/lit/ - Literature

The Bible, because you're a degenerate materialist who needs God.

show me matter then

matter is merely the force exerted by immaterial energy waves doing something

>>14266171
et omnia entropie

>>14266132
Nihilism, evolutionary psychology, postmodernism, materialism and scientific empiricism are false idols that will you down a road with a dead end.

>>14266132
start with the greeks

>>14266132
>mind is matter

>>14266132
Let me make some slight corrections for you:
>there is no god
Correct
>mind is matter
Hardcore reductivism/eliminativism is too extreme, opt for property duelism
>there are no such things as universals
Universals are not "things", but everything has particular as well as universal aspects to it. Again full on nominalism is too extreme.
>there is no such thing as a priori
It does exist in logic where truths are analytic, but yes a priori synthetic knowledge doesn't exist

>>14267106
yes. quit being frightened and start contributing.

>I predict we will abolish suffering throughout the living world. Our descendants will be animated by gradients of genetically pre-programmed well-being that are orders of magnitude richer than today's peak experiences. The Hedonistic Imperative outlines how genetic engineering and nanotechnology will abolish suffering in all sentient life. This project is ambitious but technically feasible. It is also instrumentally rational and ethically mandatory. The metabolic pathways of pain and malaise evolved only because they once served the fitness of our genes. They will be replaced by a different sort of neural architecture. States of sublime well-being are destined to become the genetically pre-programmed norm of mental health. The world's last aversive experience will be a precisely dateable event.

Mind is matter in the sense that all of thinking happens through neurons "and..."The "and" part is that of sensory experience of the world. Our cognition cannot be removed from its association from our bodies - not just our brains, not just our nervous systems, but the rest of our body which influences our nervous system. Our bodies in turn cannot be removed from being embodied in the world. As a result of this our cognitive activities aren't confined to the body, but are extended and in co-evolution with the environment.

Moreover, the world (Earth) cannot be removed from the web of mutual influences spanning the entire universe! To truly know a "thing in itself" requires knowing ALL of its relationships between it and everything else that has existed and exists, and also will exist AND will never exist, but can possibly exist (potentiality.) If one requires knowing a "thing in itself" to 100% certainty is required for knowledge at all, then one is stuck in an impossible situation: one must be omniscient to know anything at all. But if perfect knowledge of a "thing in itself" from all possible perspectives isn't required, then one merely needs to understand what they are doing (process) effectively enough to be slightly more effective than randomness, rather than to get the right answer. From this foundation of the slightest epistemological efficacy, additional efficacy in interacting with the world (for the purpose of surviving and thriving) can grow upon this.

tldr read Whitehead

>>14267138
so you're a moron?
why didn't you just say so?

>>14267143
And for the universals part also look into Whitehead/eternal objects
http://www.shaviro.com/Blog/?p=578

>there are no such things as universals
Elaborate what you mean by this?

If you unironically have the view that everything is a big automata, then - even if you're correct about everything - what you'd want is to get away from that believe.
So I guess go with >>14266136. Although I think it needs people to get into that, not the book alone. (I.e. church or something church-like.)

common opinion of a sub 130 IQ anime pseud

>>14267138
that sounds like a fucking nightmare, I can't believe people think like this
just lobotomize people so they can't get a genuine experience of life bro ahahah suffering bad!

>>14267156
I guess to add on
>God
Depends what you mean. I myself am a weak atheist. Since I mentioned Whitehead and I am into him, he does have something that he calls "God" though it's not in the traditional sense, he was in fact a naturalist, and I myself see it as a metaphysical function. He doesnt really write about it outside of of part 5 of Process and Reality, not mentioning it in his later stuff, and refered to that section as something more poetic than philisophical.

>>14267138
>David Pearce is a British vegan philosopher who promotes the abolition of suffering in all sentient life.
the eternal a*glo strikes again

>>14267230
"Mankind does not strive for happiness; only the Englishman does that."

The little bonnets in your hair fooled me. I was going to reply to this thread.

contemporary analytic naturalism

>>14266132
God is real.
You don't have a mind.
You're a cartoon, made by man and not begotten.
Sorry kiddo.

I feel alone. I want to spend my solitude in my bed while hugging Reimu, staying as an hikkikomori during months, making her feel my despair and lick my wounds, until I finally decide to let her go and my soul disappear.

>>14266132
God is real (the christian one)
Mind is almost certainly matter
Universals are true
A priori exists

>>14266132
matter is mind

everything stems from consciousness

>>14266132
I may be misinterpreting your intentions, but there's no need to find your sports team. Read arguments that lead to the opposite conclusions to your current set. Or don't. You don't need to, but you might find it enjoyable.

>>14266132
killing yourself

>>14266136
ok incel

>>14266132
>All a priori statements are false, including this statement

Nihilism

These threads always remind me how most people here are teens. The board is absolute shit these years as no reply is serious or of any worth.

Now I am not commenting on about all the statements OP proposed but the mind = material. I dont understand why most people have problems with the idea that all our mental processess are matter. They are all biochemical reactions so are they not based by material? The fuck is even nonmaterial. Anyone who propose that something is immaterial should give a way for us to verify if it is not but how can something be immaterial in a material world and how are we supposed tofind out if all we can do is use our sensens, perceptions that are all material and then that information is proccessed in brain which is also material thing. I have never seen any convincing argument against this but a wishful thinking or mental gymnastics. Your mind is deceiving you because it is creating the world and your whole world is in your mind which is not only a hallucination but fully material one. THe question is if that hallucination of the world is in any way connected to real world outside or not.

>>14266132
Irrationalism

>>14268733
2:10:13

A Refutation of Materialism via Immateriality of the Intellect

3,764 views

236

6

Share

Save

Report



The Norwegian Nous

1.53K subscribers

SUBSCRIBED

Streamed live on Sep 3, 2019

Please consider donating to my Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/norwegian or Venmo: https://venmo.com/Deacon-Sorem How to Demonstrate that the Intellect is Immaterial © Dr. Erik Sorem (Fr. Dn. Ananias Sorem) The following argument takes advantage of a series of valid deductive syllogisms, with one conversion, and two translations of conclusion into equivalent meanings. The argument proceeds in the following steps: 1. AEE, Figure 2 Syllogism 2. Conversion 3. EIO, Figure 2 Syllogism 4. OAO, Figure 3 Syllogism 5. Translation 6. OAO Figure 3 Syllogism 7. Translation (Obversion) 8. Explanation of Materialism Thesis 9. Illustration of refutation via the Modern Square of Opposition 10. Explanation of Counter-Example List of Unconditionally Valid Syllogistic Forms Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 AAA EAE IAI AEE EAE AEE AII IAI AII EIO OAO EIO EIO AOO EIO The Syllogistic Arguments: 1. AEE, Figure 2 A All physical things are particulars E No universals are particulars E No universals are physical things 2. Conversion of Conclusion: No physical things are universals 3. EIO, Figure 2 E No physical things are universals I Some concepts are universals O Some concepts are not physical things 4. OAO, Figure 3 O Some concepts are not physical things A All concepts are in the mind O Some (things) “in the mind” are not physical things 5. Translated Conclusion: Some things in the mind are not physical 6. OAO, Figure 3 O Some things in the mind are not physical things A All things in the mind are part of the mind O Some part of the mind is not physical 7. Translated Conclusion (Obversion): Some part of the mind is immaterial (where immaterial means the negation of what is material/physical) 8. Materialism/Physicalism Thesis: E No part of the mind is immaterial 9. Modern Square of Opposition: the contradiction of E (No S are P) propositions is an I proposition (Some S are P) 10. Therefore, the I proposition (Some part of the mind is immaterial) refutes materialism/physicalism by way of counter-example.

>>14268733
>dude, just define 'material' as 'everything that exists' and you prove that everything that exists is material

>>14266132
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_in_the_Case

>>14267138
Why wait centuries when in 20 years we can surgically remove the parts of the brain that suffer, then since entropy is limited how is not ethical to blind and deafen everyone and remove their limbs etc remember their brain itself no longer suffers so they cannot even conceptualise objecting to such an eventuality, at this point the entire body is vestigial so you may as well reduce all “sentient life” so orgasming brain stems stored in vats of nutrient juice. Remember people will initially only object to this because they are blinded by irrational attachment to a sense of self and purpose that serves an evolutionary purpose so doing this is retroactively justifiable since you reduce suffering and increase the cosmic carrying capacity. FYI this is why objective materialist ethicists should stay the FUCK away from AI under penalty of death.

>>14266132
Dan Dennett, more or less. That or Unger, everyone's favorite mereological nihilist. But honestly OP, if you have these positions but you don't even know what their context is within philosophy, I can almost guarantee you aren't as certain in them as you should be. Read beyond those who agree with you.

>>14267184
Hes looking for some form of nominalism when it comes to universals.

>>14268733
I'm not even interested in arguing with your points, although there is plenty to argue with, but its ironic that you criticize this thread for being shitty and teenage (and yeah its shitty) while making a teenage argument yourself. If you truly can't even wrap your head around an opposing position, and you're taking all these things you believe as totally self-evident, then you understand neither your own position nor your opponent's. Anyone with half semester of philosophy would be able to ventilate you.

>>14268792
You're wasting your breath, sadly

>>14266132
depends on how you arrived at those conclusions. if you just randomly decided those with no deep thought, then start with the greeks you dumb retard.

>>14266132
Satanism is for people like you.
(btw kill yourself)

>>14268733
>most people here are teens
You’re right and they’re the ones who are reductive materialists and love “science”

>>14268792
This. The discovery of photons killed materialism, quantum field theory buried it, all materialism is now is a bunch of a posteriori ass pulls.

>>14269336
It is all materia.

>>14267143
cringe retard list for leftoids

>>14266136
Define "degenerate"

>>14266132
That's just called being right. You can avoid most philosophy, as it is merely idealist cope.

>>14269777
>OP asks for materialist philosophers
>dismissed as idealists
>philosophy treated as a dogma and not a method

You are functionally illiterate, get help.

>>14266132
So, will Reimu be in Smash?

>>14266132
Peirce, obviously

>>14266132
Plebbit tier

>>14266132
Stirner uwu

>>14266171
Prove it.