finding the exact point some curve is when x = 1.5
...doesn't this prove that measurement can be independent perception? What's your argument here.

What the other anon was saying about zeno's paradox, not that I necessarily agree but it certainly has validity, is that motion itself is actually just a product of perception. The principle of least action seems to imply that the time evolution of a system is a pre-existing structure. Thus, you're not going halfway to the finish line, you're experiencing the world at a different point of the coordinate time. Just because you experience, does not mean you act. Your completion of the race is the original fact, it already exists, it's not a derivative of motion, and therefore is not subject to zeno's paradox.

>>12578958
define "our"

>>12578857
There is a reason because free will is related to consciousness.
>Dennett directly argues that free will is an illusion.
An illusion is fine to. I don't think that cat have an "illusion" of free will.
>you've already stripped it down to pure perception
I haven't. I equated subjective experience with qualia and (tentatively?) defined those as abstract representations of sensory experience. I don't think a mere photosensor allows you to form abstract representations.
>maybe you should read some philosophy of mind before we continue this conversation
You can stop talking to me any time you want.

>this is culturally loaded
I am not exactly sure what you mean by that but in any case my question doesn't hold any socio-ethical implications. It is just meant to be an example that is easy to understand. Again, depending on how you choose to define "decision" the cat might have made one but it was not aware of doing so. That is all.
>though it may not be capable of making complex decisions about human related thing, it still can make decisions.
[citation needed]

>>12578969
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=defintion+of+our

>>12578890
Capacity is relevant to how the states are possible. How does your brain cycle? Is the act of sight a precondition of the possibility of vision, or is it the consequence of a capacity for vision?

May I gently suggest that you lack the intellectual capacity (the precondition) for logical argument?

>>12578975
I only say you should read more, because you keep using simple terminology like qualia in bizzare fashions
>Qualia are often referred to as the phenomenal properties of experience, and experiences that have qualia are referred to as being phenomenally conscious.
https://www.iep.utm.edu/qualia/

>>12578983
>t. never been in a philosophy class
if by "our consciousness" you mean "human consciousness" you have not actually debunked idealism.

>>12578936
>(as a result of evolutionary adaptation, for example)?
great point, we only perceive the world because our brain is adapted to seeing that world. a.i actually shows this is necessarily the case.

>>12578992
>phenomenal properties
You mean like representations? Like exactly what I said?

>>12579007
>experiences that have qualia are referred to as being phenomenally conscious.
>he can't make it to the end of sentences
never going to make it metaphysically

>>12578997
>never been in a philosophy class
I wish that were true.

define idealism.

>>12578687
Blindsight

>>12579015
For the thousandth time I don't care about your definitions of consciousness. What exactly are you trying to prove? That you have the bigger philosophy dick? I don't care. Don't feel obligated to respond to me.

>>12578975
>>though it may not be capable of making complex decisions about human related thing, it still can make decisions.
>[citation needed]

dude the most popular animal to study human cognition now is a rat. theres hundreds of studies out there about rats making decisions, im pretty sure cats can. its unnecessary for me to find you a study when its so obvious.

>>12579055
Again your argument boils down to semantic nitpicking about the definition of the word decision.

>>12578986
but the possibility isnt the same an actuality. yes a capacity for something is necessary but it isnt the same as the thing itself.

retard.

>>12579029
are you saying people with blindsight aren't conscious? or is it supposed to be "seeing without vision"? because this gets into some very complex issues of brain functionality which neurologists don't fully understand. the way that it's typically understood is that their eyes can still see, but that there is some interruption between that faculty and the part of your brain which assembles that information into conscious representation (visual cortex). I'm not a neurologist so I really couldn't comment on what degree that is or isn't vision.

>>12573043
>Why is consciousness considered to be magical again?
You must understand what he's getting at. The fact that the human mind can comprehend itself is a paradox that makes a mockery out of all science.

>>12579076
It makes a mockery out of scientism*

Science smirks and shrugs it's shoulders.

>>12579033
>your definitions
they don't belong to me, I never came up with them; but if you want to have a philosophical conversation you have to expect people to use philosophical definitions. would you argue with a biologist about the nature of evolution because you have a different definition for the word gene than scientists use?

>>12579070
>yes a capacity for something is necessary but it isnt the same as the thing itself

Exactly! Consciousness is the capacity necessary for subjective experience, but they are not the same thing. If subjective experience is contingent upon that capacity, it cannot be a precondition of it. Congratulations, I didn't think you'd actually connect the dots.

>>12579112
I'm not that anon but you haven't show why consciousness is the capacity instead of subjective experience -- why can't the level of subjective experience be the capacity to which consciousness can exist?

>>12579102
Yes, assuming that I thought that the current definition and the presumed function of the gene didn't match I would require either a redefinition of the term or a creation of a new term that matches that presumed function.

>>12579076
>that understanding proceeds from observation makes a mockery out of all science

Whew! Okay buddy... Maybe take a break, have a snack or something. Get that blood sugar back up before your brain blue screens.

>>12579141
you didn't redefine it, you just used it in the way a first year philosophy student would before they actually sat down and read Lewis

>>12579064
its not my semantic nitpicking its yours. my definition of decision is broader than yours.

>>12579112
>Consciousness is the capacity necessary for subjective experience
this is your own thing youve made up you faggot.

whats the different between consciousness and subjective experience.

Today's TED-Ed about consciousness

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MASBIB7zPo4

>>12579130
What is 'the level of subjective experience'?

Subjective experience is our perspective, which we can't certainly assume to be our actual consciousness (the capacity). That our subjective experience halts in deep sleep, or in fainting or is halted/modulated in many other circumstances seems to indicate that something else is affected which our subjective experience is contingent upon.

>>12579159
see
>>12579199

>>12579199
>Subjective experience is our perspective, which we can't certainly assume to be our actual consciousness
nigga why though? you keep saying this like it's common sense or accepted by anyone other than you

>>12579166
his theories quite shitty. he conflates metacognition with consciousness which is wrong. hes actually just a shill trying his luck to make a reputation with some edgy theory to make himself look good like every other neuroscientist tries to so. but theres no substance here.

the problem is hes not a cognitive psychologist/neuroscientist. hes a neuroanatomist. this isnt his field and hes failed miserably.

>>12579199
>Subjective experience is our perspective
No it is not.

>>12579199
You do know your whole argument boils down to
>when you're unconscious you're actually conscious the whole time man woah lmao *hits blunt*

>>12579154
You asked me a question and I answered it. I am not a philosopher and I am not an evolutionary biologist. If you don't like my use of the word consciousness give me the correct term for what I am describing and I will gladly use it.

>>12579159
Whether your definition is broader or narrower is irrelevant. What is relevant is that I am not talking about what you want me to be talking about and you can't seem to understand that. If you don't like my use of the word decision give me the correct term that matches the narrower definition that I have in mind and I will gladly use it.

>>12579212
Can't -certainly- assume. You can assume it all you want, but if you want to -certainly- assume, then you'll have to logically demonstrate why it's the only possibility. I recommend learning some basic logic before attempting philosophical debate.

>>12578286
This is the measurement problem in a nutshell: the inconsistency arising from the need to postulate the behavior of macroscopic objects when that behavior should instead follow from the theory of the constituents. Everett disables the problem simply by asserting that macroscopic objects (the biggest of all! The universe!) DO in fact behave like their constituents and we live in this branching structure. A simple and elegant solution.

>>12579199
>which we can't certainly assume to be our actual consciousness (the capacity)

why?
also what do you mean by capacity.

>>12579220
Says you.

>>12579225
No, that's actually your argument. Amazing you can't see this.

>>12579227
I linked you the article for the word qualia, which equates it to consciousness and links to the page on consciousness. I quoted you the definition too. What more can I do to hold your hand anon?

>>12579252
I don't think you understood my post.

>>12579229
You are the only one making a claim of certainty though retard, so you are the one who needs to logically demonstrate why consciousness is an empty capacity void of subjective experience. The sleep example is retarded, we literally call deep sleep "being unconscious"

>>12579270
No, I'm not claming certainty you bottom-dwelling pseud.

>>12578936

>>12579259
okay anon, if you want a name just call your definition of consciousness "my personal brand of retardation (tm)"

>>12579276
wait, do you somehow think that consciousness needs to be a capacity in order for subjective experience to be effected by "objective reality"? and that this is demonstrated through "predictive power"? literally what the fuck is your argument?

>>12579278
Well, indeed, my conversation with you sure does make me think that I must possess some level of awareness that you lack.

>>12579270
Man you are a barely coherent gibbering monkey at this point. Time to stop.

>>12579302
youve stopped arguing back. you know your ideas are bullshit.

>>12579302
>I don't think you're right anon, please demonstrate this logically
>REEEEE UR A GIBBERING MONKEY REEEE

>>12579298
Yeah... Anon I... You're not mentally equipped for philosophical debate. Have a nice life.

>>12579325
>literally oh sweatys rather than lay out a simple syllogism
these threads always bring out the psueds

>>12579325
kys, youve been out-chimped

>>12572427
It's a shame that there will never be a satisfying answer to the mind-body problem that isnt just a semantic game. Maybe someday we will have supercomputers capable of answering this question and dumbing down the answer enough that our feeble meat brains can comprehend it.

>>12578274
Because no one really understands it so it makes you less likely to be called out on your BS

Why do these types of threads always attract the most ignorant STEMfags like >>12579450

>>12579482
Joke's on you, I got a BFA.

>>12578286
A phenomenon is the state, it doesn't look like there's a difference, just another way to say the same thing.

>>12578958
Is that really a sufficient definition of materialism? I've always thought it to additionally mean that all there is is physical matter. I could be off here though.

>>12579313
>>12579316

No, he failed to understand a very simple logical argument. As follows:

We cannot establish the absolute certainty of reality being either subjective or objective in nature. In selecting a working assumption, it is logical to favour the model which is more probable. The predictive power of the objective reality model is an indicator of probability (it can predict things we have yet to subjectively experience), just as lack of omniscience is.

There is little point in continuing to engage someone who doesn't understand basic logic, and who resorts to strawmanning with word salads.

What fiction book are you guys talking about?

>>12579594
>The predictive power of the objective reality model is an indicator of probability
If by probability you mean the probability that this model represents anything "real" then absolutely not. Instrumentalism, the model for maximizing predictive power, is an anti-realist position. The people who actually follow that model know themselves that what they value, predictive power, tells them NOTHING about any sort of "truth" to being or reality in general. I don't think this is bait, but you seem to have fundamentally misunderstood the position you have adopted.

>>12579235
cringe

>>12579536
It is.

The most "real" thing humans have an understanding of is information

Our thoughts are certainly information, so it doesn't make sense to say our thoughts aren't real when physical reality is. You could argue whether physical reality is more or less "real" than consciousness, but whatever logic you use, both exist or both don't. Materialism only states that our thoughts are a compression of physical information.

Idealism, to my knowledge, is the viewpoint that all the information about the universe that exists is stored in our minds. A derivation of our mental libraries. Which is of course impossible to disprove absolutely, but nonetheless seems unfathomably retarded to me. I could be wrong, I asked for a definition of idealism and none was given.

>>12579076
Is it really a paradox? Explain.

>>12579715
Materialism means there is only physical matter, idealism means there are only ideas; they both simply mean monism. What "minds" are, if they exist, and what role they play in the system are all specific positions which aren't reducible to what form of monism you pick.To be honest you sound closer to a physicalist than anything else, but really these are very loose categories with little descriptive value

>>12573015
Jews.


(this post is ironic)

>>12579674
I'm not an instrumentalist, I'm a scientific realist.

Whatever we are experiencing is real in some form. Any appearance must follow from an actuality (even if the entirey of the actual is hidden from us). That the model which assumes reality to be mind-independent can predict things we hadn't already experienced does indicate the probability of reality being mind-independent. That we are not omniscient suggests reality is independent of our mind.

>>12579785
philosophy is just semantics, surprise surprise

I was basing what I was saying off the OP and considering physicalism and materialism synonymous, I guess they're not though?

>>12579860
>I'm not an instrumentalist, I'm a scientific realist.
Alright that is fine. Still, my point stands, for you need to understand that predictive power does not give what a scientific realist seeks, that being, real knowledge of real objects. Predictive power bears no necessary relation to the reality of objects.

>>12579685
Saying cringe is pretty cringe. Anyway, care to elaborate?

>>12579860
scientitic realism is wrong ducking midget

>>12572427
That is not what quantum mechanics has shown and I'm betting you came here because /sci/ told you to fuck off until you can read the math.

The universe very well may be mental in nature but nothing in quantum mechanics has shown that.

>>12572427
>the world doesn't exist outside of my head

>>12580068
prove it does...

>>12579960
Does knowledge have to be perfect/complete to be real? Perhaps the relation is not necessary, but it is probable. Why would it be more probable that predictive power (which allows us to manipulate reality -- whatever it is) does not tell us anything true about objects?

The subjective realists itt haven't even bothered to posit why subjective reality is more probably. They seem to content to rest upon epistemological skepticism while hypocritically claiming an unestablished certainty of their own.

>>12580009
Oh, ok.

>>12579893
how do those definitions prove philosophy is just semantics? they are pretty simple definitions.

>>12580157
>Perhaps the relation is not necessary, but it is probable.
Saying it is probable is a complete guess given what I have already stated.

>Does knowledge have to be perfect/complete to be real?
Can a real thing be somewhat real and somewhat not real?

>which allows us to manipulate reality
Saying predictive power allows us to manipulate reality is too strong a statement for me to agree with.

>>12580242
>bro *hits bong*, everything we say is like... words bro

>>12580249
maybe theories are good at predicting because they are real

>>12580347
Maybe, but alas that is merely a guess.

>>12580394
well then is it real that the earth is curved?

>>12580249
Guesses are usually concerned with what is probable, yes.

>Can a real thing be somewhat real and somewhat not real?
This is a strawman. The question is whether you have to have complete knowledge of something to have any knowledge of it. Why is it more likely that the appearance of something tells us nothing at all about the reality of it?

Would you mind showing how the alternative (subjective reality) is more probable? It's long overdue that the subjective realists actually make a case instead of pretending that technical uncertainty doesn't also apply to their assumption.

>>12580256
>How Can Dictionaries Be Real If Words Aren't Even Real?

>>12580411
If I did not know the Earth was curved, no amount of predictive power could teach me the truth of its curvature.

>>12572427
>Quantum mechanics has shown that the physical properties of the world exist only insofar as they are perceptually experienced by minds.
The state of system is described as a complex vector inside a 3n dimensional Hilbert space, what the fuck does that have to do with minds and conciousness?

>>12580097
>*holds up left hand*
Here is one hand
>*holds up right hand*
Here is another hand
There are at least two external objects in the world
Therefore an external world exists

>>12580437
>If I did not know the Earth was curved
then how do you know

>>12580437

>>12580437
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes#Measurement_of_the_Earth's_circumference

>>12580452
>then how do you know
like this anon said >>12580458 I measure it. Predictive power told me nothing of its curvature and will continue to tell me nothing.

If subjectivists won't make an argument as to why subjective reality is more probable, they have de facto conceded the debate.

>>12580479
strawman, any measurement presupposes that you already thought the world was round.

obviously the guy thought the earth was curbed because there were observations about it better explained by it being curved.

>>12580479
no, he had to make the assumption that the earth was round before he could use the equations he used, which was a prediction based on the observation of other celestial bodies.

>>12580500
>he thinks he's arguing against subjectivists

>>12580513
Well if you're a hard epistemological skeptic, then why bother at all. Also, the claim that we can't have ontological knowledge is an ontological truth claim.

>>12580412
>>Can a real thing be somewhat real and somewhat not real?
>This is a strawman.
Maybe it is, only you can tell me that.
>The question is whether you have to have complete knowledge of something to have any knowledge of it.
If there is something you know, but this something known has parts of it which are unknown, can you really consider yourself to truly know that thing?

>Would you mind showing how the alternative (subjective reality) is more probable? It's long overdue that the subjective realists actually make a case instead of pretending that technical uncertainty doesn't also apply to their assumption.
Read this thread with an intelligent eye.

>>12580530
Do you really think idealists deny ontological knowledge? Have you ever read Kant or Hegel? Their projects were to save cognition from the radical epistemological skepticism of the materialist tradition coming from Descartes, Locke, Hume, ect.

>>12580479
so is the world round?

>>12580586
Apparently.

>>12580595
but is it REALly round?

>>12580550
What is 'truly knowing'? Do you have to have made all possible calculations with a mathematical system to validate all preceding calculations as true?

You're resorting to non-argument and misdirection (and have been for awhile). It's pretty sad desu.

>>12580556
Have you read Kant? The whole point of transcendental idealism was to shift the focus of philosophical inquiry from the ontological to the epistemological. He doubted the attainability of ontological knowledge.

The problem of induction was never a proscription against empiricism, it was just a prescription to be open to new information.

>>12580624
>What is 'truly knowing'?
Knowing whatever thing you want to know as it is within itself and most completely. How can I grasp what a person is if I only can see the clothes he is wearing?

>>12580624
>He doubted the attainability of ontological knowledge.
wrong. he was against what is sometimes called ontology (he called metaphysica generalis) regarding the nature of things-in-themselves, but his defense of synthetic a priori judgements was an explicit defense of what we would call today ontological knowledge.
>The problem of induction was never a proscription against empiricism
Hume certainly thought it was

>>12575946
> idealism is solipsism

>>12580672
Ok, so again, how does 'partly knowing' indicate that no knowledge of reality is conveyed in appearances? Or alternatively, what makes partial knowledge impossible? How exactly does incomplete knowledge detract from the possibility of objective reality?

>>12573806
>No, the thing that collapses the superposition is the interaction you do to obtain information about it, aka. beaming photons at the thing to get information back.
No, that is explicitly a wrong interpretation of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. It has nothing to do with measurement; it has everything to do with mathematics

>>12580729
>how does 'partly knowing' indicate that no knowledge of reality is conveyed in appearances?
Because in your concession that what we see is mere appearances, and with the knowledge that appearances do not *necessarily* reveal any quality of objects-in-themselves, we cannot assume that truly complete knowledge can be found anywhere within appearances. This also answers the remaining part of your post.
>Or alternatively, what makes partial knowledge impossible? How exactly does incomplete knowledge detract from the possibility of objective reality?

>>12580256
>bro, like what is, like truth??
>like do we even, like EXIST???
the irony of a philosopher fag saying someone is a bong ripper

>>12580434
What is matter? What are ideas? What separates the two? Any philosophical discussion I try to have turns into a quite literal infinite regress of definitions. You need to talk about disparities in real world situations, even if they're hypothetical, if you want to give your words meaning.

>very loose categories with little descriptive value
You just defined philosophy

>>12580729
the problem is how do you know when you completely know?

>>12580774
2nd part was meant for
>>12580242
Like how can you say they are simple definitions when you use the words matter and ideas and go on to say the difference between them is irreducible.

>>12580757
So does the world only appear round?

>>12580808
Since everything which can possibly be seen is an appearance, yes.

>>12580774
>the irony of a philosopher fag saying someone is a bong ripper
You are right on this point. Still it's funny when someone who is unaware of the nature of the conversation is trying to reduce everything down to semantics.

>>12572427
Materialism is untenable and is fundamentally rooted in faith.

>>12580686
Kant and Hume were both empiricists. With the problem of induction, Hume was pointing out the technical uncertainty of knowledge gained from induction. He knew that we are nonetheless largely confined to induction and wasn't asserting that it is impossible to gain knowledge through its application. Kant on the other hand, did assert that the noumenal is entirely unknowable, a postulate which he did not certainly establish.

>>12580757
I disagree -- appearances must reveal some truth about their source. Any appearance of distinction must follow from actual distinction.

'Truly complete knowledge' is an absurd requirement. Subjective reality is not supported in any way by lack of knowledge (quite the opposite).

>>12580757
define knowledge then. what would it mean ti have knowledge of something as opposed to knowledge of its appearance?

>>12580879
there's no point in trying to teach you Kant so here's the IEP telling you that you're wrong

>>12580879
>>12580927

>>12580874
>Physicalism is probable and is fundamentally rooted in observation.

FTFY

>>12580936
read some bhaskar

>>12580852
the nature of the conversation is redefining terms to pussyfoot around the actual discussion so yeah that's nothing more than semantics, sorry. I'm arguing materialism/physicalism vs idealism and then someone comes in and says physicalism and idealism are both just monism. Why aren't monism and dualism both just realism? You can make every philosophical ideology equivalent just be cleverly defining your terms. If that's not semantics then idk what is.

>>12580774
>Any philosophical discussion I try to have turns into a quite literal infinite regress of definitions
this is a sign you don't have an adequate idea of the terminology. when scientists tell someone their wrong for misunderstanding what is meant by observation, you can't just say it's all semantics and that whatever I mean by observation is good enough so keep up. people actually study philosophy, they care about it, and part of that involves understanding the jargon. once you understand what philosophers mean by a term, then you can debate it (after all, philosophers disagree with one another), but your ignorance isn't an intellectual defence

>>12580936
Yes, Hume called into question any -rational justification- (emphasis) for induction or the absolute certainty of knowledge obtained thereof. He did not deny the possibility such knowledge, however.

"without the influence of custom we would be entirely ignorant of every matter of fact beyond what is immediately present to the memory and senses" - David Hume
The 'custom' being induction.

>>12580981
all monism means is that there is only one substance, idealists think this is ideas, materialists think it's material, physicalists think it's the physical world -- all of these are monist positions. why do people try and argue philosophy if they don't even take the time to read the wikipedia article of whatever they are talking about?

>>12581001
>if they don't even take the time to read the wikipedia article of whatever they are talking about?
kek, great satire

>>12580982
Do you not know what an infinite regress is? It doesn't matter if terms are defined if, at some point, the terms used in the definition aren't themselves defined.

>>12581001
Ok, now define substance.

Based on this definition you can include all or none of the existential viewpoints.

I mean rofl how do you still not get it?

>>12581022
I'm being serious, knowing what the words "monism" or "idealism" means isn't even a matter of reading philosophy, you don't even need to go to the encyclopedias for that, you can find those definitions on wikipedia. it's a display of the incredible amount of ignorance to the subject material.

>>12580981
They always do. Uncertainty is the idealists and subjectivists best defense (even though it doesn't establish any certainty for their position either). Notice how they refuse to make arguments for the probability of their positions, it's always demand and subvert -- never demonstration.

>>12581041
>Ok, now define substance.
according to who anon? no one has had a good definition of substance since empiricism came on the intellectual scene, that's exactly why materialist and idealists are still arguing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsLOVYTLt90

>>12581058
>no one has had a good definition of substance
>that's exactly why materialist and idealists are still arguing
>arguing
>about a definition
"It's not semantics guys, I promise!!!1"

>>12581075
anon, all semantics means is the study of meaning in language, I don't know why you keep using it pejoratively. semantics obviously comes into play, but this is true of all disciplines, no one would be able to communicate without it. but really, what were you expecting to find going into a discussion about substance? did you really expect philosophy to have the answers to all the mysteries of the universe worked out?

>>12581133
His point is that instead of arguing logically, many simply build their assumptions into their definitions and beat their interlocutors over the head with them. The valid approach would to be to propose a definition for consensus, or use the most neutral possible meaning (least included assumptions) and argue logically from there.

>>12581133
>did you really expect philosophy to have the answers to all the mysteries of the universe worked out?
Not when they're too busy jerking themselves over definitions to actually talk about the subject matter. In math and science if we don't know what to call something, someone goes "uhh, let's call it, uh, a ring" or "hrmm, let's call it color charge" and everyone's fucking fine with it because they don't care what it's called, they care what it represents.

Meanwhile in philosophy people are so attached to the words themselves that they will desperately redefine the word to adapt to any logical arguments defeating their original position. Or maybe they don't care about the word, but because the word is still attached to their original stance they think they're actually making a successful deflection of the argument by using a proxy definition.

The end result is "my philosophy=believing everything that is feasible to common sense is possible" no matter what you originally called your philosophy. Thus the different philosophies are actually just different ways of phrasing "believing everything that is feasible to common sense is possible". Do you realize how stupid that is? How is that worth having a conversation about?

>>12580913
>what would it mean to have knowledge of something as opposed to knowledge of its appearance?
It would mean exactly that, knowledge of the appearance instead of knowledge of the thing itself.

>>12581175
>propose a definition for consensus
there are a consensus for much of these terms, that's why I keep linking the IEP but apparently referring to academic sources is "semantics" and therefore wrong
>>12581219
you have literally no idea what you're talking about. audit an introductory philosophy class at a community collage or something

>>12581219
>and everyone's fucking fine with it because they don't care what it's called, they care what it represents.
This is exactly the case ITT with the exception of people like you who are simply unfamiliar with the terminology and how philosophers utilize it within discussion. You seem to not have the tools which enable you to participate in this topic. This answers every part of your post.

>>12581315
Well, consensus between present company for purpose of debate is what I was referring to, otherwise it can devolve into appeals to authority.

You only linked IEP once to clarify a definition, and the very existence of qualia is disputed, so you're exaggerating somewhat. Nonetheless, the intent is appreciated.

>>12581315
nice argument you fucking idiot. I've taken philosophy of the natural sciences and intro to pragmatism at an elite university, not that it matters.

>>12581333
>Materialism means there is only physical matter, idealism means there are only ideas; they both simply mean monism
>once you understand what philosophers mean by a term, then you can debate it
>you don't have an adequate idea of the terminology
>all monism means is that there is only one substance
"No man we don't care about the terminology at all!"

Listen you blithering retard. I know the definition of monism, physicalism, idealism, dualism, whatever other buzzwords you want to throw at me I can easily define. You're really not that smart for knowing what "thinking there is only one substance" is called.

My point is definition is not the same thing as MEANING. In many cases, almost all in philosophy, trying to extract meaning just from the definition will lead to an infinite regress. And just because people agree on a definition, DOES NOT MEAN THEY AGREE ON WHAT A TERM TRULY REPRESENTS.

>>12581333
He seems quite logically capable, which is the most required tool. He's tired of the goalpost shifting and he's right -- you're a squirrely bunch.

reading Lichtenberg made me very sympathetic to Kant's position. here is a transcription of one relevant excerpt from his "Waste Books":
(words in brackets were italicized in the original)
>With just the same degree of certainty with which we are convinced that something occurs <within us> we are also convinced that something occurs <outside us>. We understand the words <inside> and <outside> very well. There can be no one in the world, or who will ever be born, who is not sensible of this <distinction>; and for philosophy that suffices. It should not seek to transcend it; to do so would be to toil in vain and to waste one's time. For whatever may be the nature of things, it seems to have been arranged and settled that we can simply know nothing of them except that which lies in our ideas of them: and from this point of view, which I believe to be correct, the question whether things are really present outside of us, and are present in the form in which we see them, is truly totally without meaning. Is it not strange that man absolutely demands to have something twice when once would have been enough, and necessarily has to be enough because there exists no bridge between our ideas and the causes of them? We cannot think that anything can exist without a cause, but where then does this necessity lie? The answer again is <within us>, inasmuch as it is completely impossible for us to go out of ourselves. It truly matters little to me whether or not one wishes to call this idealism. Names are of no account. It is at any rate an idealism that recognizes through idealism that there are things outside of it and that everything has its causes: what more do you want? For there is no other reality for men, at least not for the philosophical. In ordinary life we are rightly satisfied with a less exalted situation. But I believe with full conviction: one must either completely abstain from philosophizing about these matters or philosophize <thus>. In the light of all this it is easy to see how right Herr Kant is to regard space and time as mere forms of perception. Nothing else is possible.

>>12581416
Seems you and him are in the same boat, assuming this metaphor is logically apprehensible to someone like you.

>>12581393
>reeeee philosophy is just semantics
>My point is definition is not the same thing as MEANING
every fucking time

>>12581393
>nice argument you fucking idiot. I've taken philosophy of the natural sciences and intro to pragmatism at an elite university, not that it matters.
Is this bait??

>>12581488
impressively low IQ response.

>>12581500
>uh durr is this le meme???

>>12581448
Yet there is no established certainty that we are not continuous with what we perceive (if we are, then there is a bridge), nor that no ontological knowledge is conveyed in appearances. All that is established is a general (even trivial) uncertainty.

The technical uncertainty is accepted, and still no one will argue for the supposedly superior probability of idealism's assumptions.

>>12581504
>starts arguing using a personalized definition
>actively devolves the conversation into a clusterfuck of trying to redefine centuries old terminology
>see philosophy is just semantics bro I don't even know what you're talking about
>My point is definition is not the same thing as MEANING

>>12581535
>starts arguing using a personalized definition
go ahead and quote where I did this buddy?

>>12581487
Oh, you mean the 'HMS Prioritizes logic over convention'?

Yes, and a worthy vessel she is.

>>12581552
you know this is an anonymous website right?

>>12581573
So you can't, got it.

Or were you only pretending to be retarded?

>>12581621

>>12581529
>Yet there is no established certainty that we are not continuous with what we perceive (if we are, then there is a bridge)
continuity with the rest of matter isn't a convincing argument that we can therefore know matter in itself - we are limited beings which evolved so that we can take in that information which would be useful enough to survive and propagate, not to understand the universe as it truly is.
I would even argue that the latter is beside the point. our most sophisticated machines capable of rendering the most accurate, microscopic readings of matter and energy are only proxy instruments for our sense data - they don't prove that we've exhausted our knowledge of the phenomena our instruments have been constructed to probe.
>nor that no ontological knowledge is conveyed in appearances.
I would never claim that no ontological knowledge is conveyed in appearances - only that total knowledge eludes us even in principle. to use one example, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle guarantees that we cannot know the exact position and momentum of a particle even in principle. only a hypothetical deity could do both simultaneously. that by itself shows that our empirical grasp on reality will never be total, and therefore proves the incompleteness of materialism as inherent to its project.
>The technical uncertainty is accepted, and still no one will argue for the supposedly superior probability of idealism's assumptions.
materialism has loads of fans because its results are useful, not because it's philosophically satisfying. most people in that camp are at a high schooler's level of understanding, who've never understood the other position.

>>12581727
>continuity with the rest of matter isn't a convincing argument that we can therefore know matter in itself - we are limited beings which evolved so that we can take in that information which would be useful enough to survive and propagate, not to understand the universe as it truly is.
If we are continuous with what we perceive, then we are perceiving some of what truly is. It is fallacious to equate partial apprehension with a status of being false or 'unreal'.

>I would never claim that no ontological knowledge is conveyed in appearances - only that total knowledge eludes us even in principle. to use one example, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle guarantees that we cannot know the exact position and momentum of a particle even in principle. only a hypothetical deity could do both simultaneously. that by itself shows that our empirical grasp on reality will never be total, and therefore proves the incompleteness of materialism as inherent to its project.
That's reasonable, but that fundamental uncertainty isn't the focus of the debate. Complete/perfect knowledge is an unreasonable standard, one which none of the proposed perspectives can aspire to. The issue is which model is more likely, and that uncertainty does indicate a greater probability of idealism (and no idealist has here accepted the reasonable challenge of arguing for that probability in any way).

>materialism has loads of fans because its results are useful, not because it's philosophically satisfying. most people in that camp are at a high schooler's level of understanding, who've never understood the other position.
I haven't seen anyone here arguing that pragmatism indicates probability. I hope by 'philosophically satisfying' you mean logical.

>>12581843
*doesn't indicate a greater probability

>>12581843
>It is fallacious to equate partial apprehension with a status of being false or 'unreal'.
I never said that. I even admitted:
>I would never claim that no ontological knowledge is conveyed in appearances
stretching my qualified statement to claim that the perceivable world is a deceptive illusion is far beyond my position.
>Complete/perfect knowledge is an unreasonable standard
I'm not really interested in having a perspective that meets that standard either, to be honest. my main point hinges on the fact that our empirical observations will always be lower-resolution depictions in the mind, of a boundlessly more complex nature, whose potential data we may never exhaust.
in one sense, idealism has utility as a corrective, which for me tempers the materialist project, without which I find people like me end up in technological fetishism and imagining unworkable utopian visions of the future. it's irritating that the contingent status of scientific knowledge loses its essential uncertainty in the public imagination due to people using it as a rhetorical bludgeon in political debates; but even if that were not so, I find philosophical idealism intellectually bracing, keeping my mind from translating scientific knowledge into a stiff, pseudophilosophical dogma without justification.
>The issue is which model is more likely
that is not my issue. the continued utility of both models is why they both continue to persist, and I wouldn't put myself in a position of having to choose one, to the exclusion of the other. I don't view them as mutually exclusive anyway, if my first response didn't make that clear enough.

>>12582061
Well, I respect that position and I'm big fan of prioritizing utility in general, but for the purpose of philosophical inquiry into the nature of things (which is ostensibly the nature of this debate) it is necessary to prioritize truth or probability of truth. You've just argued yourself that it is a flaw in materialism fans' thinking that they favour it for its utility as opposed to its 'philosophical satisfaction' (which I took to mean logical soundness, but perhaps you circularly meant as just another kind of utility).

You'd make a better politician than philosopher.

>current year
>being -ist
Transcend

>>12572427
>Quantum mechanics has shown that the physical properties of the world exist only insofar as they are perceptually experienced by minds
You didn't understand this fully. Measuring photons for example influences them so they end up in one of the two states.
Your individual experience don't change the world around you but the measuring process influences the result.