[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature


View post   

File: 361 KB, 1654x2551, 81RB0lNUCgL.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17989922 No.17989922 [Reply] [Original]

Is pic related good?

>> No.17989925

>>17989922
Btw, I take any books recommandations.

>> No.17989928
File: 81 KB, 907x1360, 3.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17989928

>> No.17989946
File: 318 KB, 736x696, FA2CC635-2CE3-40EB-9D7B-4BC67164BC5F.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17989946

>materialism is baloney
>buys more baloney

>> No.17989953
File: 106 KB, 907x1360, 610aflzFzPL.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17989953

>>17989922
Heard good thing 'bout pic rel

>> No.17989968
File: 59 KB, 500x500, artworks-IetYeeyNaVl1PlSh-ulmOmg-t500x500.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17989968

>>17989922
All you need: https://youtu.be/NVOi8cvEl5Y
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/#CasAgaPhyIQuaCon

>> No.17989978
File: 166 KB, 1748x2480, 8fe05524-7d84-40dc-88a7-8f35a8446fbe.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17989978

>>17989922
And other books of the same author.

>> No.17989996

>>17989978
Bro this is one of his hardest works
Not good for a 1st

>> No.17990003
File: 895 KB, 480x317, 09401207-03B0-4522-9141-E8886647BAB1.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17990003

>Best book for seething theists

>> No.17990009

>>17989922
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6GmCyKylTw
https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2017/01/revisiting-ross-on-immateriality-of.html
http://www.newdualism.org/papers/E.Feser/Feser-acpq_2013.pdf

>> No.17990017

>>17990003
For every seething theist you have 9999999999 chad piss-out-the-vagina-truthers.

>> No.17990022
File: 190 KB, 128x128, BDD75B73-CE15-41C7-8BA0-03E58ACC1E55.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17990022

>>17990017
>He thinks he was born from the bladder

>> No.17990046

>>17990022
Obviously not, its the urethra. Are you retarded? What does that have to do with the bladder?

>> No.17990057

The Bible.

>> No.17990059

>>17989922
https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/03/scientism-roundup.html
https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/05/mind-body-problem-roundup.html
https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/03/1174/

>> No.17990077

>>17989928
But isn't materialism actually compatible with his philosophy though?
E.g: "We perceive the world through our sensory organs which receive sense data, which our mind processes"
The only difference would be that the materialist would argue the world is made of matter, and Kant would argue for the thing-in-itself. Maybe a materialist reading Kant would assume that the Kantian thing-in-itself is just matter.

>> No.17990080

>>17990046
>>17990017
Why didn't the mods ban you yet?
it's because your so based

>> No.17990087

>>17989922
Anything by Husserl, really.
Arguing against a physical "external" world is pure autism. The problem is not the existence of the physical, it is the abusive reductionist drive to understand the psychological purely in an empirical manner.

>> No.17990091

>>17990077
Every metaphysical theory that isn't contradictory is compatible with Kant in that way. The thing in itself could be material or ideal, but we have no reason to assume one or the other.

>> No.17990093

>>17989922
I just read his book More Than Allegory and it was really good

>> No.17990102

>>17989922
materialism is metaphysics and metaphysics is bs

>> No.17990129

>>17990091
I think materialism would make more sense than idealism because, well, if idealism is true why can't people influence the world like a lucid dream (I think OP's picrel answered this point but I forgot how he answered it, though I remember his explanation being unsatisfying) This isn't a logical argument, but the idealism/materialism distinction seems worthless if you can't shoot lasers out of your eyes, fly in the sky, or otherwise do any nonmateralistic phenomena if idealism is true.

>> No.17990260

>>17990129
I think the idealism/materialism distinction is meaningless. People either want to believe in God or that science can tell us about the nature of reality and choose their side accordingly.

>> No.17990266

>>17990022
Get this fembot out the thread

>> No.17990274

>>17990129
>if idealism is true why can't people influence the world like a lucid dream
Are you fucking kidding me? Have you even touched Berkeley or Kant or are you going from wikipedia articles you utter cretin? Hold your tongue before you make imbecilic comments like that again.

>> No.17990462

>>17990274
I've read Berkeley's Hylas and Philonus and liked all of his arguments there, except for the one about god in the last part. Frankly, I find it lame to justify subjective idealism just to justify god. What's the point then? Just argue for god, don't argue for something novel if it leads back to banality. And yes, I know he's a bishop. But I think in subjective idealism it wouldn't matter whether a god exists or not. I wouldn't even call Berkeley a subjective idealist because of the importance of god in his arguments. I do think he's an idealist though, I prefer to call him a theistic idealist.
And I know Kant's arguing for transcendental idealism. Haven't read him, but the thing-in-itself makes sense to me. I want to read him but I know he's known for being dense.
I was imprecise, sorry about that. Theistic idealism is contingent on god's existence, and transcendental idealism on the thing-in-itself. I suppose that I was trying to say that an atheistic subjective idealism (for example, something along the likes of the advaitins/mahayana buddhists, though they call themselves nondual) is absurd because practictioners can't affect the world in a nonmaterial fashion. If the world is mind (and supposing that there is no god) why can't you iust control the world like a thought?

>> No.17990496

>>17989922
He’s stuck in the Cartesian pre-existentialist stage. Heidegger solved this.

>> No.17990508

>>17990462
Not the anon you responded to, but literally every metaphysical theory is contingent on the thing in itself. Kant's whole thing was that we should leave it at that, and not try to speculate what that thing is.

t. the anon you originally responded to

>> No.17990517

>>17990508
Okay, thank you. Kant's response makes sense, but it's so unsatisfying (in an emotional sense). We will never see the thing-in-itself, and we shouldn't speculate on it. That's that. Metaphysics is over.

>> No.17990568

>>17990517
Well, speculative metaphysics. There's still a negative use for metaphysics, for example cosmology and a lot of theoretical physics would actually also be a waste of time. Also scientific realism is unjustifiable.

>> No.17990571

>>17990517
Dont listen to this faggot he's a big shitter

>> No.17990584

>>17990571
What have I said you disagree with?

>> No.17990652

>>17990129
>>17990462
Childish.

>> No.17990677

>>17990517
>but it's so unsatisfying (in an emotional sense)
Philosophy isn't for everyone.

>> No.17990686

>>17990584
>What have i said you disagree with?
You didnt say i disagreed with anything

>> No.17990706

>>17990462
>I suppose that I was trying to say that an atheistic subjective idealism (for example, something along the likes of the advaitins/mahayana buddhists, though they call themselves nondual) is absurd because practictioners can't affect the world in a nonmaterial fashion.
Read Evola's Theory of the Absolute Individual. It is actually possible.

>> No.17990732

>>17989953
Gib pdf

>> No.17991960

Bump

>> No.17992065

>>17989978
>Aristotle's Revenge
Fuck that's a good title

>> No.17992072

>>17992065
And a good book

>> No.17992105

Berkeley is a good intro to it, and as a prolegomena to Plato.

>> No.17992126

>>17989922
Umm Schopenhauer

>> No.17992151
File: 486 KB, 1716x1710, L4neLLB.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17992151

>>17992126

>> No.17992237

>>17990087
How to start with him?

>> No.17992258
File: 144 KB, 634x702, 3118e6f200000578-3442524-image-a-33_1455206460909.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17992258

>>17989922
>anon

>> No.17992343

>>17990462
>I suppose that I was trying to say that an atheistic subjective idealism (for example, something along the likes of the advaitins/mahayana buddhists, though they call themselves nondual) is absurd because practictioners can't affect the world in a nonmaterial fashion. If the world is mind (and supposing that there is no god) why can't you iust control the world like a thought?
Advaita is not atheist but Brahman is their God, it’s also not subjective idealism but is rather ontological idealism, Adi Shankara refuted Yogachara Buddhist subjective idealism in his Brahma Sutra Bhasya. You cant control the external world purely via thoughts because according to Advaita you are non-volitional unchanging consciousness and both the mind and the external world are equally presented to this consciousness as things which are different from it. You dont have thoughts, mind/intellect and its thoughts are instead given to or presented to the witnessing-conciousness, which is you.

>> No.17992396

>>17990260
>People either want to believe in God or that science can tell us about the nature of reality and choose their side accordingly.
yeah but god in science is literally the bigbang lol

>> No.17992407

>>17992396
>yeah but god in science is literally the bigbang lol
Retard

>> No.17992454

>>17989922
Is this book good?

>> No.17992711

>>17990129
the world being made of mind doesn't logically follow that you have any control over it with your own mind. not any more than a drop of water having control over the ocean

>> No.17992770

>>17989978
God, why are Catholics invariably such petty, spitefilled people? You can just see the mindless, ragefilled urge for revenge jumping from the paper, eagerly awaiting the day they hear that they were right all along. Everything in their life is built around the almost sexual ecstasy of the revenge fantasy, and just like with the End Times and the laughing fits they’ll have in heaven as they watch the wicked burn forever, it’s a day that will never come.

Catholics truly are just kept alive by their hatred for those who disagree with them, and truly fit perfectly in the Abrahamic context, a context dominated by a single urge for petty revenge

>> No.17992851

>>17990568
this was actually Kant's final purpose that he stated at the end of the first critique. We need metaphysics to limit dumb metaphysics, because humans will always do metaphysics and it should rather be informed and restricted by critique.

>> No.17992858

>>17989922
I love Kastrup and his combination of Schopenhauer and Jung/psychology is genius, but sometimes he can be pretty reddit

>> No.17992875

>>17992770
Nietzsche, love or hate him, was right about the psychological underpinnings of Catholics and other likeminded people.

>> No.17992891

>>17992770
>>17992875
Imagine seething this much about a title lmao

>> No.17992902

>>17992891
I've actually read Feser's books, I'm talking about the contents not the title. He is a very petty and polemical man.

>> No.17992904

>>17992770
Whine more you triggered pussy
And aristotelianism come from paganism you retard

>> No.17992910

>>17992902
Polemic because he defends a position? It has the same tone as other metaphysical works in the field, you are just triggered by his logos

>> No.17992911

>>17992904
>aristotelianism come from paganism you retard
The Bible sure as hell didn't. Aristotelianism is basically just Aquinas and Feser's bridge to convince people that the Bible is the truth. Aristotle himself never would have bought into it.

>> No.17992917

>>17992910
>Polemic because he defends a position?
No, if you don't know what I mean then you haven't read his books. He is constantly making snide quips and insulting the intelligence of people who have made arguments against the positions he is arguing for. It's irritating to read, even if I agree with Feser's take on any given argument.

>> No.17992919

>>17992911
>The Bible sure as hell didn't. Aristotelianism is basically just Aquinas
Imagine behing this ignorant
>Aristotle himself never would have bought into it.
I wonder why all the modern non-Christian neo-aristotelicians respect the works of Feser
Cry but we are waiting for your arguments little pussy

>> No.17992925

>>17992917
>No, if you don't know what I mean then you haven't read his books
More than 10 times
>He is constantly making snide quips and insulting the intelligence of people who have made arguments against the positions he is arguing for. It's irritating to read, even if I agree with Feser's take on any given argument.
Noooooh you can't disagreeeee
This is violeeeeence and poleeemiiiiik

>> No.17992929

>>17992919
My arguments are still there and waiting for you to respond in kind. Ignore them if you want, not my problem.

>> No.17992934

>>17989928
Correct answer, but probably a bit too dense for OP, someone who wanted to read 'Why Materialism is Baloney'.
>>17989922
For me, it was Schopenhauers Essay 'On the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason'

>> No.17992940

>>17992929
>My arguments are still there and waiting for you to respond in kind
Crying about the alleged polemic tone of a book is not an argument you braindead

>> No.17992952

>>17989978
Based
>>17992770
Tf are you talkin about? His style in this book is perfectly academical

>> No.17992953

>>17992925
It's perfectly fine to disagree. I just find Feser's character unbecoming, and, frankly, ignoble. I do not respect him as a man or a philosopher.

>> No.17992970

>>17992953
>I just find Feser's character unbecoming, and, frankly, ignoble. I do not respect him as a man or a philosopher.
Facts and arguments don't care about your feelings you whiny bitch
He could be the most shitty person alive, it wouldnt change the validity of his arguments
And this book is not at all polemical
Go read his "The Last Superstition" if you want a polemical tone

>> No.17992993

>>17992970
>Facts and arguments don't care about your feelings you whiny bitch
It’s a fact that burning bushes don’t talk, now what?

>> No.17993029

>>17992993
>It’s a fact that burning bushes don’t talk
I'm not christian you retard

>> No.17993036

>>17992993
Of course, otherwise it wouldn't be a miracle when it happens, duh
Nobody denies that

>> No.17993124

>>17992919
>I wonder why all the modern non-Christian neo-aristotelicians respect the works of Feser
Because Feser has continued to develop Aristotle's framework, and as such it is useful to them. There is a reason they are not Christians though. Because Aristotelianism does not imply Christianity unless you're willing to make some irrational leaps of faith.

>> No.17993162

>>17993124
>Because Feser has continued to develop Aristotle's framework, and as such it is useful to them. There is a reason they are not Christians though. Because Aristotelianism does not imply Christianity unless you're willing to make some irrational leaps of faith.
Yes. So? You seem to have a real problem with Christianity. I am not a Christian and I love this book

>> No.17993182

>>17989922
You don't need any books to tell you materialism is shit. The mere fact of consciousness is enough to disprove any form of materialism worthy of the name. Any attempt at reconciling consciousness with matter is a form of dualism, be it substance- or property-. Materialists fool themselves in to thinking this isn't so by using language that obfuscates the significance of consciousness in their theories.

>> No.17993194

>>17993182
Right. See: https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2019/01/materialism-subverts-itself.html

>> No.17993215

>>17990091
Then we're at a dead end.

>> No.17993233

>>17990462
>If the world is mind (and supposing that there is no god) why can't you iust control the world like a thought?
We'll get there anon. We're not ready yet.

>> No.17993241

>>17990091
Imagine taking Kant seriously in 2021. Have you never read the answers to his metaphysics? The mere fact that it is contradictory is enough to reject it: to assert a thing-in-itself beyond phenomena, Kant transgresses his own critique of metaphysics on the fact that one can never go beyond appearances. His antinomies have also long been refuted.

>> No.17993338

>>17993241
If that's your position you're saying things don't actually exist we just live in a world of appearances, we live in a dead world where nothing happens and it merely appears haunted. In no way does Kant refute himself.

>> No.17993354

>>17993338
>we just live in a world of appearances, we live in a dead world where nothing happens and it merely appears haunted
Non sequitur. To say that everything is only appearances (which is not my position but what only Kant can say without being incoherent) is not to deny change.
>In no way does Kant refute himself.
In multiple ways. The most obvious is when he denies that anything can be known about the thing-in-itself behind phenomena, but the mere assertion that these things exist is to go beyond them.

>> No.17993397

>>17989922
Existence is materialism dumb dumb

>> No.17993402

>>17993354
>The most obvious is when he denies that anything can be known about the thing-in-itself behind phenomena, but the mere assertion that these things exist is to go beyond them.
Asserting something exists isn't knowing anything ABOUT it or intrinsic to it. If this were not true, then the ontological argument would actually hold up (so by claiming Kant is wrong here, you are implying the ontological argument is valid). The reason it DOES NOT hold up is because existence is not a trait belonging to a concept or a thing, but a relational assertion of subject to object, not anything about the object.

>> No.17993439

>>17990496
What's the solution?

>> No.17993446

>>17993354
what you are saying is either we directly perceive things as they are or things don't really exist we just have phantom perceptions. Both of those positions are demonstrably incorrect, so how has Kant been refuted exactly?

>> No.17993465

>>17993402
>Asserting something exists isn't knowing anything ABOUT it or intrinsic to it.
If reason allows us to know anything beyond phenomena: for example, that there are things-in-themselves, there is no a priori reason why it should not allow us to deduce other things, and Kant's critique collapses.
>If this were not true, then the ontological argument would actually hold up (so by claiming Kant is wrong here, you are implying the ontological argument is valid).
No, it is a non sequitur. But even so, I think there are modern versions of the ontological argument that are logically valid, its modal version by Platinga for example. Or the one by Alexander Pruss.

>The reason it DOES NOT hold up is because existence is not a trait belonging to a concept or a thing, but a relational assertion of subject to object, not anything about the object.
This is the Thomistic metaphysical distinction between essence and existence. And it allows us to go back to God.

>> No.17993476

>>17993446
>what you are saying is either we directly perceive things as they are or things don't really exist
No, since without thing-in-itself there are only phenomena, therefore no illusion, no disagreement between the appearance and the thing-in-itself.

>> No.17993497

>>17993476
direct unmediated perception of reality it is for you then. must be nice knowing all of our scientific models are literally metaphysical truths. very comforting, I'd imagine.

>> No.17993503

>>17993497
You're missing the point.

>> No.17993512

>>17993241
Kant didn't mean it this way. He just tripped up at some passages and his contemporaries attacked him immediately. The thing in itself is nothing concrete or under causality in this sense. It is the object thought unconditionally when it isn't a representation for a subject, same as soul would be subject thought unconditionally. Kant never says that appearances are just illusions, they are what has to be taken as real and objective, but not because of their unconditional existence in itself, but because the way objects are represented by the subject is dependent on the subject. Space, time and causality are objective because they are necessarily applied to every object. I personally go with Schopenhauer that Kant disregarded the inner sense as a possible direct way of having access to itselfness, which has been hinted at by Kant in the resolution to the 3rd antimony where he makes a distinction between freedom and nature. The antinomies also were not meant to be an important part of the system and I believe Kant thought them solved by transcendental idealism and just put those two against each other (almosy strawmanning them) to hint at the falsehood of the rationalism vs. empiricism debate and how his system can solve it.

>> No.17993524

>>17993512
Okay, but that has nothing to do with my post.

>> No.17993559

>>17993465
>No, it is a non sequitur.
Claiming this does not automatically make it so. If I know the existence of things-in-themselves, and this therefore allows me to know something about things-in-themselves, then existence inheres in them because existence is something about them.
Similarly, a most real being must possess existence, ergo a most real being must exist. Kant's argument against this was that a most real being does not possess existence as a part of its concept, it exists as a self-contained concept without any property of existence inhering in itself. If we say x exists, or x doesn't exist, it is still the same x either way. Likewise, if we say a thing-in-itself exists or does not exist, it is the same either way, we don't expand our knowledge of it in the slightest. Deduction of existence != deduction of transcendent knowledge. Thing-in-itself is not really even asserted to have phenomenal reality, only negative noumenal reality, which is that it is merely a concept which constrains our synthesis of knowledge.

>> No.17993600

>>17993559
>If I know the existence of things-in-themselves, and this therefore allows me to know something about things-in-themselves, then existence inheres in them because existence is something about them.
So reason allows us to deduce things beyond the phenomena.
So the whole Kantian critique of metaphysics collapses.

I don't know why you respond so much to this point, it is the most obvious and the least decried, all neo-Kantian thinkers have tried to solve this inconsistency.

>Similarly, a most real being must possess existence, ergo a most real being must exist. Kant's argument against this was that a most real being does not possess existence as a part of its concept, it exists as a self-contained concept without any property of existence inhering in itself. If we say x exists, or x doesn't exist, it is still the same x either way. Likewise, if we say a thing-in-itself exists or does not exist, it is the same either way, we don't expand our knowledge of it in the slightest.
This is obviously not true. Knowing that X exists or not does not increase our knowledge about the nature or essence of X, but when I know that X exists or that X does not exist, I do learn something. Moreover, the very distinction between essence and existence allows to rationally demonstrate God, on this subject, read Aquinas' De Ente, Feser's works or see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_FEDEBbZT4

>Deduction of existence != deduction of transcendent knowledge. Thing-in-itself is not really even asserted to have phenomenal reality, only negative noumenal reality, which is that it is merely a concept which constrains our synthesis of knowledge.
It is always a rational assertion about the beyond of the phenomena.

>> No.17993662

>>17993600
>So reason allows us to deduce things beyond the phenomena.
No, it doesn't, as I just said. It's a negative knowledge of reality applying to the general concept of nature. You are not learning of anything transcendent. It's merely the acknowledgement that the sense-world is mind-independent in some way, exactly how we cannot know. That is what the thing-in-itself "is", but it's better to simply state what it is not, because that is how Kant defined it (the opposition of negative vs positive noumena, the latter being the transcendent type you are talking about, the former being the restraining concept; or in other words the concept of incompleteness of knowledge).

>> No.17993691

>>17993662
>No, it doesn't, as I just said.
>It's a negative knowledge
Negative or positive, it's knowledge. And I responded to that.

>> No.17993736

>>17993691
The negative noumenon does not allow you to deduce anything beyond phenomena (which was your argument). It's simply an empty space of empirical knowledge that is waiting to be filled by new scientific/sensible data. It is entirely immanent, not transcendent.

>> No.17993765

>>17993736
>The negative noumenon does not allow you to deduce anything beyond phenomena (which was your argument).
Yes, the existence of things.

>> No.17993776

>>17993765
If by things, you mean new sense-perceptions, then yes.

>> No.17993810

>>17993524
he never asserted existence of things in themselves other than in a negative way. The cause of phenomena are phenomena too because you can't transgress back from abstract concepts of the mind directly into the world without sensibility. What caused your image of the tree is really the tree, but this tree is still only a representation because you arrived at the object tree through causality. This means the actual chain is: sensibility, meaning appearance is put together with the pure concepts and pure intuitions -> you abstract the concept of tree -> you establish the tree to be an object outside of you and establish it as the cause of your perception, further proving that by studying your sense organs and light rays -> but that cause of your perception can not be equated with whatever is unconditionally without you as a subject, because the perception, the tree, the light rays and the eye are all representations dependent on a conscious observer. The first step happens against your will, if you were to pick that one appart or be able to break that boundary, the doors would open. That's what Kant calls the mind perceiving directly without sensibility, but it isn't possible for us.

>> No.17993818

>>17993446
How is it demonstrably incorrect to say we directly perceive things as they are? We don't perceive them in their *entirety*, but I don't see how it gets more direct than the interaction of an object with an organ of perception.

>> No.17993822

>>17992237
Husserl will rarely tackle ontological problems head on, because his own method seeks to neutralize them. The few time he speaks about it directly are in introductory books, to show that his method will not seek to resolve those issues, that he does not see them as relevant issues.
Try Philosophy as Rigorous Science.

>> No.17993830

>>17993810
>he never asserted existence of things in themselves other than in a negative way.
It is false, to affirm the existence of things behind the phenomena is a positive thesis. The proof is that if I deny it, you affirm it. So it is a knowledge.

>>17993776
Are you saying that the existence of a thing depends on our senses? This position seems to me far from Kant, you are on Berkeley here.

>> No.17993885

>>17993830
what Kant calls Noumena is entirely a mental construct, it is not meant to have existence, you can say that it has or hasn't, but it makes no difference to the validity of Kant's system. Noumena are meant as a refutation of Leibniz and purely negative, restricting the conflation of representation and unconditional objects. He never says: this is the thing in itself or the thing in itself has that and that property or things in themselves do that and that, but he says appearances are NOT things in themselves and with that he means, objects are only really objects if they have a subject outside of that we don't have a clue about anything. He sometimes trips up and lets it sound like he means they are the causes of appearances, but by that he probably means the mind likes to think its concept of objects as unconditional causes.

>> No.17993892

>>17993885
>what Kant calls Noumena is entirely a mental construct, it is not meant to have existence,
But the thing-in-itself is ontological.

>> No.17993930

>>17993892
ontological for Kant is only what fits in between sensibility and understanding. Otherwise there is no point discussing its existence because you are talking about things in themselves.

>> No.17993959

>>17993930
>what fits in between sensibility and understanding
So it's knowledge.

>Otherwise there is no point discussing its existence because you are talking about things in themselves.
We are going in circles. The existence of things-in-themselves is an ontological affirmation, therefore positive. Even if you don't want to talk about their existence and only about their essence, the simple affirmation of these things is a knowledge about the beyond of phenomena, which Kant says is impossible. The proof is that if I deny them, you affirm them. No matter which way you go, Kant can only be agnostic and limit himself to phenomena if he wants to remain coherent.

This is only one of the problems with his philosophies anyway. To return to natural theology: its antinomies have been debunked for a long time.

>> No.17993970

>>17993036
Okay, so what’s feelings to wokeys is ‘miracles’ to you, got it

>> No.17994009

>>17992770
>Catholics truly are just kept alive by their hatred for those who disagree with them, and truly fit perfectly in the Abrahamic context, a context dominated by a single urge for petty revenge
you put too much importance on yourself, we don't even think about you at all

>> No.17994026

>>17993959
his antinomies were meant to be debunked by himself in the solution to the antinomies. There is no reason to assume Kant thought of them as problematic, they are orchestrated like a drama to show off his solutions to cosmological problems that are superior to the conflict in philosophy before him, again, it makes no difference if they are a real problem or not, for Kant they aren't, because they don't even make sense in his system. His contemporaries and German Idealism got a boner at them for some reason. Forget all the Hegel bullshit about reason contradicting itself in the clash of the antinomies and bringing forth absolute knowledge or whatever.

The thing in itself is a placeholder for our ignorance. If you want to discuss its ontology, you can use the same argument that Kant used against the ontological argument. Since it isn't given in a possible Anschauung it makes no sense to ascribe existence or non-existence to it.

>> No.17994038

>>17994026
>his antinomies were meant to be debunked by himself in the solution to the antinomies.
This is incorrect. They i) had to be equal, and his answer was ii) that they cancelled each other out. We now know that i) this is not the case.

>The thing in itself is a placeholder for our ignorance.

> The existence of things-in-themselves is an ontological affirmation, therefore positive. (...) The proof is that if I deny them, you affirm them. No matter which way you go, Kant can only be agnostic and limit himself to phenomena if he wants to remain coherent.

>> No.17994113

>>17994038
Not to mention the fact that some arguments of natural philosophy are not even concerned with his antinomies. There are arguments that work whether the universe has a beginning or not, for example. https://youtu.be/Hx9gLvLYF5s

>> No.17994131

Aristotle, Posterior Analytics, Physics
Thomas Aquinas, Commentaries on Aristotle
James Ross, Thought and World
David Oderberg, Real Essentialism
Charles De Koninck, Writings
Peter Kreeft, Socratic Logic
John Deely, Four Ages of Understanding
Benedict Ashley, The Way toward Wisdom
William Wallace, The Modeling of Nature
Wolfgang Smith, The Quantum Enigma
Tuomas Tahko, Contemporary Aristotelian Metaphysics
Jacques Maritain, The Degrees of Knowledge
Bernard Lonergan, Insight
John Carlson, Understanding our Being
Dennis Bonnette, Origin of the Human Species
John Haught, God after Darwin
Stanley Jaki, The Limits of a Limitless Science and Other Essays
Anthony Rizzi, The Science before Science
Yves Simon, The Great Dialogue of Nature and Space
Stephen Barr, Modern Physics and Ancient Faith
Pierre Duhem, Essays, The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory
Alasdair MacIntyre, After Virtue

>> No.17994176

>>17994038
Nobody asserted existence or non-existence. You can imagine things in themselves as a logical function that makes a loud beep sound everytime you assert something akin to realism. We can't go much further than that. That's why Kant called them Noumena (νους) because our reason is bad at metaphysics so it conflates subject-dependent phenomena with unconditional objects all that time.

The antinomies don't cancel or whatever, they just assert contradictions and that's what gives Kant a reason to search for a solution that he gives by describing his own cosmology that he obviously takes as being the right option. If you have a problem with his solution it's because you don't like transcendental idealism and would rather have the world be a well defined absolute

>> No.17994183

>>17994131
>David Oderberg, Real Essentialism
>Pierre Duhem, Essays, The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory
Good shit
It lacks some Feser and Nancy Cartwright tho

>> No.17994248
File: 7 KB, 219x230, 9k=.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17994248

>>17994183
>Nancy Cartwright
EAT MY MATERIALISM!

>> No.17994284

>>17994183
He was already mentioned from what I saw. Other books by these authors are worth reading too. I just didn't want to make too extenive of a list.

>> No.17994300

>>17994248
The absolute state of physicalism

>> No.17994411

I think Aristotle gives one of the best and simple arguments against materialism in his Metaphysics. We can observe that matter doesn't change itself, that wood doesn't turn itself in a bed or that bronze doesn't turn itself into a statue, for example. These things require a craftsman to shape them but if we consider what the craftsman is and assume he's just material then we have a viscous regress of matter moving matter which is contrary to the initial observation. The solution is there must be something outside of the material which is the source of change.

>> No.17994578
File: 494 KB, 610x380, rock-wave-australia.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17994578

>>17994411
>We can observe that matter doesn't change itself, that wood doesn't turn itself in a bed or that bronze doesn't turn itself into a statue, for example. These things require a craftsman to shape them but if we consider what the craftsman is and assume he's just material then we have a viscous regress of matter moving matter which is contrary to the initial observation.
That's just begging the question. You're saying the craftsman can't be considered purely material because matter can't transform itself, but that's precisely the claim that the interpretation of the craftsman as a purely material entity is trying to argue against.

>> No.17994636

>>17994411
materialism is pretty different from saying only material causes exist. Aristotle himself is pretty close to materialism/physicalism if you disregard that he says reason is not physical because we don't have an organ for it and it doesn't cause things directly by touching them.

>> No.17994728

>>17989922
Here I'll write one

Because imagination manifests and we can program reality
But u fixate on shit that already exists and is locked in

>> No.17994777

>>17994578
It's not begging the question, it's an inference that follows an observation. Show me matter that we know moves itself and then we can talk about how Aristotle was wrong here.

>> No.17994823

>>17994636
What are the relevant differences? And yeah, I would agree that Aristotle was a materialist if we disregard all the ways that he wasn't.

>> No.17994845

>>17992770
look mom i read the wiki to geneology of morals.

>> No.17994956

>>17989968
Great resources, thanks!

>> No.17994969

>>17994777
>It's not begging the question, it's an inference that follows an observation.
It's begging the question because you're dismissing an objection to your premises (the interpretation of the craftsman as a purely material phenomenon as an example of matter causing changes to matter) by appealing to the truth of your premises (matter can't change matter, therefore the craftsman can't be a purely material phenomenon).
>show me matter that we know moves itself and then we can talk about how Aristotle was wrong here.
Trees grow, water flows and carves out valleys or falls in drops, snowflakes, or hailstones, wind blows, planets rotate on their axes and orbit the sun, rocks form themselves into crystals, tectonic plates push against each other creating mountain ranges, volcanoes erupt and create islands.

>> No.17994977

>>17994411
Is that which structures material reality itself something material?

>> No.17995027

>>17994411
See: >>17990009

>> No.17995065

>>17994969
To beg the question is assume the conclusion of your argument, it's not when somebody dismisses an objection to a premise. Begging the question is precisely what you're doing when you assume that a tree growing is mater moving itself. That's not something you know.

>> No.17995083

>>17994977
I don't know what you mean by structuring material reality.

>> No.17995144

>>17995065
> it's not when somebody dismisses an objection to a premise
It is when you dismiss the objection by appealing to the thing being objected to. You're defending your premises by appealing to your premises, which means you're already assuming that your premises are correct.
Even if "begging the question" isn't the right term for it, what you're doing is still a form of circular reasoning.
>Begging the question is precisely what you're doing when you assume that a tree growing is mater moving itself.
No it fucking isn't you retard. To state a premise or make an assumption isn't begging the question. It only becomes such when try and argue for the truth of the premise by appealing to the premise. Besides which, if what I'm doing IS begging the question, then you're guilty of it too by assuming that a tree growing isn't an example of matter moving itself.

>> No.17995257

>>17995144
Begging the question and circular reasoning are the same thing. What I'm doing is making an observation that matter doesn't move itself and from there I make the inference that there must be something other than matter. What you did was argue that matter moves itself by pointing to a tree growing, but in doing this you're assuming that a tree growing is matter moving itself. This is assuming that conclusion in the premise which is what begging the question is. I'm just repeating myself now because for whatever reason you're capable of understanding this so I'm getting bored with you. Plus you're starting to get nasty now for no reason so I have nothing left to say to you. I can only suggest that you humble yourself and consider some of the things you think you know, especially about logic.

>> No.17995675

>>17995257
>What I'm doing is making an observation that matter doesn't move itself and from there I make the inference that there must be something other than matter.
Except that's not all you're doing. Let's break down your argument.
You first observe that
>(A)wood doesn't turn itself in a bed
>(B)bronze doesn't turn itself into a statue
these are presented as examples of the "observation" that
>(C)matter doesn't change itself
Even so,
>(D)wood can be turned into a bed and bronze into a statue
Therefore, from (C) and (D) you deduce that
>(E)these transformations of matter must be effected by something which isn't wholly material
As an example of this you then say that
>(F)a craftsman is the not-wholly-material entity which effects the above changes

You then address a potential objection to your argument, that objection being
>(G)a craftsman is a wholly material entity
If (G) is true then the craftsman you mention as the one responsible for turning wood into a bed or bronze into a statue would actually be an example of matter moving matter, thus (C) would be proven false, and by extension so would (E)
Now, what is your argument against (G)?
> if we consider what the craftsman is and assume he's just material then we have a viscous regress of matter moving matter which is contrary to the initial observation
In other words, your argument against (G), which aims to disprove (C), is (C) itself.
The form of this argument can be presented as
>If (G) then ¬(C)
>(C)
>Therefore ¬(G)
The idea is that we know (C) to be true, therefore (G), which would contradict (C), cannot be true.

Another example of such an argument is:
>If today is a Monday then it can't be a Tuesday.
>Today is a Tuesday
>Therefore today isn't a Monday.
Here, too, the idea is that because we know for a fact that it is a Tuesday, then today can't be a Monday. But in order to appeal to today being Tuesday to disprove the claim that today is a Monday, we first have to somehow prove that today is actually a Tuesday—by consulting a calendar, for instance.

Here lies the problem with your argument. In order to prove that (G) is false by appealing to (C), you first have to prove that (C) is true, which you haven't done. All you did was poins to two examples of things which don't contradict (C). That isn't proof of (C) because it doesn't preclude the possibility of there being examples of things which do contradict (C).

>> No.17995681

>>17995257
>What you did was argue that matter moves itself by pointing to a tree growing, but in doing this you're assuming that a tree growing is matter moving itself. This is assuming that conclusion in the premise which is what begging the question is.
You asked for an example of what could be considered matter moving itself and I pointed to (among other examples) a tree growing. Now that I have provided what I consider to be an example of matter moving itself, it now falls to you either accept the phenomena I listed off as valid examples of matter moving matter, or else reject them and present your own reasons for why you think that they are not examples of matter moving matter, at which point I would eitehr agree with your assessment or present my own reasons for why I don't find it convincing. That's how an intelligent discussion should proceed.
Simply saying "well, you're just ASSUMING that the your arguments are correct" doesn't contribute anything because everyone is always assuming that their own arguments are correct. That's how arguing works, and it's something you're doing as much as I am. If we didn't each of us assume ourselves to be right then we wouldn't be here arguing for our respective positions.

>> No.17995692
File: 51 KB, 415x739, images (11).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17995692

>>17989922

>> No.17995753

>>17994728
Explain

>> No.17995777

>>17995675
This is the bad kind of autism. Nobody is reading this.

>>17995681
I asked for something we know is moving itself. We don't know that the tree is moving itself.

>> No.17995792

>>17995777
>I asked for something we know is moving itself
The soul. Freewill baby

>> No.17995891

>>17995777
ok

>> No.17996161

>>17989922
no

>> No.17996214

>>17995257
You're begging the question because you are starting with the assumption that everything is matter, instead of starting with something you can actually be completely sure is matter, and since we are dealing with the metaphysical concept of matter, not everyday normal assumptions about "physical material," it's a poor assumption to start with if you were actually trying to figure it out (instead of just prove your conclusion).

>> No.17996252

>>17996214
Repeat it again for the tenth time

>> No.17996269
File: 97 KB, 905x942, spooked.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17996269

>> No.17996307

>>17989968
This is grade A sophist horeshit.

>> No.17996337

>>17996307
elaborate

>> No.17996374

>>17994823
>if we disregard all the ways that he wasn't
the one way he was isn't very satisfying

>> No.17996607

just fuck this Kastrup-qualia-chalmers vs reddit-Dennett-materialism bullshit

Read Husserl and Heidegger

>> No.17996689

any book you buy will be material even if its on a screen

>> No.17996701

>>17996689
You wish to disengage materialism yet you are material. Curious!

>> No.17996854

>>17996337
He can't. He's the sophist

>> No.17997295

Bump desu

>> No.17997701

>>17995753
there's not much more to explain
we program reality. double slit experiment if you want more info
same thing with your body and stem cells. your fixation and intent with imagination, focus, and energy (emotional) will program your body

fixation on the material locks us in place
same with fixation on any perceived boundaries (whether or not we have "access" yet is a different story)

>> No.17997714

>>17995753
so real/not real is sort of moot
its all belief but we make it up through belief
that belief will manifest and make it real
now amplify the energy and you get more

media is mass ritual, it should be an obvious enough breadcrumb for you there
television
tell a vision
channel
"surf"
program
etc.

>> No.17997732

materialists win by default because the moment you point to something that isn't material they can redefine material to include it

>> No.17997765

>>17997732
Read https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2019/01/materialism-subverts-itself.html

>> No.17998149

>>17997732
i mean when we say "immaterial" it's really just about forces we don't understand but we have some sense of, but cant really measure by our methods

>> No.17998201
File: 212 KB, 1032x1440, sp.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17998201

do any of you even know what you're talking about? i feel like a lot of you are trying to intellectualize your hatred for new atheists or something

>> No.17999323

>>17998201
>Marx
>No one gets hurt
Lmao yeah sure

>> No.17999329

>>17997701
>>17997714
You believe in magic right?
Where are the evidencew of all this

>> No.17999458

>>17992151
DIdn't Krauss get called out for paling around with Epstein and frequenting his parties?

>> No.17999468
File: 180 KB, 1110x964, D3y3LbOX4AAnWZ2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17999468

>>17999458

Yes.

>> No.17999481

>>17990077
For Kant, substance is purely phenomenal. Meaning it couldn’t be a thing in itself, or be what the thing itself is made of.

>> No.17999495

>>17999323
The cartoon is implicating Marx in the crimes of Stalinism, plainly.

>> No.17999533

>>17993959
>Kant can only be agnostic and limit himself to phenomena if he wants to remain coherent.
Which is exactly what he does. Except he places strict conditions on any further speculation which relates to things-in-themselves. I already told you here >>17993736 that the negative noumenon is an immanent construct. It gives no transcendent deduction.

>> No.17999569

>>17993241
This is what I thought until I actually thoroughly read Kant. TL;DR, most (if not all) of Kant's critics didn't actually understand him.

>> No.17999738

>>17989946
you can get it for free from libgen

>> No.17999815

>>17999468
Imagine my lack of shekells

>> No.17999936

>>17999468
>as a scientist
Lmao this reddit-tier retard

>> No.17999970

>>17989928
>>17990077
>>17999481

Let me get this right: Kant would argue that matter isn't actually a real thing because there's no way to ever be certain about the real world, but we use matter as a concept to help us better formulate understanding of the external world, correct?

>> No.18000010

> YOU CANNOT KNOW YOU CANNOT KNOW
> eats your food
> YOU CANNOT KNOW YOU CANNOT KNOW
> fucks your girl until she screams
> YOU CANNOT KNOW YOU CANNOT KNOW
> steal your wallet
> YOU CANNOT KNOW YOU CANNOT KNOW
> ties into in a fridge with flesh eating cockroaches
YOU CANNOT KNOW YOU CANNOT AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH

Why must we play these childish games?

>> No.18000126
File: 1.18 MB, 1099x860, Snap3490.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18000126

>>17989922
https://youtu.be/eehz5YKnBf4

https://youtu.be/fOyWO7Yw8AY

>> No.18000134

>>18000126
Is the book good anon?

>> No.18000233

>>17989922
Sage

>> No.18000407

>>18000233
seethe

>> No.18000627

>>17989922
>>>/x/

>> No.18000651

>>18000627
are you stupid?

>> No.18001272
File: 5 KB, 120x120, fdp.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18001272

bump

>> No.18001327
File: 2.92 MB, 2912x4368, 1611011892511.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18001327

He looks like a fraud

>> No.18001342

>>18000651
That’s where religion threads go.

>> No.18001428

>>18001342
i'ts books of philosophy not religion you dumbass

>> No.18001824

>>17999329
Three very basic stuff with the quantum realm, double slit
It's still way too early for science and I think science might have to really change their approach. I think the cultural conditioning may also have to change in order to have "eyes" for it too.
Placebo and nocebo are also decent entry points.
If you are not open to the idea or possibility, you will never start down that path

Things like prayer are not just personal conditioning
Check out all the mudras in Indian phil too
We all hold hands in a circle around a dinner table to "bless" a food

It seems like aether is back on the table these days and this is within that world of thought.

All I'm going to say if we influence reality and there has been very strong efforts to guide that energy by those in positions of power.
Being taught that we are separate from this and that it doesn't exist is what helps maintain certain structures as well as the current state of our reality.
Consider things like the Vedas as potentially legitimate.
I would say just be open to the idea at the very least as this is what allows for curious inquiry.
I don't have much concrete for you

>> No.18001843

>>17999329
And I would dissociate yourself from this word "magic" given its cultural representation and all the expressions projected onto it

Just consider energy and your/our creative potential

>> No.18001882

>>18001824
>>Three very basic stuff with the quantum realm, double slit
undergrad detected

>> No.18001966

>>18001882
Deny all you want as I said you will just cut yourself off from possibility
Culture and humanity will tap into this stuff long before science understands it. You can get ahead of the curve by being open to the idea. I am not claiming what it is or how it works.

>> No.18001992

>>17996214
What would it even mean for something to be 'non-physical'? We don't even have examples of such a thing, it's a purely negative concept. So even if you think physicalism is an assumption, you have no alternative to appeal to.

>> No.18002044

>>17997701
There's no evidence that wavefunction collapse is a concrete thing. So far, it's a mathematical artifact. You've been suckered by quantum sensationalism.

>> No.18002096

>>17999481
I think he was working with a more archaic notion of 'substance'. We also have to consider that appearances are things as well, and that if we can't know the thing-in-itself then we can't know how much we do or don't perceive of it. Our perception might convey a great deal about it—we just don't know.

>> No.18002186
File: 115 KB, 795x960, 1580075025808.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18002186

>>18000010
A moderate degree of skepticism is a prerequisite for critical thought. I agree though, that philosophy needs to become far more pragmatically oriented if it wants to be taken seriously.

>> No.18002188

>>18002044
Even thinking "wave collapse" is going to be a language and perspective that won't reach the full gamut
I think it will be known and utilized existentially before there is a "materialist" understanding or language for it

>> No.18002200

>>18002186
Philosophy is identity
So yes, it should be a pragmatic thing. Imagination can work as a vision or ambition but must be acted through

>> No.18002346

>>18001992
>we don’t even have examples of such a thing
Qualia. Not the anon you were replying to tho

>> No.18002852

Bump

>> No.18003924

>>18002346
Calling experience 'qualia' does not identify it as something non-physical nor describe non-physicality in positive terms.

>> No.18004036

>>18003924
as i said earlier in this thread, "immaterial" is just forces we dont quite understand but have some sense of
physicalism refers to forces or material we can actively witness and can demonstrably acknowledge the stable behavior of

>> No.18004131

>>18004036
do you realize that you can do the same thing with any metaphysics? redefine it again and again so that it contains everything?

see: https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2019/01/materialism-subverts-itself.html

>> No.18004154

>>17990732
It's called libgen, sir. Get with the times.

>> No.18004185

>>17989953
Looks based.

>>17992151
BASED

>>17995692
Disgusting

>> No.18004395

>>18004131
metaphysics is chasing theory
i'm talking more about "sensing". not common sense but something more existential

>> No.18004477

>>18001992
OOBEs and Remote Viewing

>> No.18004525

>>18004477
retard

>> No.18004553

>>18004525
Eh? Prime examples of phenomena demonstrating that consciousness is non-local, therefore not a material process of the brain.

>> No.18004590
File: 63 KB, 705x700, Gustavo-bueno.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18004590

>>17989922
>200 posts
>no mention of Gustavo Bueno

>> No.18004669

>>17990077
You sorta skimmed over the "mind" part. Consciousness cannot, absolutely cannot!, be pinned down to a material process. There's nothing that is physically quantifiable to be found that even remotely resembles consciousness. What does the frequency of a photon have to do with the experience of seeing red? The frequency of a pressure wave to middle C? Correlated, clearly, but there's no string of symbols sketched out on a chalkboard which equates measurable quantities to the phenomenon of subjective experience itself. What goes on the "consciousness" side of the "=" symbol? Nothing rigorous.

If forced to choose between idealism and physicalism/materialism, the only choice is idealism, as consciousness is more immediate to us than the things which we perceive within it. This is also unsatisfactory, in my view, so the answer, again in my view, is dualism. Mere matter doesn't observe and observation must have something to fixate upon.

The deeper truth is probably some sort of monism, but we can only infer this with lemmas from outside of the question at hand. A snake eating its own tail (Ouroboros). Would a "material universe" "exist" if there were no conscious beings to label it as such? Of course not. The preceding scare quotes contain symbolic representations that spring only from conscious agents capable of creating and recognizing symbols.

>> No.18004711

>>18003924
Is there anything "physical" which cannot be rigorously measured and quantified?

>> No.18004768

>>18004669
>>18004711
Same anon here. Skimming this thread, the reason for the inscription "Let None But Geometers Enter Here" at Plato's academy becomes clear. In modern parlance this would mean something like "Let None But Those Who Have Studied Mathematics And Physics Enter Here". The thread contains many muddled thoughts expressed by those who (clearly) haven't spent any time dealing with the nature, notation, and rigorous treatment of the physical world. It is as if people who can't strum out a chord or press the keys to generate a simple melody are lecturing others on music theory. These are the physicalists/materialists.

>> No.18004782

>>18004711
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leibniz%27s_gap

>> No.18004835

>>18004782
>Leibniz
I love that crazy feller. I first learned about him from the math/physics side, but soon read more broadly. He's one of the writers with a background that allows him to discuss these things. I admit that I'm not completely sure of what monads are meant to do. Ditto for functional programming languages, although that's a bit more concrete! That whole "synchronized clocks betwixt the world of the mind and the world of matter" is a great illustration of the scale/nature of the problem. The fact that a feller as good at discovering things and making new connections as Leibniz ended up at that insane-sounding conclusion is more interesting/forceful as a statement of the difficulty of the problem than as an explanation in itself.

>> No.18004875
File: 23 KB, 334x499, Goldschmidt_Idealism.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18004875

Maybe you could give this a try.

>> No.18004934

>>18004768
>These are the physicalists/materialists
Elaborate

>>18004875
Ty

>> No.18005016

>>18004036
Well, things we don't understand is a more generalized category imo. "Immaterial" carries with it an implied 'kind' of thing, as if it were a positively defined category (which it is not, it is an entirely conceptual negation of the 'material').

>>18004131
The physical is whatever stuff is governed by the laws of physics. That understanding how something works always points to it being governed by the laws of physics (so far) doesn't detract from physicalism, it recommends it. We aren't redefining the physical in a fundamental sense, we're simply expanding our understanding of it.

>>18004553
I'm skeptical about the demonstrative quality of such examples, as they are typically associated with altered brain-states (near-death endorphin dump, drugs, meditation). They could just as easily be good examples of how material our experiences really are. In any event, appealing to non-locality doesn't make sense as locality/non-locality are considerations of physics.

>>18004711
I'm sure there are many such things, including whatever is outside our universe. That doesn't mean we have any indication of any other fundamental parallel category.

>>18004768
Nice anecdote, but in modern parlance "Not an Argument."

>> No.18005137

>>18004934
>Elaborate
It is obvious that many of the physicalists/materialists in this thread haven't actually studied physics. They don't even have a clear idea of what marks something as amenable to physical analysis. They have wishy-washy notions about what is "physical" and what isn't, but they've never spent any time studying the process of creating or understanding physics, thus they leave things on the table which don't belong (implicitly, in many cases, as one would expect from outsiders).

>>18005016
>not an argument
It wasn't meant to be. It is an assertion, just as the assertion made by Plato's Academy. If you're confident to make judgements about the topic at hand without having studied math/physics then be my guest. You'll probably fail to make sense, but lazy words often win advocates.

>> No.18005825
File: 40 KB, 209x209, chogus5.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18005825

>>17999738
free baloney? mama mia!

>> No.18005941
File: 209 KB, 300x498, 1538089797618.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18005941

>>18005137

>> No.18006060

>>18005941
Based.

>> No.18006075

>>18004768
The majority of physicalists ARE professional physicists or philosophy doctors who completed separate physics/maths degrees. Your point is flawed from the start.

>> No.18006154

>>18006075
>lol absence of insufficience is evidence of sufficience
Name two!

>> No.18006188

>>18006075
More importantly, are you able to judge anything they have to say about physical science? Are you, personally, equipped to judge charlatans who appeal to physical science? If not, what business do you have in philosophy? If you can be mislead by tangential chicanery then you're a lost soul. I presume you can be mislead thus, and I hope you'll do better.

>> No.18006211

See, for example, this nonsense (written by an idiot who hasn't studied physics):
>>18005016
>The physical is whatever stuff is governed by the laws of physics

What a load of horse shit! No real insight into what is quantitative versus what isn't. No statement at all, in fact. Yet this poor rube believes himself to be in possession of some sort of truth. He can't call it anything beyond "whatever stuff", yet he proclaims knowledge!

Sad!

>> No.18006215

if humans had one extra sensory perception, all of science would change

>> No.18006665

>>17989922
>Best book against materialism/physicalism?

There's plenty of books against materialism. But I recommend trying reality out from time to time, OP. Reality is the best argument FOR materialism.

>> No.18007274

>>18006665
Cringe

>> No.18007281

>>18006211
>What a load of horse shit! No real insight into what is quantitative versus what isn't
Might interest you: http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2021/04/what-is-mathematics-about.html

>> No.18007287

>>18006211
'Stuff' is just a synonym for 'things', idiot. The definition of the physical is anything governed by the laws of phsyics. If you're so certain I'm incorrect, then share your definition instead of persisting in your rhetorical pseud dance.

>> No.18007334

>>18007287
>>18006211
https://youtu.be/YhR77luOETU from 22:28

>> No.18007570

>>18007334
I didn't say the physical was that which is studied by physics, I said it was that which is governed by the laws of physics (i.e. that which can be predicted/manipulated by the application of knowledge of said laws—yes, even when done probabilistically).

Futhermore, is entirely possible that base existence behaves in such a way that the 'laws' of physics (or some 'master' set of them) are inherent to it. In this case, anything extant would indeed be physical and those wouldn't be truly discrete categories. We don't know for sure, no one does, but neither can an alternative paradigm (a state of non-physicality) even be imagined/described. So let's not pretend anyone's metaphysics are complete, when metaphysics reached the impasse of limited perception long ago (which is why metaphysics is no longer a fruitful avenue of inquiry, and has become a redoubt for the vague speculations of crypto-mysticists).

>> No.18007574

>>18006188
All I'm doing is showing that your reasoning is a flawed appeal to authority. Nice cope, though, you basically proved my point that you're a mere sophist.

>> No.18007581
File: 32 KB, 474x282, FuckILoveScience.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18007581

>>17999468
>>17999458

Lawrence Krauss is one of the dumbest, most disgusting creatures on this Earth. His sight makes me want to do him violence. I feel whatever wrong I do to him can only be right.

>> No.18007595

>>18007570
>I didn't say the physical was that which is studied by physics, I said it was that which is governed by the laws of physics (i.e. that which can be predicted/manipulated by the application of knowledge of said laws—yes, even when done probabilistically).
Same + read https://www.amazon.com/How-Laws-Physics-Nancy-Cartwright/dp/0198247044

>> No.18007599

>>18007581
>Lawrence Krauss is one of the dumbest, most disgusting creatures on this Earth.
This https://www.firstthings.com/article/2012/06/not-understanding-nothing

>> No.18007680

>>18007595
No, those statements are not the same. The former is an obvious tautology, and the latter specifically references empirical consistencies in the behaviour of things. No shit, the 'laws' of physics are abstractions from those actual concrete behaviours, but they are about as non-abstract as one can get (since they directly refer to those empirically observed behaviours) and their consistency/predictive power is undeniable. You have no alternative model that even begins to approach the explanatory capability of the physical laws.

If you're going to be so low-effort, why even bother?

>> No.18007711

Is this /lit alternative to those schizo groups in Facebook where boomers post about 5g and reptile people?

>> No.18007715

>>18007711
No

>> No.18007721

>>18007680
>No, those statements are not the same
Yes they are

>The former is an obvious tautology, and the latter specifically references empirical consistencies in the behaviour of things
Consistencies presupposed in the former (physics)

>> No.18007813

>>18007721
>Consistencies presupposed in the former (physics)
They aren't presupposed, they are empirically observed and subject to being refined by further observations. Please stop embarassing yourself.

>> No.18007833

>>17989922

That book is stupid but as per another post in this thread, a lot of physicalism is stupid as well in virtue of being completely detached from the actual epistemology of physics, especially in trying to apply physics wrongly and in questions that are not related to physics at all. To be fair, schmucks like Krauss, Tyson and Kaku do this as well.

>> No.18007871

>>18007813
>They aren't presupposed, they are empirically observed and subject to being refined by further observations.
You can't make science to begin with without these regularities you dumbass

>> No.18007903

to all of you fanatical religious - idealists
have you ever actually tried to know what science is about and how it works?

>> No.18007975

>>18007871
Empiricism is the only conduit to knowledge we have. The specific 'regularities' themselves are not presupposed/axiomatically assumed, since knowledge of them is contingent upon the process of observation (and could be revised at any time due to new information). You don't even understand the basic terminology.

>> No.18007994

>>18007975
>The specific 'regularities' themselves are not presupposed/axiomatically assumed, since knowledge of them is contingent upon the process of observation (and could be revised at any time due to new information).
You mix observation and science on purpose. Yes, observation does not presuppose regularities, it observes them. But science presupposes them, since without them it cannot be done. Regularities are a necessary basis for the scientific process, while being contingent on observation.

>> No.18008001

>>18007903
This is for you moron >>17992151

>> No.18008030

>>18007994
>You mix observation and science on purpose.
They're inextricable. Science IS formalized empiricism (observation). You're back-pedalling on your retardation with a silly semantic game.

Actually no, you can't be this stupid—you must be a troll. I'll stop feeding you now.

>> No.18008064
File: 297 KB, 1200x1200, plato.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18008064

>>18008030
>They're inextricable.
But different.

Your tone has been haughty and pedantic from the start, even though you are a complete retard who has obviously never opened an epistemology book. Hey, idiot, do you know the problem of induction?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction

Ding dong, does it ring a bell? You can observe as many regularities as you want, the idea that they will continue is a metaphysical belief. There is a gap between a particular collection of regularities, however large, and their enlargement into an infallible law.

So YES, you idiot, the regularities are observed but presupposed by the scientific process, which has as its axiomatic presupposition the validity of induction.

Now go back to the septic tank where you came from.

>> No.18008084

>>17992770
Based

>> No.18008117

>>17992151

Pretty ironic that Bill Nye is the closest quote to actually not sounding like an idiot and leaving openings for discussion

>> No.18008335

>>17989922
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAB21FAXCDE

>> No.18008625

>>18008335
Very interesting actually

>> No.18008642

>>18008335
that interview was phenomenal. I hope this guy will get more attention.

>> No.18009197

Bump

>> No.18009222

The Bible.

>> No.18009601

>>18008064
You understand that the problem is only a technical caveat, right? You don't actually have any other means of apprehending knowledge. The very logic that the problem of induction relies upon is abstracted from the same empirical consistencies that it warns us we can't be certain will persist. Nevetheless, we need not be certain and we need not have faith that they will, we need only to inform our provisional knowledge (which most knowledge is) with an ongoing process of observation (i.e. constantly tested, not presupposed). Hume -was- an empiricist for fuck's sake, he wasn't trashing empiricism he was just pointing out that 100% certainty is achievable for anything but apodictic truths.

Now please spare me babby's first foray into skepticism, you utter dilettante

>> No.18009611

>>18009601
*isn't achievable

>> No.18009684

>>18009601
>You understand that the problem is only a technical caveat, right?
>bro epistemology is just a technical caveat i swear
Please stfu

>> No.18009745

>>18009684
So, no argument again. As expected.

>> No.18009794

>>18009745
I gave you my arguments, you admitted that I was right but spoke of "technical caveat".

I won, bye

>> No.18010086

>>18007975
>Empiricism is the only conduit to knowledge we have
hence why all knowledge is self knowledge

>> No.18010099

>>18010086
>>18007975
>Empiricism is the only conduit to knowledge we have
Mathematics laughs

>> No.18010204

The best proofs for the soul were:
1) The Ship of Theseus
2) The Deep Space 9 episode where Bashir keeps replacing parts of Vedek Bareil's brain until the Vedek is not himself anymore even though he is still physically him

>> No.18010279

>>18010204
>The best proofs for the soul
There is literally zero evidence for the consciousness which survives the boy. If people believe it without evidence then it should discarded without evidence.

>> No.18010292

>>18010204
materialism being wrong doesn't mean that individual soul exists. Transcendental idealism practically denies it. What I admire about good idealists like Kant, Schopenhauer and the guy who wrote the book in the OP, is that they don't shy away from talking about the objective nature of matter, science and brains, because in principle they don't have anything to fear from them, the scientific truths stay the same if you are not a materialist, just the interpretation and ontological status changes. Incorporating idealism into the scientific mindset could be the next paradigm shift in the sciences.

>> No.18010306

>>18008001
you just prove my point with your blistering seethe

>> No.18010307

>>18010292
Wasn't Schopenhauer a Transcendental Realist?

>> No.18010330

>>18010204
Please elaborate
>>18010279
Ian Stevenson laughs

>> No.18010361

>>18010330
I am telling you about the contemporary neuroscientific research. A very tiny minority of neuroscientists believe in the bullshit of souls.

>> No.18010398

>>18010361
>I am telling you about the contemporary neuroscientific research. A very tiny minority of neuroscientists believe in the bullshit of souls.
So what? The majority is ignorant of the hard problem of consciousness and thinks that a naive materialism solves everything.

>> No.18010406

>>18008335

I’m not a well-read philosophy guy, but his talking about the reversal of the primacy of matter as causal by understanding all matter as appearance of the mental seems hard for me to understand, especially in respect to him calling it farcical that we assume the correlation between matter in the brain and phenomenal experience is indicative of a causality coming from the matter. In fact, he started the discussion with his interest in AI, and he suggested he thinks a strong AI may come to exist but not a sentient one. I take that to mean he thinks a zombie AI that exhibits characteristics of awareness may be created, but it won’t actually have subjectivity. In a sense this seems totally possible to me from a materialist perspective, like if we posit property dualism or a “third substance” monism, maybe it is the case that our strong AI is simply an extremely advanced puppet but it doesn’t have subjectivity because phenomenal experience is arisen from some quality of brain matter or some third substance that isn’t within the AI.

But even that being so, unless we discover the third substance or find a way to investigate the phenomenal qualities of matter, which seems extremely difficult to imagine because we can’t observe it through our own bounded phenomenal experience, then it seems like it would be arbitrary how we decide to treat the “authentic” subjectivity of the AI in the same way it is arbitrary for us to do it amongst ourselves. We just assume it because if I’m a conscious human, why wouldn’t it stand to reason all these other humans also have phenomenal experience? But we also project this onto animals, who can’t relate anything to us, so why not project it onto robots or whatever? How is it less farcical to assume that the robots AREN’T authentically sentient to maintain a prior assumption of the primacy of mind? So unless we can find a way to really assess the truth of other’s phenomenal experience, it seems more reasonable to believe that the appearance of consciousness suffice to prove its reality, because I know I am conscious and I know all these other people and animals have the appearance of phenomenal experience that I also express in accordance with my phenomenal experience. There’d have to be something unique about me, which seems hard to justify since I’m so similar to all these other humans and animals.

And finally on that note he mentioned that he thinks there is some utility to this belief in the single mind, that it would change people’s behavior to one another and to animals. What about the strong AI that he thinks will come into existence but arbitrarily believes will not be conscious? We have no reason to exclude them from consciousness by observation of their behavior alone, but it seems the theory itself dogmatically tells us that they couldn’t be conscious.

>> No.18010442

>>18010398
>The majority is ignorant of the hard problem of consciousness and thinks that a naive materialism solves everything.
With the emergence of high brain mapping technologies the coming decades will prove or disprove their claims.
And as I have said earlier if people believe in souls without empirical evidence then would be discarded without evidence. Now, I don't see any problem with both of the opinions.

>> No.18010444

>>18010307
people misinterpreted him as one because they didn't like how he talked about icky eyes and hands and brains while explaining Kant. He liked saying time, space and causality is produced by our brain/in our head (Kant says that too sometimes), but he didn't mean that the subject is a material object with that. For Schopenhauer the material world is still only there as a representation and matter is the synthesis of the a priori space, time and causality. Though like Kant he says that the world is not to be taken as Schein (illusion), but as Erscheinung (appearance), so what you see is immediately real as long as you are a thinking experiencing subject who structures his world with a priori time, space and causality/the categories/the principle of sufficient reason. Objectivity is then not what the object is without the subject, but that what the subject necessarily perceives of the object.

>> No.18010467

>>18010444
>people misinterpreted him
How? Doesn't the evil nature of this existence tell us about the thing-in-itself which is dumb, blind and irrational Will?

>> No.18010498

>>18009794
Bye, pseud. Hope you're satisfied with your strawman. Technical uncertainty cuts both ways btw (and much harder against concepts which have no empirical corroboration), you silly fool.

>>18010086
Incorrect. For example, one can be apodictically certain of existence in general (not merely one's own)—which one is not identical to (one knows this because they are not omniscient). Furthermore, you can pretend like provisional knowledge 'doesn't count', but that isn't how you live your life. It's a very petty position to take, especially when you dishonestly excuse your own claims from the same uncertainty.

>>18010099
>Mathematics laughs
Yes, at you. Math is abstracted from—did you guess?—empirical relations. Is this the first time you've discussed this topic?

>> No.18010508

>>18010498
>Math is abstracted from—did you guess?—empirical relations.
the only person who was ever stupid enough to say this was J.S. Mill

>> No.18010531

>>18010508
he's so retarded, i don't answer anymore

>> No.18010532

>>18010406

Plus, when he talks about the limits of the will, as in how much the individual subject can will certain things into reality, he begins talking about how limitation can be conceived of in reference to your own inability to control your thought or emotion or whatever. Basically he suggests something like how is it inconsistent with his idealism, the notion that the world is all an appearance of mind, to think that you can’t think yourself into riches when your immediate experience of your thought is one that is basically uncontrolled. You experience thought as happening, but you don’t exactly “choose” it, like I guess you couldn’t choose to just understand all of biology, or maybe more commonly you don’t experience your spontaneous mental response to events as a “choice”.

But this seems just as if not more compatible with matter as the determinant on mind in some fashion, again whether it be property-dualism or whatever, since we can see how matter is independent of our will and usually does constrain its expression. I get mad when a storm knocks out the power, I feel relaxed while sitting on a bed. Common experience is that the world of matter constrains and determines our phenomenal experience, so isn’t it the more arbitrary assumption that that is just an illusion of universal mind which is ultimately prior and determinant of our own limited mind? It seems like you have to take an extra step for the whole metaphysical construction of the universal mind. You have to say that it only appear matter is determinant, but then assert actually that is totally silly to believe and there is just a higher mind that your mind is a limited part of that determines the appearance of matter. So the universal mind is determinant of the matter that appears determinant of me in my limitation, the simpler expression seems to just cut out the universal mind and say matter is determinant. They both suggest the same thing, but the universal mind is an arbitrary assumption.

>> No.18010561

>>18006665
>reality
no such thing

>> No.18010565

>>18010498
>Yes, at you. Math is abstracted from—did you guess?—empirical relations. Is this the first time you've discussed this topic?
Anon you're not really that ignorant are you? Do you know that a lot of mathematical concepts could not even exist in our universe in principle and are discovered anyway?

>> No.18010567

>>17990077
I'm pretty sure thats the path the positivists took

>> No.18010572

>>18010561
Pain is the greatest argument for the existence of reality.

>> No.18010593

>>17992770
Desu nu atheists deserve derision

>> No.18010610

>Of all systems of philosophy which start from the object,the most consistent, and that which may be carried furthest, is simple materialism. It regards matter, and with it time and space, as existing absolutely, and ignores the relation to the subject in which alone all this really exists. It then lays hold of the law of causality as a guiding principle or clue, regarding it as a self-existent order (or arrangement) of things,veritas aeterna, and so fails to take account of the understanding, in which and for which alone causality is. It seeks the primary and most simple state of matter, and then tries to develop all the others from it; ascending from mere mechanism, to chemism,to polarity, to the vegetable and to the animal kingdom. And if we suppose this to have been done, the last link in the chain would be animal sensibility—that is knowledge—which would consequently now appear as a mere modification or state of matter produced by causality. Now if we had followed materialism thus far with clear ideas, when we reached its highest point we would suddenly be seized with a fit of the inextinguishable laughter of the Olympians. As if waking from a dream, we would all at once become aware that its final result—knowledge, which it reached so laboriously, was presupposed as the indispensable condition of its very starting-point, mere matter; and when we imagined that we thought matter, we really thought only the subject that perceives matter; the eye that sees it, the hand that feels it, the understanding that knows it. Thus the tremendous petitio principii reveals itself unexpectedly; for suddenly the last link is seen to be the starting-point, the chain a circle, and the materialist is like Baron Münchausen who, when swimming in water on horseback, drew the horse into the air with his legs,and himself also by his cue. The fundamental absurdity of materialism is that it starts from the objective, and takes as the ultimate ground of explanation something objective, whether it be matter in the abstract, simply as it is thought, or after it has taken form, is empirically given—that is to say, is substance, the chemical element with its primary relations. Some such thing it takes, as existing absolutely and in itself, in order that it may evolve organic nature and finally the knowing subject from it,and explain them adequately by means of it; whereas in truth all that is objective is already determined as such in manifold ways by the knowing subject through its forms of knowing, and presupposes them; and consequently it entirely disappears if we think the subject away. Thus materialism is the attempt to explain what is immediately given us by what is given us indirectly. All that is objective, extended, active—that is to say, all that is material—is regarded by materialism as affording so solid a basis for its explanation, that a reduction of everything to this can leave nothing to be desired.

>> No.18010618
File: 10 KB, 132x252, Willy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18010618

>>18010508
No, he's not on his lonesome. Also, not an argument.

The nuance is to understand that seemingly self-referential mathematical rulesets are at their foundations constructed upon empirical relations (like any language), and would not be possible otherwise. No set of terms is truly self-referential, they must be abstracted from concrete relations to begin with, and so are fundamentally empirical.

>> No.18010622

>>18010572
>subjective experience is the best argument for objective reality
ok

>> No.18010626

>(especially if in ultimate analysis this reduction should resolve itself into action and reaction).But we have shown that all this is given indirectly and in the highest degree determined, and is therefore merely a relatively present object, for it has passed through the machinery and manufactory of the brain, and has thus come under the forms of space, time and causality, by means of which it is first presented to us as extended in space and ever active in time. From such an indirectly given object, materialism seeks to explain whatis immediately given, the idea (in which alone the object that materialism starts with exists), and finally even the will from which all those fundamental forces, that manifest themselves,under the guidance of causes, and therefore according to law,are in truth to be explained. To the assertion that thought is a modification of matter we may always, with equal right, oppose the contrary assertion that all matter is merely the modification of the knowing subject, as its idea. Yet the aim and ideal of all natural science is at bottom a consistent materialism. There cognition here of the obvious impossibility of such a system establishes another truth which will appear in the course of our exposition, the truth that all science properly so called, by which I understand systematic knowledge under the guidance of the principle of sufficient reason, can never reach its final goal, nor give a complete and adequate explanation: for it is not concerned with the inmost nature of the world, it cannot get beyond theidea; indeed, it really teaches nothing more than the relation ofone idea to another

>> No.18010634

>>18010622
>subjective
Pain is felt universally. If it isn't, is it okay for anyone to torture you or anyone?

>> No.18010662

>>18010099
mathematics is a language made up by those with a body that houses perception
if you want to have this conversation and talk about math, i suggest you go back to ancient india where they were aware of such things being intrinsically part of the field

>> No.18010670

>>18010498
>Incorrect. For example, one can be apodictically certain of existence in general (not merely one's own)—which one is not identical to (one knows this because they are not omniscient). Furthermore, you can pretend like provisional knowledge 'doesn't count', but that isn't how you live your life. It's a very petty position to take, especially when you dishonestly excuse your own claims from the same uncertainty.
what's your point
it doesn't matter who it is, it still came from a body biased and housed within limited sense perception, full of cultural and ancestral conditioning

>> No.18010678

>>18006215
going to > this again

>> No.18010706

>>18010565
Abstractions are abstracted from somewhere, and the concepts themselves obviously can exist or they wouldn't. I can imagine an idealized circle, and that thought exists; but that isn't to say that perfect circles concretely exist or that they can be perfect even in the imagination. The fact that I can play around with idealized concepts in my mind and recombine them to find others doesn't negate the fact that it all kicks off with basic abstractions from empirical relations.

>> No.18010713

>>18010706
Why empirical relations are empirical?

>> No.18010720

>>18010706
>Abstractions are abstracted from somewhere
A

B
O
D
Y

>> No.18010721

>>17989978
>Kastrup
>Feser
>same author

Kek, nigger pushing religion bullshit are pathetic.

>> No.18010733

>>18010670
The point is that one indeed has apodictic knowledge of something other than themselves.

>> No.18010742
File: 2.00 MB, 250x158, 1617313306290.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18010742

>Edward Feser

Kek, dude is quack as fuck, pushing catholic agenda, lmao. You must be really desperated to shill Feser, kek.

>> No.18010750

>>18010733
Prove it

>> No.18010765

>>18010750
Why?

>> No.18010791

>>18010765
You made the assertion

>> No.18010814

>>18010713
They're sensed. Kant would say they're the necessary form of our experience, but I don't think that the form and content can be reasonably considered discrete—experience requires both.

>> No.18010832

>>18010791
If you don't believe is that assertion then why do you need a proof?

>> No.18010836

>>18010832
You're playing linguistic games
And if your point needs belief then it's not by definition empirical

>> No.18010838

>>18010750
It's apodictic, it cannot be otherwise. Prove it to yourself, try and conceive of how it could be otherwise. Are you omniscient?

>> No.18010854

Physicists have known for decades now that “matter” is made of “subatomic particles” which are *literally* nothing more than mathematical values in fundamental fields, materialism should be blase at this point.

>> No.18010855

>>18010838
Requires a perceiver. It is a relationship between your body and your bodies perceived environment

And yes I harbor that I am an aspect of God and have the capacity to alter reality based on my level of awareness and agency

>> No.18010856

>>18010814
If senses are so important for you then what would you say say about the religious epiphanies through practice? The neural correlates of consciousness exist for those experiences. So what makes them less "authentic" than everyday experiences?

>> No.18010857

I've been reading a bit of Thomist epistemology. It seems Empirical but also posits universals as real. Isn't empiricism always nominalist?

>> No.18010902

>>18010854
Why should we assume that quantitative measurements are the only valid means of evaluating reality?

>> No.18010905

>>18010902
Why should we think otherwise?

>> No.18010926

>>18010857
>It seems Empirical but also posits universals as real. Isn't empiricism always nominalist?
read this https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2021/04/what-is-mathematics-about.html

>> No.18010929

>>18010905
Because things have non quantitative qualities

>> No.18010934

>>18010929
How do you know it?

>> No.18010935

>>18010905
>why should we consider other possibilities
The sciences as they are now are doomed to a stagnant death

>> No.18010970

>>18010934
I experience it

>> No.18010972

>>18010856
I'd say they lack the predictive power and demonstrative applications that physics exhibit. I'd be willing to entertain them (and I have, both regarding my own experiences and those of people close to me), but in the absence of anything testable I find mundane explanations for said experiences to be more likely.

>> No.18011026

>>18010935
>>why should we consider other possibilities
The religions as they are now are doomed to a stagnant de-
Oh wait

>> No.18011039

>>18010972
So what is your current outlook on life?

>> No.18011046

>>18011026
So you embrace hypocrisy?

>> No.18011097

>>18011026
Yes?
Any fixed perspective is destined to fall

>> No.18011209

Jay Dyer > Feser

>> No.18011492

>>18007287
You're a brainlet. Tautological definitions are tautological.


>>18007570
>Futhermore, is entirely possible that base existence behaves in such a way that the 'laws' of physics (or some 'master' set of them) are inherent to it. In this case, anything extant would indeed be physical and those wouldn't be truly discrete categories. We don't know for sure, no one does, but neither can an alternative paradigm (a state of non-physicality) even be imagined/described. So let's not pretend anyone's metaphysics are complete, when metaphysics reached the impasse of limited perception long ago (which is why metaphysics is no longer a fruitful avenue of inquiry, and has become a redoubt for the vague speculations of crypto-mysticists).

This is true brainlet babble. As I wrote above, several posts ago, your writing/thinking is muddled. Incredibly muddled. You skim over the issue several times in a single paragraph and beg the question. Again above, I clearly demonstrated that the phenomenon of consciousness, itself, defies all physical analysis by virtue of its inability to be measured in the terms used in physics.

I could go into the details of what it is we are actually measuring when we measure things, but you'd likely cling to your muddled, wishy-washy vision. Let's just say that the canonical variables of classical physics pretty much cover it: positions and momenta. Forces are inferred and theory is successful or not, and everything boils down to numbers and units which can be scratched down on a sheet of paper or jotted on a chalkboard.

The phenomenon of consciousness/dasein/&c is something that isn't amenable to quantitative analysis by its very nature. It isn't a question of technology or ingenuity, it is an impossibility. As stated above, you beg the question by burying your contention that "physical" encompasses everything in existence into your premises.

If you'd spent any time actually studying the physical world you would see this clearly.

>> No.18012047

Can somebody give me the best book refuting materialism?

>> No.18012231

>>18011492
Oh great, another dogshit pile of rhetorical projection.

Yes, the the typical crypto-mysticist fallback 'it defies analysis'. Except it doesn't... You just disingenuously equate incomplete knowledge with no knowledge at all. Obliviously, while appealing to uncertainty you make a supposedly certain claim about the non-quantitative nature of consciousness (a claim which is no way a necessity... not apodictically true as you imply).

>"physical" encompasses everything in existence
I posit that as a possibility (one I think likely, but I don't claim to know for certain). Whether it is the case or not, the definition of 'physical' I previously mentioned stands. Reading comprehension, try it. The fact remains that even in light of the unknowns, you can't offer up any alternative described in positive terms... You still have no inkling of what it would actually mean for something to be 'non-physical' (which suggests the possibility that it is only a negative conceptual contrast, much like the concept of 'nothing').

Your understanding of this issue is meme-level at best; you've demonstrated nothing but the weakness of your 'arguments' (which are 80% rhetorical posturing).