/lit/ - Literature

>>16038102
I can

>>16038116
Explain

kick rock

>>16038133
Could the act of kicking a rock be experienced without a mind?

>>16038102
It's an axiomatic difference in your conception of the world. You can take the position of a positivist: "if there is no empirical evidence to appeal to in order to establish whether [the world is mind-independent] or not, then the hypothesis is meaningless, in which case we do not need an argument to refute it." (IEP)

>>16038125
Go outside and kick a rock, see for yourself

>>16038102
Read Kant.

>>16038179
Positivism refutes itself

>"why yes i believe in god and immortal souls, in fac-"
>*WHAM*
>"*sputtering and gagging on own blood*w-what?? y-you ca- *gurgle gag* cant just h-hit me with a hammer! th-"
>*WHACK THUMP SPLACK*
>"*cradling stray skull fragments and busted elbow* n-noooo i-i can't re remember what i was going to s-say *hick sob*"
>*SPLUNK BAM WUMP WUMP WUMP*
>"*glazed expression as blood gurgles from nostrils* wh-whuh? cnti talkk?"
>*THWIMP as the hammer embeds itself deeply into the skull that had become an indented pool for the blood that now spills its crimson tide on the tile flooring as the theist slumps forward*
>the theist's corpse twitches as the last of its electro-neural mush fires its final, futile charge and the room resolves into a somber silence
>"let us wait, my dear students, to see whether his hypothesis was correct. for surely if an immortal soul and god exists our dear theist will return presently to inform us of this most epochal of truths and win the debate!"
>an acutely tense silence as the corpse continues to pour blood from the carrion pulp that was once its head
>"ah well and so, class, as we can see, his god hypothesis is entirely refuted thusly."
>a sporadic applause is taken up among the college students that gradually swells into a full on standing ovation as they all recognize with absolute lucidity the empirically proven truth of Physicalism, knowing that at last the anemia of theological thought was passing from the face of the earth forever,

>>16038179
This also doesn't work because empirical evidence requires sensory experiences and is based off the a priori existence of a mind that can takes in the sensory information. So this doesn't work.

>>16038203
retard

>>16038188
Try to conceive of something without any sensory qualities. Try to conceive of a tree without imagining yourself or some other point of view seeing the tree.

>>16038203
Ok tell me how someone being murdered proves there is a mind independent world.

>>16038203
You have to be at least 18 to post here

>>16038203
Razed and bedpilled.

>>16038188
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_the_stone
nice fallacy retard

>>16038192
I plan on doing so.

>>16038192
This

>>16038230
Try not to think about white bear.

>>16038102
Clearly there is when someone as braindead as berkeley still managed to have an impact on the world.

>>16038413
ok now refute him

>>16038428
>If a tree falls in the forest does it make a sound???? ?
material insubstantialism is complete solipsistic autism. If you accept that there are other consciousnesses in the world r because you;re not 14 then the fact that objects and stimuli remain sensible before and after any unique consciousness is formed and extinguished would mean that the mind is dependent on the world.

>>16038192
OH NO NO NO NO

>>16038329
>appeal to the stone fallacy
Kek, something about that name is hilarious

>>16038476
So you haven't actually read Berkeley

>>16038192
What does Kant have to say about this?

>>16038880
https://muse.jhu.edu/article/227857#:~:text=In%20the%20section%20which%20Kant,impossible%22%20(B%20274).

>>16038880
If I got him right: no determinate content of our experience can be thought as mind-independent (including intuitions, since they are grounded in the forms of space and time, which are our own forms of sensibility subject to the categories). That said, the presence of said contents of experience require the existence of non-mental entities, since experience itself cannot be fully derived from imagination (i.e. I dreamed all of it). Imagination, just like our other intellectual faculties, is purely synthetic (it cannot generate intuitions out of nowhere, at best it can reproduce them by recombining previously cognized intuitions). This means that some extra-mental entity (namely, a noumenon) had to interact with my faculty of receptivity, and from said interaction I got my first intuitions, and by intellectually synthetizing them I ended up having an experience.

tldr: experience requires the existence of external entities (noumena) to take place. I have an experience, therefore noumena exists.

I've probably butchered the argument, but it should still be enough to get the gist of it