/lit/ - Literature

>Studying the material world appears to confirm materialism

Big shock

>>14426363
>wow a modern and profane science points to materialism

>>14426371
Cope

>>14426382
>modern
No, all of it

>>14426363

lol, quantum mechanics are indeed a joke, sorry OP

but you're halfway there. if all matter really is made out of the same material, you've just ended up back at monistic metaphysics, as an atomist.

>>14426363
>materialism
Materialism has been long refuted; the proper term now is physicalism.

also nice thread related to literature

>>14426390
you are wrong about that. pre-modern science was mixed with metaphysics

>>14426363

>What is thought
>What is a dream
>What is an ideal
>What is a goal
>What is identity
>What is a memory
>What is inspiration
>What are emotions

Yeah all very materialistic lmao

>>14426363
Science shows that material phenomena are material, yes

>>14426363
>all science points towards materialism
yes
>thus equating "metaphysics" with physics
lmao no, by definition that isn't true

>>14426390
you don't even know what you're talking about kid

>>14426411
physicalism is cope, read Hempel

>>14426402
>if all matter really is made out of the same material
Science doesn't say that
>>14426411
>Materialism has been long refuted; the proper term now is physicalism.
Changing a label is not refuting
>>14426418
Pre-modern science has been adopted in contemporary scientific view without any of the metaphysics

>>14426423
All are chemical reactions dumb dumb. Even Hobbes expplained all these from a materialistic perspective in the 17th century, and science has only been confirming his general views.

>>14426426
Science shows all phenomena are material

>>14426435
Wrong

>>14426440
Stop posting in this thread

>>14426449

>Chemical reactions

Just because A causes B doesn't mean that A = B 'dumb dumb'

>>14426460
Okay midwit stop posting here until you have actual arguments

>>14426476

>What is the burden of proof

You created this thread, you are the one claiming (a claim is also not material) X, where are your arguments?

What about numbers? Are numbers material? What about the past?

>>14426492
What about any of these? Numbers are concepts for which we invented labels. Past is everything that had happened. Why do you keep listing things?

>>14426631

>Numbers are concepts for which we invented labels

Which is material how?

>>14426642
Because the labels only exist in our brains as synaptic connections

>>14426418
>In the past everything was mixed with gibberish and mysticism
>This was somehow good

Metaphysics is obsolete. The people who hold onto it are like people who are emotionally attached to riding around in a horse and buggy.

>>14426652

Just because the brain is the interpretive structure doesn't mean it's the only place they exist. Numbers are obviously real even without an observer, or are you going to pull the quantum physics misinterpretation you say you oppose now?

>>14426449
>identity is a chemical reaction
Never go full retard

>>14426363
learn to read and write mate, geez

>>14426363
>sans misinterpretations of quantum mechanics from lay persons

>>14426652
>proceeds to spew a misinterpretation of neuroscience

You realize both are equally pseud 'I fcking love science'-tier right?

>>14426383
>>14426390
>>14426449
>>14426631
Holy fuck nothing here is an argument at all.
And by the way, science is not, and should not be, the end-all-be-all of human knowledge. Science is a tool for us to describe and utilize the movements of the material world in which we live. If scientists say there are no unicorns, I am willing to believe there are no unicorns, since they are material creatures and that is the domain of science. However, if scientists say there is nothing outside of physical existence, then I know they are bullshitting, since that is not a question the scientific method or any scientific instruments can answer. To say otherwise is to put extreme faith (as in the same kind of fanatic unquestioning belief of the religious) in science, and treat it as a kind of church, where that is not its intended purpose, responsibility, or power.
Oh and one last thing, this poster >>14426435
is correct. Metaphysics and physics can't be equated, that makes no fucking sense. And just saying
>Wrong
Doesn't change that.

>>14426363
>all science points towards materialism

Where did you get this very bad, wrong idea?

>>14426667
I said the labels exist in our brains, not the numbers. The labels refer to concepts which we observed or created.

>>14426669
>>14426677
>>14426688
Get out pseuds

>>14426708
>Holy fuck nothing here is an argument at all.
>Proceeds to tell a fariy tale.

>>14426729
From actually reading scientific textbooks

>>14426754
Really? Which scientific textbook says "all things are material"?

>>14426754
Ok this just reads like a troll shitpost. So I'll treat it as such, and move on.
Sad you could never produce a real argument though.

>>14426708
>However, if scientists say there is nothing outside of physical existence, then I know they are bullshitting, since that is not a question the scientific method or any scientific instruments can answer.

What method is suitable for answering such questions?

>>14426449
>metaphysics
>literally means that which is beyond physics
>if there is nothing that is beyond physics this means that that which is beyond physics is physics
>~a=a
retard alert

>>14426833
>What method is suitable for answering such questions?
This question is difficult for many, so many intellectuals today are something of an agnostic on the position; not saying that metaphysics doesn't exist or is somehow just physics, like OP does, but also not saying anything about what is beyond the physical.
People who try to answer metaphysical questions come in many forms. There's the majority of contemporary philosophers, and they come up with many systems and positive descriptions of the metaphysical, but these are all just constructs of a human mind. They are using discursive logic, created by the physical brain, to create descriptors which, when applied to the metaphysical, lower it to the level of a mere physical brain.
Then there are those who use negative descriptions to describe the metaphysical. They know that whatever is beyond the physical cannot be described by words created by a physical mind. These people are mystics, such as western esotericists and the many eastern philosophers lauded on this board. They are the only ones who truly see what is beyond this existence.

TL;DR: Mystics answer the question best. Philosophers and scientists alike struggle to do so.

science is profane philosophy which is already profane theology

>>14427082
swap theology and science and you'd be correct

>>14426363
Does science imply materialism, or do scientists just take materialism for granted?

>>14427330
Science deals with materialism (explaining how muh material world works) and sciencebugs deal in these terms.

>>14427330
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsLOVYTLt90

>>14427330
Science shows that materialism is enough to explain everything that exists and that there is no need for anything else to explain our world. Metaphysics is cope

>>14427355
>Science shows that materialism is enough to explain everything that exists
Does it?

>>14427355
this statement is specifically unscientific, how did you arrive at it?

>>14427355
>Science shows that materialism is enough to explain everything that exists and that there is no need for anything else to explain our world
No, sorry. What science does is give deeper explanations and descriptions of material things. E.g. science has discovered that what we take for granted as apples are really made of particles. But the obvious question after that, which we all must've heard a thousand times, is what are those particles made of? Some might cite string theory (already very controversial and unprovable) but really who knows, and even then we could just ask what are strings made of?

My point is, science can't give a total, 100% comprehensive view of existence. Don't make the leap of faith to believe that science has answered everything about what we call "matter". Matter exists within space and time, but nobody knows what the fuck that is. We can describe it, give it flimsy definitions, but that doesn't give a comprehensive total view of what it essentially, really is.
And btw, we should not fool ourselves into thinking that what is science today will be the same a thousand years in the future. Learn from the falsified scientists of the past.
Science does not give us a complete view of reality.

>>14426363
Isn't materialism a metaphysic though?

>misinterpretations from lay persons
Like the famous lay person of quantum physics Niels Bohr

>>14427407
>Learn from the falsified scientists of the past.
Yeah what we learn is that metaphysics was never right in any way and no scientific development ever got us further away from materialism rather than closer to it

>Science does not give us a complete view of reality.
Cope

>>14426363
> a tool that can only measure matter shows that only matter exist
Whew, lad, careful with those hot takes now.

>>14427543
Cringe

>>14426363
>So let me get this straight: all science points towards materialism

Not really.

>>14427588
Elaborate

>>14426371
This.

Science tries to find out how the illusion works WITHIN the illusion using more illusions. That's why it will never find the truth.

Is there any way to judge the accuracy of metaphysical claims? Can’t any asshole just make up some plausible-sounding nonsense about water, god, gods, a demiurge, or souls and then claim to have ultimate knowledge?

Once you say ‘oh, it’s beyond science’, how can you tell the difference between what’s real and what’s made up bullshit? And if you can’t prove, disprove, observe, or even interact with this shit, what’s the point of arguing about it? How can it have any effect on your life?

>>14427602
Based schizo

>>14427603
No retard, you just wait for science to disprove it and then move on to something else

>>14426363
Don’t be a baby brain my beloved anons

>>14427615
But how can science disprove something that's outside its box, something bigger than science?

>>14427623
>If you want to find the secrets of the universe, think in terms of energy, frequency and vibration.
>The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence.

>>14426652
You can tear apart brain tissue as much as you like; you’ll never find “happiness” or “three” or “myself”. They don’t exist in any material form.

>>14427630
By showing that what was "outside of the box" according to schizos can actually be explained using "inside the box" mechanisms because there's no "outside the box"

>>14427680
They literally all do.

>>14427680
And yet if someone hacks away at your brain tissue you'll cease to have those words in your vocabulary and you won't understand what people mean when they utter the words.

This is literally why Alzheimer's disease is horrifying
'

It actually points to God your paradime is just trash ,so you ignore all the clues.

>>14426363
science cannot establish materialism. you and the scientists are the ones coping

>>14427538
>Yeah what we learn is that metaphysics was never right in any way and no scientific development ever got us further away from materialism rather than closer to it
Science is a tool to dissect the material. The scientific method will never discover anything that is immaterial, not because it doesn't exist, but because the foundation of science is not geared toward it.
This has been explained numerous times in this thread.
>Cope
No u
>>14427602
Based. Brainlets will mistake this for schizoposting, because they are brainlets.
>>14427603
There's stuff like Greek mythology, healing crystals, souls, chakras, and infinite more profane bullshit that humans have come up with. This is pseudoscience. But to mistake pseudoscience for metaphysics and vice-versa is a grave error.
Pseudoscience tries to posit theories about the material world, such as "this dumb crystal will magically heal you!" and this is obviously easily refuted with real science, such is science's domain. It dissects the material world and tells us what's inside it.
Metaphysics isn't about healing crystals or magical souls or spirit science or anything like that. It's not just bad science. It's completely outside it.
As I explained here >>14426912 mystics using negative terminology, not positive description, are the only ones really grasping what is essential. True metaphysics is the study of what is ineffable, immutable, unqualified, invisible, timeless, spaceless, and boundless. Notice how I didn't say "its an omnipotent wizard in the sky with a beard who gives commandments", because that would be speaking of something in the material world, which is the domain of science, or rather merely pseudoscience.
This may sound like I'm talking about something that doesn't exist, because I describe it in negative terms, but really it is a kind of "negative existence" as the Kabbalists say.
>>14427726
There will always be an outside the box. Until science has a total, absolute view of all reality and everything that exists (which I already have shown that it can't), and in addition to this, a total view of all that does not exist (thus completing the inside and outside of the "box"), there will be an outside of the box.

>>14427736
show me a picture of three itself then

This is obviously a joke thread but whatever. When push comes to shove 'physicalists' or whatever they call themselves can only give promissory notes. They doll up what physical, mechanistic explanation they do give to obfuscate any possible application of the features they do not tackle head-on. When they do try to address themselves to these features they habitually replace them the 'null' they inevitably get in applying their favored method to them.

It gives the impression of missing the point, which objection they identify as question-begging. Why *they* aren't the ones begging the question is answered by appeals to supersessions by natural science of previous ways of understanding. But they tend to conflate the practical with the cognitive aspect of these supersessions. If it is cognitive supersession, applied to previous ways of understanding understanding itself, if natural science has become genuinely self-conscious, why does it seem to miss the point and to behave the same as it has, unselfconsciously, manipulatively and predictively, with appeals to its own authority as the only game in town and useful rather than 'true'?

Often all it takes is pointing out the missing the point to get the promissory note if they are honest and not morons. Then you can note they have no way to ensure they aren't availing themselves of illicit 'spooky' features without having gone all the way down in their explanation.

Many in this thread ranting about "materialism" seem to believe that if they deny materialism, that automatically shows the validity of whatever nonsense they're pushing. It's just God of the gaps, or metaphysics of the gaps. If you were intellectually honest, you'd admit agnosticism about the matter.

>>14427837
So then metaphysics is all about describing something we can’t describe? Then what is the point? Again, how would you even know if your negative descriptions are accurate?

>>14428297
Those are good questions. I will try to explain, but it will be lengthy.
As for methodology, some arrive at these conclusions through philosophical reasoning, some through reading religious texts, some through meditation or drugs, but ultimately what you're looking for is always present. The true method is introspection. The scientific method is thought to examine what is external, but what it really does is examine the sense-experience of the brain. But what about when you pull back the sense-objects? When you realize that seeing and hearing are just tools of the brain created for survival?
Pull back vision and feeling, the ego, language, like and dislike, pleasure and pain. This is what it's like to be dead, of course. What remains there is timeless, spaceless, without concepts, invisible, unqualified, essentially empty. Those things I listed are all created by an animal brain, but even in their presence we can apply reductionism and see they are not existent in-and-of-themselves. That is to say, they all comprised of infinite layers and aspects which can be peeled apart, and at the infinitesimal core there is something so ineffable that the closest word humans have is "nothing" or "emptiness": something that is beyond all other concepts of existence.

Core tenants of Buddhism which describe this further are "sunyata" or the emptiness of reality, and "anatta" or the fact that objects lack self-sufficient existence, and in a way have "no self". In Kabbala, the highest sefira is Kether (sorta imagine the positive aspects of God in religion), but beyond that are the "negative veils of existence": Ayn Soph Aur, Ayn Soph, and Ayn, Light Without Limit, Without Limit, and finally Without.

Introspecting on waking experience, we see there is always something eternal and ineffable in its core, something beyond all other qualities. While science experiments which and describes what we see and hear, the mystics deconstruct seeing and hearing, and move beyond it. I am not sure how to prove it too you, maybe further reading on the subject will help, but I have proved it too myself, through introspecting on the illusory nature of consciousness and the eternal, all-pervasive thing which not only forms being, but is beyond being and non-being.
I am not sure if that explains it well, but I tried, as language is so limited. After all, many things in mysticism are symbols for things which mere language has failed.

>>14428490
>Those things I listed are all created by an animal brain
I am referring to:
>vision and feeling, the ego, language, like and dislike, pleasure and pain
The negative words are created by a brain too, but they have a special quality in that "timelessness" isn't a thing, but "time" is, so they seem adequate enough to describe what is beyond time.

>>14427750
Mental states supervene upon brain states, but this say nothing about their ontology.

>>14426363
Michael Egnor: The Evidence against Materialism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqHrpBPdtSI

>neurosurgeon Michael Egnor discusses the evidence against materialism and explains how materialism undercuts rather than supports genuine science

>>14428561
Literally none of that is evidence. Is that guy and everyone in this thread retarded? This is just embarrassing.

>>14426363
>Science points toward materialism
Science is materialism and is incapable of understanding the paradigm of reality outside of it

>>14426449
>Chemical reactions
Bruh lmao. I hope you're underage

>>14426476
That is literally an argument and you can't beat it

>>14426363
>all science points towards materialism
Science is not able to affirm or deny the non material in any way.
Science fags have the biggest autist fits when the most elementary philosophy dismantles their materialist outlook. I regulatly derail /sci/ threads with only one comment

Based thread - this is what it's all about. I'm not finding the answers in contemporary philosophy and I don't know how to find faith in Christianity/Judaism/Islam. Good luck with your search, everyone.

>>14426363
>scientists: "there are causal relations between materially-based events and other events, ergo materialism"
>also scientists: "correlation doesn't equal causation."

>>14426833
are you freebasing crack?

>>14429522
Yes

>>14429352
>I regulatly derail /sci/ threads with only one comment
What's the comment anon?

>>14426371
lel, fpbp

>>14426363
you're a retard OP. "all science" spoken so reverently while completely ignorant of its limitations. the gaps of material knowledge you're talking about are metaphysic. approach epistemology with some humility next time so you don't embarrass yourself like this again.

>>14431420
There's no immaterial world, retard, go back to your fairy tales

>>14431519
t. illiterate, can't read, does not understand writing

>>14426363
Hi!

/lit/ is for the discussion of literature, specifically books (fiction & non-fiction), short stories, poetry, creative writing, etc. If you want to discuss history, religion, or the humanities, go to /his/. If you want to discuss politics, go to /pol/. Philosophical discussion can go on either /lit/ or /his/, but those discussions of philosophy that take place on /lit/ should be based around specific philosophical works to which posters can refer.

>>14431527
Cope harder faggot. You must be the most retarded person on this board

>>14431519

>>14431543
>metaphysics is just spouting "we cannut prof XD"
Embarrassing

>>14431542
>NOOOOOOO NOT THE ATOMIRINOS NOT THE PUPPERPARTICLES YOU CAN'T JUST PROFFER NON-MATERIAL ANSWERS TO NON-MATERIAL QUESTIONS WHAT ABOUT SCIENCY SCIENCY WHAT ABOUT BILL NYE WHAT ABOUT CARL SAGAN WHAT ABOUT NEIL DEGRASSE TYSON NOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!

>>14431560
Seethe

>>14426363
Read Kant you hylic fool

>>14431694
Kant only tells you what logic you may use when considering metaphysical properties, but there's no metaphysics so there's no need for transcendental logic. Retard.

>>14426754
>The labels refer to concepts which we observed or created
If we observe concepts in order to label them, where precisely are the concepts materially? Or are you going to argue that mathematics is a complete fabrication of brain structures like a fucking moron?

>>14431699
Kant refutes both hard empiricism and materialism. At least read the fucking Prolegomena you pseud.

>>14431720
You don't know what a refutation is because you're obviously a double digit IQ ape

>>14431725
How the fuck can you derive any hard Empirical methodology as being grounded within the Kantian system? The entire point is that we can only do science by a Universilzation of sense perceptions through subsuming them under immaterial a priori concepts of reason. That's proof enough that Kant is not in agreement with Materialism, if you took the time to read CoPR I'm sure you will find the steps he took to get there as sufficiently grounded in reason (thus the re-fu-tation bit). Literally kys you are a pseud who hasn't even bothered reading the wikipedia on Kant.

>>14431763
tl;dr pseud

>>14431767
Do you have tape worms in your brain or something? What drives the impulse to create such a shitty bait thread OP?

>>14428514
Yeah but the problem is that mental states cannot be said to exist without functioning brains capable of uttering words or writing them down.

>>14431763
>immaterial a priori concepts of reason.
A priori concepts are not immaterial you fucking retard.

>>14426402
>>14426411
>>14426423
>>14426435
>>14426444
>>14426476
>>14426460
>>14426492
>>14426655
>26655▶
>>14426667
>>14426677
>>14426688
>>14426708
>>14426729
>>14426811
>>14426805
>>14426805
>>14426844
>>14426912
>>14427082
>>14427407
>>14427602
>>14427643
>>14427837
>>14428047
>>14428490
>>14428855
>>14428870
>>14431532
>>14431555
>>14431560
>>14431694

holy shit you niggers got destroyed lmao

>>14431775
> What drives the impulse
The material world just like everything else that has ever been conceived, created, or performed

>>14431777
Shit Bait OP, go do something useful and read. Explain how the concept of causality or a perfect triangle are material, and where I might find an Empirical basis for them?

>>14431815
>Explain how the concept of causality
Already explained by Hume
>a perfect triangle
Already explained by Hobbes
>do something useful and read
Seems like you're the one who needs to read more cringe faggot

>>14431863
Hume fanboys are so deluded. Hume never proved any sort of Empirically grounded Causality. But even if he did, as I said earlier, Kant refuted Hume and provided an actually feasible epistemological framework for Science that most certainly rejects materialism. I dont understand what your arguing here, my initial point was that Kant offers a solid refutation of materialism and I can provide you with the passages if you need them instead of just name dropping shit. If you really want to troll about a priori concepts being material then go ahead. I assume your still stuck on the Empirical argument that all of these concepts are necessarily structured through experience? If so, read some more advanced philosophy please.

>>14431776
Not if you believe in either multiple realizability or the conceivability argument. Former is easier to understand.

>>14431863
Also remind me of how successful Hobbes thought project of squaring a circle was before bringing up his retarded arguments about geometry

>>14426363
>sans misinterpretations of quantum physics
This argument has only ever been used by people immensely butthurt that quantum mechanics effectively BTFO materialism as a coherent concept and ever since then any reference to QM has been disparagingly called “quantum mysticism” to discredit the very simple fact that QM reveals the existence of massless “things” (particles, strings, fields etc)
I say this as an actual scientist, materialism is and always has been the argument that all things has MASS, ie are tangible. Now it has been supplanted by physicalism which is an impossible position to arrive because you simply endlessly redefine what “physical” means to be larger and larger in scope. At this stage Jesus could come down on earth TODAY and resurrect people left and right and you would still argue that physicalism is right and metaphysics is wrong since your definition of the physical is just a copy+paste of “real”. There was only ever ONE materialist viewpoint that had actual falsifiable criteria that could be universally tested, all things have mass, massless things don’t exist, a nice tightly defined property of the “real” and it was summarily BTFO by QM. Materialists cannot and will not ever recover, everything else has been cope.

>>14426844
>Etimology = Content of a concept
Suck my dick while you are on it.

>>14428490
How do I into mysticism?

>>14432050
>physicalism which is an impossible position
same applies to anti-physicalism

>>14432006
>>14432027
Cringe

>>14432050
Lmao Paquirrin arabe

No. Empiricism does not encapsulate science as a whole. And as empiricism is rooted in logical positivism, it skews heavily towards materialist investigations as those are the most readily observable.

>>14432057
have you ever studied philosophy anon?

>>14426363
The hard problem of consciousness is insoluble under physicalism.

>>14431863
>Explain how the concept of causality
>Already explained by Hume
nigga Hume thought causation was a mystery beyond human comprehension

>>14432193
Monism and dualism are a false dichotomy. Discrete fundamental substances are a manifold.

>>14432206
Of course it's solvable, the only thing that is impossible under physicalism is the afterlife, or even death.
Consciousness is something beyond mere atoms, the atoms change, are replaced and so on. Theoretically, your braincells could be replaced by something that serves the same exact logical functions, and you wouldn't know the difference. We don't know how the consciousness arises, but it is clearly associated with a certain pattern in the world.
If we're talking physicalism, a certain pattern gives off this illusion of perception, an illusion of a present and the past. People have this misconception that we move through time as people, somehow retaining our self - when this continuous self is an illusion. The waveform from five seconds ago is not the present you, just as other people aren't you. In fact, other people are as close to being you, as the you are to yourself from five seconds ago.
Therefore, experiencing death isn't possible. All consciousness is fractured into infinitesimal pieces, yet it is all interconnected. It exists on a spectrum, and perhaps even things that we don't think are alive, are experiencing something, sometimes. After all, all you need is a pattern. Under physicalism, OOO is the only option.

>>14432342
>Under physicalism, OOO is the only option.
Relational ontology does what you claim OOO does, and far better, as it doesn't require omitting core aspects of human experience as an "illusion," which is merely an admittance that a theory cannot account for it.

>>14432193
Last one is physicalism again

>>14432398
>Geocentricism does what you claim Heliocentricism does, and far better, as it doesn't require omitting core aspects of human experience as an "illusion," which is merely an admittance that a theory cannot account for it.
Are you a flat-earther too, because it doesn't dismiss core human experiences as mere "illusion"? Fuck you and your anthropocentrism.

>>14432050
>quantum mechanics proved that massless objects exist
u must be a b*ologist or something lmao

Do /lit/ people actually believe emotions are not of the physical world lmfaoo

>>14432409
How?

>>14432342
>this illusion of perception

This is quite possibly the stupidest concept in all of philosophy.

It’s quite clear to me that there is a God that simulates our universe—which unfolds according to the laws of physics—in his mind and that we are dissociated alters within the mind of God.

>>14432631
It easily is the single stupidest idea. It questions literally the only thing that cannot be questioned, it is the only philosophical position that is objectively and unambiguously wrong

>>14432050
"Mass" has nothing to do with materialism, dumbfuck.

i bet if god stimulated ur prostate ud cum, lolfeg

>>14426363
I dunno. If materialism or physicalism (or whatever) is true, and if we have minds or consciousness (or whatever), then, if we have a sufficiently detailed account of physical goings-on in the brain, we'll also have an account of what's going on in the mind, since the mind somehow reduces to the brain. But in that case a description of the properties of my firing C-fibres will also be a description of my toothache. But this looks impossible in principle: you can combine descriptions of physical properties - mass and charge and so on - any way you like, none of those combinations will be 'ouch'.

>>14432741
>none of those combinations will be 'ouch'.
Why not?

>>14427623
I like that quote from Einstein in his analogy using the trees and forest example. Scientists are focused on one thing specifically whereas the Philosophers are looking at everything, seek patterns, and try to form a body of work based on that.

>>14432610
They are part of the irrational framework of the masses which can be interacted upon and thus are part of an immaterial framework that can be manipulated upon by the likes of advertisements and propaganda.

>>14432802
And so I must ask my fellow materialists:
Does mass psychology fit into the materialistic framework?
Does the "soul" of a people get to be explained in the realm of materialism, in an empiric manner? And can this then show any recurrent pattern of sort of the human, irrational element within us?

>>14432826
>Does mass psychology fit into the materialistic framework?
Obviously.

>>14431519
I read that as "there's no material world" and almost agreed, you were so close

>>14426363
Google francis bacon

>>14432859

Francis Bacon was a hardcore atheist (his meta-physical views were essentially physicalist) who made edgy, metal af paintings, so you're not mounting a very effective counter-argument here.

Bacon took sick while on vacation in Spain during the early '90s, and was cared for by nuns who attempted to trick him into a deathbed conversion. Based Bacon did not yield, did not go out like a punk bitch like so many others. He rejected Christ to the very last. Good. I hope I die well, as he did.

>>14432903
I hope you're joking.

>>14432903
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Bacon
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Bacon_(artist)

>>14432631
>>14432657
You quoted just a small part of a sentence. Consciousness exists, just not in the way you think, there is no continuity. Just like in physics you have no proof of the past, or of the future (it could end any moment, or every dinosaur bone could be a fabrication). If I "froze" your brain, and your surroundings, would you notice anything is wrong when I "unfreeze" you? Of course not. Continuity is an illusion, all the atoms just need to be in the right places.

What is perception really, according to physicalism? Neurons transmit sensory data into your brain, your thoughts are similarly just certain operations on the neurons, as well as your perception of them. Perception of thought is very similar in this regard to sensory perception, people who meditate know there is no difference. The brain computes all the data it gets, doesn't matter the source.

>>14426363
>towards materialism (sans misinterpretations of quantum mechanics from lay persons) and thus equating "metaphysics" with physics
Never seen someone so thoroughly derail their own point without noticing

>>14432686
what is material?

>>14431542
are you saying science has no limitations?