/lit/ - Literature

Hempel BTFO this stuff years ago

>>19629796
It is genuinely heartbreaking how little you understand.

>>19629799
how?

>>19629796
Transcendantal consciousness proves that physicalism is wrong, as there is a content to your consciousness which does not originate from the world of nature.
It is not really mystical in nature, however. Some, Husserl amongst them, believed that an exegesis of the Transcendental Ego was precisely a religious work, but I dont know that it would satisfy someone intent on finding a divine element to consciousness.

>>19629796
Daniel Dennett is one of a number of "philosophers" who have made a career of their fundamental inability to understand the hard problem of consciousness. Nagel's bat essay does an excellent job of articulating the hard problem of consciousness, and I don't think anyone has been able to refute it, and perhaps never will.

>>19629827
Modern physics doesn't describe reality. So physicalism assuming some perfect future physics which does, which for all we know may well include stuff we wouldn't currently consider to be physical.
'Everything is physical' is not a meaningful phrase at present

>>19629841
>Transcendantal consciousness proves that physicalism is wrong, as there is a content to your consciousness which does not originate from the world of nature.
What about people who disagree with the premise that there is transcendental consciousness to begin with, you can prove it to them that it's real?

>>19629857
So what claim or position does that BTFO and why?

>>19629796
Physicalism is absurd on its face. No matter how hard you try, no matter how much "cognitive science" progresses, you will never be able to dig into my brain and find my experience of listening to Mozart, or smelling coffee, or looking out at a landscape. Experiences are operations in the soul.
>since the condition of their existence means they are unable to be investigated.
You DESPERATELY need to get out of your atheism/materialism/empiricism/scientism. These stupid positions are at the root of your confusion.

>>19629796
Read Kastrup

>>19629796
How do you know that it’s possible for cognitive science to understand qualia in a satisfying way? Isn’t it possible that there are things impossible to have scientific knowledge of due to circumstances making experimentation impossible?

>>19629796
The physicist who invented the Elitzur-Vaidman bomb tester thought experiment is a reluctant dualist.

https://philpapers.org/archive/ELICMA.pdf
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXX-_G_9kww

>>19630215
Have you ever seen a syntactical category running in the wild? An axiom? No. You have never experienced anything such as them, and yet they are still "there" for you. If they do not originate from the world, they must originate from somewhere else. That somewhere else is the transcendental consciousness.

>>19630304
And how would you counter the materialist pulling out the "its not in the wild but still available to me as an emergent property of my brain activity" card?

>>19630361
I don't see how a category can be said to be a property. It is an object in it's own right, it can be perceived in it's own ways. To say that something emerges from our cognitive activity isn't, per say wrong... our minds are probably categorial in nature because of some emergent property of our cognitive makeup, but this does not invalidate the apodictic intuition we have of categories within the Ego life (and the contrary fact that we do not have such apodictic intuition in the realm of Nature in experienced life).

>>19630361
If you say that the laws of logic, eg., are "just how your brain works" then you lose the ability to assert the supremacy of logical thought over other modes of thought, and consequently you are reduced to complete relativism. Materialism is rotten from the core; it doesn't make sense and it never did.

>>19629796
Bernardo Kastrup
" Consciousness explained" lol, more like Consciousness explained away kek

>>19629796
>Consciousness Explained
>Dennett
Dennett is a P-zombie

http://www.jaronlanier.com/zombie.html

>>19630244
But what if every phenomenal property of your experience smelling coffee, listening to Mozart, etc. could be described/a priori recreated with knowledge of a set of direct neural correlates?

>>19630415
>I don't see how a category can be said to be a property.
but can the perceiving of those categories as such itself be an activity that is an effect which caused by a prior cause?

>>19630275
I don’t know at all. It could be, perhaps it is. But regardless, if it is, as another anon suggested with the Hempel Dilemma, then the watermark of what “physical knowledge” is will have changed and thus Qualia as we know them will be considered physical aspects of the brain, and if they aren’t then they’re existence or non-existence within consciousness is not verifiable nor investigable which is pretty pointless. Not to mention, arguments for the existence of Qualia offer up little in the way of what we can even do with the info that they exist. Maybe some kind of non-scientific phenomenological analysis along the lines of merleau-ponty’s work?

>>19630470
In that case you would not be describing my experience, you would be merely listing off a bunch of physical occurrences which happen to correlate with it. But there is nothing in these occurrences themselves which resemble my experience. The physical events which cause the sensation of pain have nothing to do with the sensation of pain itself other than the correlation that we see between them. This is a very simple point.

>>19630485
>they’re existence or non-existence within consciousness is not verifiable nor investigable which is pretty pointless.
It's sad to see someone stuck in the idiotic empircist/materialist worldview.

>>19630476
Considering there is nothing left of the experiential aspect that we use to refer with them, I do not believe so. The category of colors (as opposed to the category of numbers, for example), is not a color, it has no qualities of a color. It is not even the essence of a color. There is nothing of experience that we use when we refer to it.

>>19630465
>literally getting your philosophy of the mind from reddit memes
lol

>>19630256
This. Kastrup has a series of books that destroy materialism.

>noo your arguments don't count because science will debunk them some. unknown time in the future!!!
Pathetic

Here's the real redpill. There is no "Qualia problem", the problem is materialist metaphysics that posits all phenomena are reducible to material causes. The problem is that the scientific worldview deliberately abstracts out the subjective experience of individuals in order to focus on "objective" reality, but there is no "objective" reality outside of what is subjectively perceived by an observer. The qualia problem arises specifically because subjective experience has been abstracted out of this worldview in order to simplify the phenomena you investigate then you're trying to brute force it back into the worldview where it won't fit because there's no space to acknowledge the reality of subjective experience within a worldview that says only extra-mental existences are real.

Unironically Alan Watts

>>19630476
The empiricist would have you believe that concepts are obtained through a process of abstraction. But abstraction itself is a concept, so how did you arrive at it, or determined its process, if it itself needs to be abstracted from experience?

https://youtu.be/hDbCTxm6_Ps
https://youtu.be/BbnfnveWUh0
https://youtu.be/T7QbZePP_7w
https://youtu.be/UPIvI8IsnHc
https://youtu.be/B4RsXr02M0U
https://youtu.be/C4sgtZa7LEI
https://youtu.be/mwt7qF40KF0

>>19630496
But if every phenomenal property of a particular experience could be characterized by its neural correlates, recreated, and at-will used to stimulate the brain of any subject to simulate this experience, then how would this knowledge not fully account for the experience? How is it we could come to a full understanding of the nature of an experience, enough to causally recreate it, and not have a full account? The knowledge your describing (what it is like to have an experience) is non-propositional, it’s “knowing-how” not “knowing-that.” The only reason “knowing-how” is inaccessible to objectivized investigation is its an aspect of subjectivity which can’t be extrapolated. If a totality of knowing-that could allow us to recreate within ourselves a knowing-how experience, we have a full account of that experience.

>>19630689

What is this physiognomy trying to convey?

>>19629796
Itt: coping mystics
You are right, op. Physicalism or better yet computationalism is correct. Check out stephen wolfram and joscha bach.

>>19629796
dumbass faggot you don't read books that is apparent from your post. try actually reading something. fucking faggot you post because you''re an american fucking evangelical faggot who want to spark a massively cringey ATHEISTS BTFO thread.

>>19630716
Even if you could create this doubtful technology, at best all you would have proven is that conscious experience is generated by physical processes. That would be a sort of epiphenomenalism, which is still a dualist position. You would not have fully accounted for conscious experience because you would have spoken only of its causes and not its nature.

Your argument from propositional knowledge vs ability knowledge fails because it is indeed possible for us to think about the nature of consciousness and make propositions about it. That's what philosophy of mind is all about. I think your issue is rather that you have a very narrow-minded empiricist worldview which makes you think that our knowledge extends only to that which is amenable to empirical investigation. The truth is that reality is much deeper and more fascinating than that.

>>19630806
>computationalism
BTFO'd by Godel.

>>19629796
Kind of. Dennett is hardly air tight. The "Hard Problem" remains such because we are nowhere near an answer.

To be sure, lots of rebuttals rely on a "magic of the gaps," and throw "quantum magic," where it doesn't need to be, but there are other well developed takes.

As you can see though, /lit/ is a bad place to discuss this because people get massively butthurt and don't actually engage with eliminativism but just say "it's retarded."

I would say check out Chalmers. Also Grim has a great book of interviews with top people in the field on this called Mind and Conciousness: Five Questions.

If you're somewhat new to the ideas in Conciousness Explained, I would highly recommend Grim's lectures from the Teaching Company, Mind Body Philosophy (his other one is just an older version of the same series).

It is the best intro I've seen on the topic. I still got stuff out of it after doing a neuroscience degree and working in a lab for years and getting to talk to neurologists all the time.

He goes through philosophy of mind from Hindu thinkers to Hume, gives an intro on neuroscience, psychology, cognitive science, p zombies, AI, information science, etc. It's well done, and not trying to push one narrative. Get it off Audible for free or $10 if you already used a trial. It isn't visual heavy so no need to pay for the video.

Jaworski's Philosophy of Mind is a good intro to completing theories from a more philosophy based perspective.

I personally lean towards eliminativism, but I'm not on Dennett's side. >>19629857 is correct in that physicalist models of reality are not grounded. There is a huge amount we don't know about the basic fabric of reality to make concrete statements. Also, the need for an observer to make the two value logic of empircism and correspondence epistemology work requires either a role for an observer in knowledge or some sort of "God's eye view" of the world to be posited. This is a problem either way. There is also the problem of describing things in language, which is itself built on sand.

Although tangentially related, I found studying information science and semiotics, particularly Piercean tripartite semiotics to be helpful here. And Hegel, "the truth is the whole" and his solutions to universals is illuminating. Without Hegel I'd still be trapped in trying to reconcile the Platonism of numbers with the evidence for physicalism.

If you like epic fantasy and don't mind stories with a lot of violence/sexual violence, the fantasy series The Darkness That Comes Before is a pretty neat series that plays of eliminative materialism; wouldn't recommend it if you don't like big world building fantasy though.

I personally find hylomorphic mind-body philosophy appealing as an alternative.

>>19630560
This fails to explain how physical changes in the brain can so drastically determine the contents of thought.

I saved pic related from another of these threads because it got like 50 responses and like two actually tried to respond. The rest were insults or appeals to mysticism. That in and of itself makes it interesting. It's like getting to see people freak out about the position that the Earth revolves around the sun.

>>19633580
This fails to explain why I'm me, and you're yourself. Why am I sitting on this side of the conversation, and not yours? You'll never be able to answer this by appealing strictly to physical processes. Consciousness, or I should say vision, is more mysterious than your type is equipped to understand.

>>19633580
The qualia is the subjective experience of the body, wherein the soul controls and the body obeys following its own limitations.
If you lose your right arm, and you command it to move, obviously, your body will be materially unable to execute the order of the subjective occupant.
Think of it like being the driver of a car, if I puncture all the tires of the car you are driving, I will see, as an external observer, your car behave in a non-standard manner. And yourself, as the driver, will experience a particular experience of driving that is non-synonymous with what you are used to experience.
That can be compared to the example of the use of drugs, it is the vessel that is impacted by the use of drug, but since the qualia is the experience of using the vessel, if the vessel is tampered with, then the experience itself is different.

>>19629796
Youll not find your answer on /lit/ op.
People here cannot argue against it without resorting to solipsism, Christianity/mysticism or straight up fallacies.
Dualism however is dead, despite the numerous desperate attempt from the feeble minded.

>>19633625
>This fails to explain why I'm me, and you're yourself. Why am I sitting on this side of the conversation, and not yours? You'll never be able to answer this by appealing strictly to physical processes.
Retarded beyond belief. You wouldn’t understand the simple explanation anyway; how can two objects exist when I am not two objects. Begging the question on false premises.

>>19633625
Does it? So if your physical body was destroyed you could continue to exist? How does that work?

Would you still be you after a bullet passed through your brain? If not, how come the physical processes of your brain ending also ends your existence when the two are not supposed to be connected or identical?

Seems to me you have to either come out and state "yes, my conciousness is magic and survived death," or admit that the physical processes inside your skull cause your conciousness.

>>19633682
>didn't understand or even begin to intuit the problem
Kek, here's the answer because I'm a galaxy brain and you're a peabrain: because I've monopolized all significance/consciousness in my local zone, and you're a barely-sentient material processor. Seethe and cope.

>>19633689
You lack the intuition to grasp the problem.

>>19633667
Yeah, but why does my soul change with physical changes? You don't just have trouble operating your physical body in brain injury, your personality and desires change. Your thoughts change on drugs, not just your behavior.

If what you say is true, how do you ever know what your true soul is if it can be altered by physical processes. The soul seems meaningless then, anchorless.

Also, how does the magical soul interact with physical things? Why is this not observable?

>>19633705
>Has shit tier argument that people easily like apart
>Has no rebuttal
>"Uhhh, you're just not smart enough to get it bro. I can't explain it in words but geniuses all get it, like me."

>>19633580
>This fails to explain how physical changes in the brain can so drastically determine the contents of thought.
pro-tip: thought and mental functions aren't the same as the non-physical awareness which is aware of them, everything in your list only impacts and modifies the former and not the latter, the latter remains unmodified and unaffected by the vicissitudes of the body

>>19633713
Yes, unironically. Imagine me actually engaging with "dude but if consciousness why drugs???" barnacle people.

>>19633705
Don't dodge. Answer the fucking question: yes or no, does your mind keep existing if you take a bullet to the skull or fall into an active volcano?

>>19633719
>yes or no, does your mind keep existing if you take a bullet to the skull or fall into an active volcano?
No, but consciousness continues because it's non-physical and not harmed by anything

>>19633727
And the evidence of this?

>>19629843
>fundamental inability to understand the hard problem of consciousness
this

>>19629814
requesting qrd

>>19633706
I won't pretend to have all the answers, most of the technicalities are only susceptible to speculation. Perhaps the body and the soul operate in a symbiotic manner where one influences the other until they are both released from eachother.
As for the interaction being non-observable, I think it is a non issue, because you want to physically observe an interaction that would be operated between the physical and the metaphysical realms, so your scope is limited. And even then, "non observable" isn't absolute, atoms were non observable until we invented the technology to observe them, maybe the interaction exists in the physical realm but we do not have the means to observe it, that is however pure speculation. My point is that there is no proof of the absence of physical interactions.
Either way the problem of interaction is a non issue, what is important is the qualia itself, not the interaction between the body and the qualia.
How are you conscious? What is the personal experience of seing green, or smelling a lemon, if not a purely subjective experience? I am fully aware that the experience correlates with signals being sent left and right inside your brain, but hell, you are here, you touch the grass, you smell the air, that subjective experience isn't material. It may manifest itself in the real world, but it is first and foremost an experience, it's not material.

>>19633732
>And the evidence of this?
One can interpret research on people remembering details of past lives (like Ian Stevenson's research at UVA) as supporting the conclusion that consciousness travels from one body to another at death. There isn't a reason to think that consciousness is physical until proof has been found of this, which has never been the case, our experience indicates this isn't true as consciousness reveals physical objects as something different from itself.

>>19633767
So basically, your preconceived answer is right until proven otherwise, with an absolute burden of proof on the other side?

Physicalism isn't air tight, but it makes predictions about how brains work that often prove correct. It allows for neural implants, it lets the blind see, it helps cure disease.

What does the soul explain? How is it a good theory if the question of how magical souls influence material brains is "IDK, it just does."

Your soul theory is unfalsifiable. It's no more tenable than the argument that human minds are actually plugged into the Matrix, or that the world is an AI simulation and souls are just self referential feed back loops beamed into the simulated enviornment, or solipsism for that matter. Like, is there a reason for the one over the other aside from feels?

>>19633769
Yeah, a field rife with falsification and hoaxes, like the Boy Who We To Heaven, and an incredibly low number of studies should be taken as the entire basis for our understanding of the mind, as opposed to a mass of replicable studies supporting physicalism?

You know ESP has also been documented at high levels of significance over and over, right? 1:1,000 odds do tend to occur when you run a study 10,000 times. The reason ESP still isn't taken seriously is because expirments have been run over and over, and the vast, vast majority show no ESP. Only the significant ones get published any more. Plenty of people looked into past lives and mediums. That was the IN topic in early psychology. And negatives massively overwhelmed positives. The only reason hoax docs can peddle this shit now is that no one bothers publishing the established counter factual anymore, and because people want to believe it

>>19633819
>people like this exist
it's christmas, federal agent johnson, take a break

>>19633819
You're asking for science to be applied to the metaphysical. You've already gone down the wrong road.

>>19633819
>Yeah, a field rife with falsification and hoaxes, like the Boy Who We To Heaven, and an incredibly low number of studies should be taken as the entire basis for our understanding of the mind, as opposed to a mass of replicable studies supporting physicalism?
Here is the issue, you are interpreting studies that show exterior things changing brain function as supporting physicalism, which isn't actually necessarily the case, because if physicalism were false there could still be an extensive list of ways that the brain and mental functioning participate in two-way causal relationships with the world, even while at the same time there is an unaffected non-physical element to our consciousness. And in this case, the studies that show impact to brain functioning would not actually be supporting physicalism but would just be studying the extent of mental functioning that *is* impacted or caused by matter as opposed to the extent that *isn't*.

In other words, you are giving undue privilege to something which it doesn't actually have, and you are assuming a set of research can be taken as supporting physicalism at the expense of anything non-physical existing, when this actually isn't the case, your assumptions about the research are just conforming to your own bias. Demonstrating that seeing a fruit activates some neuron connected with hunger doesn't actually do anything to counter or disprove the notion that consciousness or something else about sentient beings is non-physical.

Also, if you have issues with Stevenson's research then you should identify which issues instead of trying to tar it by association with other research conducted by other groups, who used different methodologies etc.

>>19633819
>Neural implants to let the blind see
I think you fundamentally misunderstand what consciousness is.
You conflate the experience of consciousness with its physical implications.
Of course there are physical implications to consciousness. If my eyes are closed, I cannot see because the photons do not physically reach my physical eyes, and therefore I cannot live the experience of seeing.
If I smell a physical lemon made out of plastic, the physical molecules that would be interpreted by my brain as lemon smell wouldn't be there, so I won't experience the smell of lemon.
So of course, a physical implant to see would open your qualia to the experience of seeing.
Just like swapping my plastic lemon with a real lemon would open my qualia to the experience of smelling the lemon.

But I'm not talking about this at all, I'm talking about the qualia itself, the very feeling of existing, and the experiences linked to it, the feeling you get when you smell the lemon, it's a feeling, the feeling you get when you are scared, or anxious. I don't know how to put it any other way, with all due respect, we are not discussing the same subject.

>>19633580
The argument in pic can be easily refuted by claiming the brain is the bridge between the mind and the body.

>>19633851
Case studies and interviews don't prove reincarnation. The people interviewed can be hoaxing. Like 50 case studies written by a guy who was obviously deeply motivated to find evidence of the supernatural means dick when literally thousands of other people, including large government funded large n studies found dick. Confirmation bias and type two error are a thing.

Wake me up when someone develops a way to reliably make babies fluent in Aramaic. Documenting case studies of people pretending to be reincarnated doesn't mean shit. Hollywood elites are currently paying millions to some woman who says she channels Jesus as a medium, does this prove Christianity?

>still thinking in outdated dualistic terms like physicalism / materialism vs idealism
You faggots need to read Schopenhauer and Nietzsche.

>>19633940
>>19633926
So again, bullet passes through your brain, conciousness magically still exists?

No point discussing any further. I think that is retarded. You probably do too deep down or else you should feel fine blowing your brains out as it won't effect your magical being.

But you have no evidence of said magic whereas I can draw on a huge body of work about how specific brain injury will alter your behavior, self reported qualia, desires, etc. All you have is "but, that's just a bridge to the magic I have no evidence of but must exist because my feel feels demand it."

Ok, but you have no more reason to believe in a soul than that you're a simulation. Both arguments reject empircism and are unfalsifiable.

The qualia argument is the latest in the attempt to reverse the values of the strong and healthy towards favoring the weak and poor. Everyone knows that the "redness of an evening sky" is formed by the physical structure of the eye, which can become damaged (i.e., color blindness) and immediately change the experience, indicating that our body is directly responsible for rendering the experience to everyone not a massive fucking retard. Yet, because this description "does not contain the experience itself" then it must somehow mean that the experience is separate from the body... even though the description doesn't even contain the body either, it's just a description and you're a fucking retard who can't separate words and ideas from what they symbolize.

>>19633959
First of all, I don't know exactly what happens when a bullet passes through the brain, and neither do you.
I'm saying is that the qualia isn't physical, and it isn't.
I gave you several arguments as to why physical alteration can change the qualia, such as the comparison with the use of a car, and you ignored them.
As for why I won't blow my brains out, this is silly and it doesn't make sense, but I'm going to answer anyways : I like my life as it is, if I blew my brains out I would lose my physical body, therefore I won't interact with my friends and family the way I'm doing it now, which I do not desire.
Physicalism doesn't provide any more insight into what consciousness is.
It's like analysing the color of every pixel of every frame of a movie one by one, it's extremely in-depth, but the basic plot of the movie itself will be missed, because a film is an abstraction of time and space. It's only a physical copy of a moment, not the moment itself.

>>19633995
>The qualia argument is the latest in the attempt to reverse the values of the strong and healthy towards favoring the weak and poor.
Lmao bro just stop

>>19633959
If a specific part of the bridge is damaged, of course the particular vehicle that needs that part to transport through will have problems. Rest of your comment is not an argument at all. You ask why I won't commit suicide? Because why would I? Ultimately, unless you desire comfort, there is no reason to do anything and I like my life well enough.

>>19634001
Shove it, dipshit. All strong and healthy people know that the body is of central importance to all thought, feeling, and experience. Anyone who strips the body of its primacy is looking to subvert.

>>19634008
>only last men care about qualia
stop it bro. just stop. get some help.

>>19634011
Only weaklings try to argue that the body isn't of primary importance for experience.

>>19634015
Nobody refutes that retard, literally everyone agrees that if you lose both of your eyes, you stop seeing, no one refutes that, you simple don't understand the basic concept of consciousness because you are unable to grasp abstract concepts

>>19634015
you will never understand what the problem of qualia designates. keep spinning in your wheel. I swear we should have anthropologists study your type.

>>19634029
>no one refutes that
Anyone who mentions qualia certainly is trying to reduce the primacy of the body in the matter of experience. Every single fucking time it's brought up, there's the implication that there's something that can't possibly be contained within the body, that there's something more or equally as important that exists separately from the body, which is a load of fucking horseshit. The body is the only factor in the rendering of all experience.

>>19634034
You are a weakling parasite. Shove your qualia bullshit up your ass.

>>19633995
Well yes, the description doesn't contain the body because perceptual qualities of things are more than their physical traits.

>>19634041
>uuh uhhh problem of qualia??? I bet you can't bench your body weight!!!!
americans are a disease

>>19634036
Show me a single post from someone arguing that seeing isn't linked to physical eyes, or that smelling isn't linked to the physical nose.
Literally no one argues that, the concept of qualia juste flew over your head and now you're refuting strawmen that only exist in your head, just stop

>>19634042
The description is a description. It's symbolic and doesn't exist on its own except as imagination, which does not at all suggest the existence of something separate from the body or the existence of factors other than the body on the rendering of experience.

>>19634048
>americans
Braindead cunt.

>>19634050
Show me a single post mentioning qualia that isn't at bottom attempting to convince that there are factors other than the body in the rendering of experience. You can't because every one of you qualianiggers are only concerned with precisely that since you're a bunch of subversive little faggots.

>>19634036
>Every single fucking time it's brought up, there's the implication that there's something that can't possibly be contained within the body, that there's something more or equally as important that exists separately from the body, which is a load of fuc-

"Moreover, the Materialist ought to be asked what is the exact nature of that consciousness which he supposes to be exuded from the elements. For he does not admit the existence of any other principle apart from his material elements. He will perhaps try to define consciousness as consisting in the mere fact that the elements and their products are experienced. But then they would have to be its object, and it could not be a property of them at the same time, for it is contradictory to suppose that anything can act on itself. Fire may be hot, but it cannot burn itself, and not even the cleverest acrobat can climb up on his own shoulders.

And, in the same way, the elements and their products cannot form objects of consciousness if consciousness is their property. A colour does not perceive its own colour or the colour of anything else. And yet there is no doubt whatever that the elements and their products are perceived by consciousness, both inside and outside the body. Because, therefore, the presence of a consciousness which takes the elements and their products as its objects has to be admitted, it follows that it has likewise to be admitted that consciousness is distinct and separate from them"

>>19633996
To be fair bro, your car example is shit and you shouldn't use it again. That's a good rebuttal because it assumes you, in the car, remain unchanged. A more apt example is, something goes wrong with your car, like dementia, and you now think you're flying a bomber over Dresden in 1945, which is actually something you did 60 years ago. Because brain malfunction doesn't just change your ability to act, it changes what you experience.

>>19634057
>It's symbolic and it doesn't exist except in imagination

This is correct. But that is hardly the argument. The argument is that things are more than their physical characteristics. But with all the physical information you need to perceive a thing, you cannot perceive it until you actually do. Which implies, perceiving purely physical facts of the thing is different from perceiving the thing itself. Then, there must be something non-physical about the thing.

>>19634074
>Materialist
I don't subscribe to that dualistic term because it implies the opposite merely in usage. There is only the factor of the body in the rendering of experience, and every other sentiment stems from the desire to subvert healthier bodies.

>>19630871
If every phenomenal property could be derived from its neural correlate and recreated, what more would there be to uncover? The idea of dualism is that there is a substantive element of consciousness beyond explanation, not beyond external experience. Because epistemologically a third-party consciousness cannot personally experience another’s does not mean it’s nature can’t be fundamentally reduced to the physical. What is this substantive insight into the phenomenal properties of the mind which is unverifiable and can’t be correlated to physical properties? Can you even make any true claims of knowledge about these phenomenal properties? How does a subject have any verifiable knowledge of the specific nature and properties of their own Qualia enough to make substantive claims which would be more complex/vivid than those made through investigation of color-discrimination faculties in external or internal perception? Subjectivity itself is not an argument against the inability to explain consciousness as physical.

>Show me a single post mentioning qualia that isn't at bottom attempting to convince that there are factors other than the body in the rendering of experience.

Cunt, you really are dense, aren't you?
We're not talking about the rendering of the experience, we're talking about the experience being lived itself. What is so hard to understand ?

Let's take an example : you hold a lemon in your hand

The lemon projects molecules up to your nose (physical) --> your nose detects the molecules (physical) --> your brain interprets the signal (physical) --> you yourself experience the feeling of smelling the lemon (qualia)
What is physical in the precise feeling you get when you smell the lemon? Answer this. And precisely this. Don't miss the point by talking to me about brain waves, I am talking about the precise feeling itself, the smell of lemon, you know how lemon smells, right? How the fuck is that physical?

I hate these fucking threads because I hate bugmanism and I always want to see it BTFO, and people always come out of the woodwork to BTFO it, and then fall back on appealing to magic, or a solipsistic rejection of knowledge, or relativism, or doing the standard thing in esoterica where if anyone objects to what you said, they just haven't properly understood your genius.

But, I live with my father in law, taking care of him, while he has Alzheimer's and I can no longer hold out much faith that the brain isn't coidentical with perception, experience, and identity. Lose brain cells and your personality changes and disappears, your ability to see simple shit like telling a chair from the flood erodes.

>To merely state that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain is rather a cop-out than an explanation. In all known cases of emergence, we can deduce the emergent property from the characteristics of the lower-level entities that give rise to it. For instance, we can deduce the fractal shape of snowflakes from the characteristics of water molecules. We can even accurately simulate the formation of snowflakes in a computer. However, we cannot – not even in principle – deduce what it feels to see red, to be disappointed or to love someone from the mass, charge or momentum of material particles making up the brain. As such, to consider consciousness an emergent property of brains is either an appeal to magic or the mere labeling of an unknown. In both cases, precisely nothing is actually explained

>>19634080
>The argument is that things are more than their physical characteristics.
They aren't anything other than physical. Your imagination doesn't affect anything physical, because it doesn't exist except as the dribbles and farts of your central nervous system, which is physical.

>>19634093
>We're not talking about the rendering of the experience, we're talking about the experience being lived itself.
Utterly meaningless fucking distinction only there to further subvert.

>>19634093
The evidence that it is physical is that physical changes can stop the lemon smell experience from occuring. Ever smell lemon after being given anesthesia? Do dead men smell? Does a dog on ketamine perk up when they smell food they love?

Meanwhile, what is your evidence that the smell is magical? Have any at all?

>>19634112
lmao holy shit you niggers are literally ontologically handicapped. am I dreaming? is this real? stop consuming high fructose corn syrup

>>19634111
>they aren't anything more than the physical

But there must be something non physical. If there wasn't, then knowing all the physical traits of the sun would be the same as seeing the sun, wouldn't it?

>>19634079
My example was referring to drug use, which is different from dementia in the way that if you suffer from dementia, you take your qualia for what it is. When you take drugs, you know very well that your experience is being influenced by drugs, you know something is influencing your perception, you are absolutely aware of it.
Unless of course you took some very very hard drug that strip that of you, but I don't believe the person I was responding to was implying that.

>>19634087
>There is only the factor of the body in the rendering of experience, and every other sentiment stems from the desire to subvert healthier bodies.
Awareness itself is more immediate and fundamental than the body, for the presence of awareness reveals the body. Awareness in unable to confirm that it itself is physical or identical with the body, your statement that "there is only the factor of the body in rendering experience" is actually contradicted by our first-hand empirical experience of having an awareness that reveals the existence of the body to us, as we are unable to confirm that this awareness is physical yet its presence as awareness is undeniable it then becomes a palpably false statement to say "there is only the body" unless you already accept some ideological dogma that's secondary to our actual experience, like the unfounded assumption that awareness is identical with the body.

>>19634112
I just wrote up a post that explains all the necessary physical steps to experience the smelling of lemon.
You tell me that I'm wrong because physical changes can prevent me from smelling the lemon.
I give up

>>19634125
>But there must be something non physical.
No, there doesn't need to be, and there was never any need for there to be, up until civilization began and weaklings got shafted from major resources and evolution did its thing and those weaklings adapted into manipulative little cunts in order to get by.

>If there wasn't, then knowing all the physical traits of the sun would be the same as seeing the sun
Knowledge is imagination and imagination doesn't suggest the existence of anything other than the physical.

>>19634129
I think he means the body (brain) causes awareness. Awareness is a characteristic of the body.

>>19634148
>I think he means the body (brain) causes awareness. Awareness is a characteristic of the body.
Even if he meant that, the point I made still stands true. The claim that the body (brain) causes awareness has to be assumed via inference, it's not actually available to us in experience or confirmable through experience. The body presents itself as a known content to awareness in a manner just like sounds, sights, thoughts etc also do. If you say the body is aware and knows itself, that's as equally removed from our actual experience of awareness as saying sounds and colors know themselves and also each other.

>>19634143
You went full sperg mode with this but I'll play along.

>but there was never any need to be
"Need" is irrelevant. It's just how things are. Have you read Lucreitus? Is this why you're being such a sperg?

>imagination doesn't suggest any need of anything other than the physical

We are having this argument because we two imagine two different things, neither of which technically "physically" exist. It's all abstract. The imagination obviously suggests more than the physical. That's why we have people here arguing for the non physical.

>>19630256
don't

>>19634129
Awareness is a function of the body, it isn't separate from it and therefore awareness being needed for the body to recognize itself does not suggest the existence of anything other than the body.

>>19634172
>It's just how things are.
No, it isn't "how things are." Not even fucking close.

>The imagination obviously suggests more than the physical.
No it doesn't, you subversive cunt. Our imagination differs because our bodies differ. THERE IS ONLY BODY. Imagination is a function of the body and not separate from it.

materialist niggas need to drop some acid or mushrooms or something

>>19634196
>alter your body with foreign substances and see how it changes your experience, that will surely persuade you that there is more than just body
Great thinking there.

>>19634203
no the point is that there are dimensions available to you which render being "just" a body meaningless.

>>19634186
>our imagination only differs because our bodies differ

Yet, my imagination suggests a non physical answer and yours doesn't? So then, I guess neither of us can know? Is that what you're saying? Saying "there is only body" deadlocks all discussion.

>>19634208
>my drugged up imagination says there's more than the body so there must be
Even more great thinking.

>>19634186
>Awareness is a function of the body
This has never been proven though and our experience of awareness is contrary to this, since awareness reveals the body as its object and not as being awareness itself

>>19634210
Your imagination does so because your body is weak and it needs to compensate for that weakness somehow. It does so by fabricating a reality where it can feel itself more powerful.

>>19634219
>This has never been proven though
Awareness is just a fucking symbol. It doesn't refer to anything other than a process about the body. It doesn't exist on its own as anything besides imagination, which is one more symbol referring to a process about the body. It's all body.

>>19634220
>your imagination does so because your body is weak

What do you mean by weak? I have a pretty happy life. Alternatively, could it be that you're just incapable of abstract thought and higher intelligence?

>>19634074
How is it preposterous to propose that consciousness as a totality of brain states could not act on itself, but not that consciousness as a non-physical property of a dualistic brain-mind complex could act on itself? If consciousness is a non-physical entity, this doesn’t change the nature of introspection. Something is perceiving itself, whether that something is physical in totality or partially mental doesn’t change that. Even if consciousness were explainable/reducible to full knowledge of the brain, it would still be a wildly unique physical entity.

>>19634214
Its a non-describable experience. You can know about it and know how it translates to the brain but you will never know the experience first hand unless you try it. All the philosophical arguments in the world are not worth one psychedelic experience when it comes to understanding consciousness

>>19634228
>What do you mean by weak?
Low energy. Easily made to feel small by those with more energy.

>I have a pretty happy life.
You can thank your body and its ability to adapt to pressures and fabricate a more comforting reality via imagination for you for that.

>>19634223
>Awareness is just a fucking symbol.
No, it's what talking about anything at all presupposes, you cannot bring forth words in a discussion without having an awareness of what language is, of what the other person is saying etc etc
>It doesn't refer to anything other than a process about the body. It doesn't exist on its own as anything besides imagination, which is one more symbol referring to a process about the body. It's all body.
This is what you believe and what you are trying and failing to convince others is true, the only problem though is that you haven't provided a single good argument for it so far, and neither have you addressed the already-mentioned problem that awareness is experienced by us in a way that contradicts what you say, i.e. awareness reveals the body as a non-aware object of awareness that presents itself to our awareness through the senses

>>19634243
post body

>>19634220
>Your imagination does so because your body.
I'm willing to bet you can't even run 5 miles.

>>19634243
I refuse to waste any more time on a small souled dopamine addicted bug like you. I am gonna go read a book! Ciao faggot

>>19634243
The patrician choice is the symbiose of a strong body and a sharp mind.
Bodyggers like you need to rope.

>>19634232
>my vocabulary is too limited to describe it therefore there is more than just the body in the rendering of that experience
This is what drugs do to you, kids. They make you a fucking retard.

>>19634245
Awareness is a process and processes are imagination. They exist like imagination exists — as something of the body, not separate from it.

>awareness reveals the body as a non-aware object of awareness that presents itself to our awareness through the senses
Fucking retarded, barely legible bullshit. And you think your caliber of mind can persuade mine of this bullshit.

americans are, truly and unequivocally, a disease

>>19634257
Retards like you should be barred from reading.

>>19634260
Body and mind aren't separate, you fucking retard.

>>19634272
>my vocabulary is too limited
there is no vocabulary able to describe it. Stop talking out of your ass retard

>>19634230
>How is it preposterous to propose that consciousness as a totality of brain states could not act on itself, but not that consciousness as a non-physical property of a dualistic brain-mind complex could act on itself?
I'm not proposing that non-physical consciousness acts on itself. If that non-physical consciousness is by nature self-aware, then that self-awareness is not a separate action or effect (B) that awareness (A) paradoxically exerts upon itself like fire (A) burning (B) itself (A) but is just its very nature, i.e. consciousness is the exact same thing as the self-awareness of awareness itself, i.e. it's just (A) without any (B). It makes no sense for the materialist to adopt the same line of argument because if the very nature of the physical body is awareness instead of awareness being a function or effect of the brain then even a dead body would retain awareness.

>>19634286
Here's some descriptions for your drug-induced experiences:

>retardation
>avoiding the argument
>missing the point
>being a cunt
>being a faggot

I can go on.

>>19629857
May I have the source on this one please? I have to write an essay for my Philosophy of mind course and I need to gather a good bibliography.

>>19634284
I still can't believe that you managed to push everyone out of this thread through sheer frustration with your inability to grasp abstract notions.
Congratulations, you are the last one standing.
Still, it was a very fun ride.

>>19634104
>huh I wonder why we haven’t yet been able to deduce the most complex assemblage of matter maybe ever studied down to its differentiable parts as opposed to snowflakes (obscenely less complex entities). This only speaks to the incompleteness of cognitive science, not the fundamental inability to explain consciousness.

>>19634304
Good, these threads are fucking gay and full of pseudo-intellectual posturing by subversive retards. They deserve to be run into the fucking ground every single time. I'm doing a service to the board by spearheading that effort.

>>19634315
post body, lets see how strong and non subverted you are

>>19634321
Fuck off, retard. You have a brainlet understanding of strength. It's not just muscle mass.

>>19634325
Kek, we are two posts away from you admitting that you are a bedridden fat fuck

>>19634325
>It's not just muscle mass.
With your logic it literally is just about muscle mass because the body is the only thing that exists. You surely talk a lot about strength for a weak little bitch
>inb4 guns

>>19634325
So you are

1. Retarded
2. Fat
3. Virgin

Wow

>>19634347
You're a dumb cunt. Strength is muscle mass, body fat to height ratio, metabolic levels, blood count, physiology in totality. A photo won't demonstrate it as well as my posts blowing all you fucking cunts out do.

>>19634352
>>19634356
Dumb cunts with nothing left to argue because you got irreparably destroyed and continue to be destroyed.

>>19634360
Also genes.

>>19634360
>People leave in frustration because you are as thick as a brick
>You're "blowing them out"
Sure bro, and when you walk from your bed to your fridge it's "physical exercise", right?

>>19634272
>Awareness is a process and processes are imagination. They exist like imagination exists — as something of the body, not separate from it.
This is impossible to prove and you have not even tried to offer a good argument for this, you're just asserting it as dogma, it's not very convincing.

>Fucking retarded, barely legible bullshit. And you think your caliber of mind can persuade mine of this bullshit.
Okay pea brain, I'll elaborate for you:

The most immediate and self-evident thing to us is our own awareness. Why is the body not more immediate and self-evident? because it's known by awareness. How do we know the body isn't identical with awareness? because we find bodies of dead creatures that display no awareness, if they were fully identical there would be no bodies dead or alive, comatose or awake etc without awareness So, you can say awareness is a "function" of the body which is why dead bodies have no awareness, but this is already accepting that awareness is not fully identical with the physical existence of the body in the present moment (as the body can continue to exist without awareness), thus implicitly accepting it as the intelligent presence which knows things.

The only way that you know the body is when the body is revealed to you through the sense organs, our nervous system communicates to awareness a range of sensations involving touch, sight, sound, odor, etc; without these sensory representations of the body to awareness, we would have no knowledge or inkling of the body whatsoever. What you are knowing as the body is not the body itself but an internal display representing the body which as a display is comprised of a smattering of sights, touches etc. The sense of sight that reveals the body to us does not know itself and is not self-aware but it requires an awareness to know it, in other words your visual sight of your arm is not a self-aware entity, but it's something that is known by awareness like an insentient image flashing on a screen being watched by a sentient awareness.

Hence, the body presents itself to awareness as a known content which differs from that awareness, because the body is only known by us through the senses and the senses themselves are not self-evident. Anyone who says that the senses like sound and sight are self-aware is stupid or highly confused and this claim of self-aware senses is contradicted by our experience and is also highly illogical.

>>19634380
Every one of you faggots got blown the fuck out and have no argument. That's why the remainder of you are resorting to extremely pathetic low effort baiting, like you're doing right now. You lost.

Qualianiggers are faggots.

>>19634360
A photo can't demonstrate your blood work but we can get a very good estimation about your physiology and physical strength.
Not only you cannot understand what is being talked here but you came shitting up the thread proclaiming that everyone who argues that consciousness cannot be explained away by mere physicality is a weak person trying to "subvert strength" as if anyone here claimed that because consciousness exists outside of the body you should totally abandon your body. And on top of all this blabbering retardation you're not even posting a picture of your body so you can be judged by your own standards.

>>19634313
"The 'incompleteness of cognitive science' of the Gaps" argument everyone

>>19634384
*and the senses themselves are not self-aware

>>19634104
Dumb quote.


The same can be said for most emergence. The standard model doesn't include gravity. There is no full model of how quantum fields become molecules. There is no explanation of the origins of matter. Non-Locality is also a major issue.

That argument can be used to handwave away all of physics and biology. Fact is, what we do know about physics still tells us a lot about why stuff happens and what "stuff" is and helps rule out other hypotheses, such as Plato's World Spirit and difference and similarity particles, or Spinoza's monads. Similarly, there is a lot we don't know about conciousness, but what we do know does tell us a lot and appears to exclude magical souls. This could be overturned later, just as physics could be a simulation, but the weight of the evidence is on the side of physicalists, although not necissarily eliminativists since qualia could be an emergent property of complexity.

>>19634384
>This is impossible to prove
A genealogical study of language dispels every notion of language that doesn't render language as symbolic / not having existence separate from the body. Language is meaningless and ceases to be language unless imbued with the needs and desires of the bodies employing it and is otherwise undecipherable when these are a mystery.

>The most immediate and self-evident thing to us is our own awareness.
Wrong. The most immediate and self-evident thing to us is what is in front of us. We develop a notion of self through the notion of other.

>How do we know the body isn't identical with awareness? because we find bodies of dead creatures that display no awareness
You stupid faggot. Dead bodies are damaged bodies. No fucking shit you won't see all the functions of the body operating properly on a damaged body.

>What you are knowing as the body is not the body itself but an internal display representing the body which as a display is comprised of a smattering of sights, touches etc.
Yes, and? We went through this already. Knowledge is imagination, and like imagination, it does not suggest the existence of anything other than the body. We are still only talking about the body, its various functions. No point in repeating bullshit to me; this low effort tactic won't work.

>>19634388
The only demonstration you need is my posts and the utter lack of cope, pussyfooting nonsense and dishonest horseshit within them. If you can't figure it out from those, then you're a dumb motherfucker.

So why doesn’t nature produce P Zombies?

>>19634448
How would you know your neighbor isn't a p zombie?

>>19634436
>>A genealogical study of language dispels every notion of language that doesn't render language as symbolic
what a goofy answer, the claim that language is symbolic doesn't establish anything about whether or not awareness is identical with the body

>Wrong. The most immediate and self-evident thing to us is what is in front of us.
Knowing what is in front of us is already presupposing a knowing awareness, the knower is more self-evident than the known other, since the knower is the light by which the known object is known. One can doubt the existence or reality of the known object, but once cannot deny or doubt the knower, since if it wasn't there would be no experience.

>Yes, and? We went through this already. Knowledge is imagination, and like imagination
imagination is comprised of thoughts and thoughts are not self-aware but require an awareness to know them, if thoughts were self-aware we wouldn't be able to form complex chains of thought because our awareness would rise and fall with each thought, not leaving us enough time to relate it to anything else, among numerous other problems.

>>19634448
Cause the gun fits in the Bible.

>>19634470
>but once cannot deny or doubt the knower, since if it wasn't there would be no experience.

Hume did deny this with solid arguments. Eliminative materialism does deny this. Tons of findings in neuroscience suggest that a unified experiencer is an illusion that can be broken apart quite easily.

>>19634470
>the claim that language is symbolic doesn't establish anything about whether or not awareness is identical with the body
What do you think "awareness" is? It's language. It's just a fucking word, and that word refers to something about the body, a function of it, a physical phenomenon, both historically and in the modern sense. The only reason why you think it refers to something else is because you've lost sight of what language is and how it is used.

>the knower is more self-evident than the known other
You've never interacted with infants. They form awareness of their guardians (generally the mother first) before themselves. Awareness of the self comes after, juxtaposed to the awareness of the other.

>imagination is comprised of thoughts and thoughts are not self-aware but require an awareness to know them
Thoughts are the burps and farts of your nervous system. They aren't separate from your body. They change as your body changes. Awareness is just another thought, imagination the totality of the thought-producing function of the body. All of it is the body and what it can do. Nothing here implies existence of something separate from the body and you do not understand the purpose of language if you argue otherwise.

>>19634100
Same

My faith has been BTFO by watching my grandparents deal with Alzheimer's

>>19634522
This is the true blackpill

>>19634785
My honest hope is that Medicare and Social Security have run out by the time I'm old so that if I start to go that way they just take me out in the woods and shoot me. Seems like torture, but also a bit to much to ask to make my kids do it.

>>19634522
>Thoughts are the burps and farts of the nervous system.
Please define thought more exactly. If you identify a thought with a movement of the nervous system you should be able to convey to what exact movement of the nervous system an exact thought corresponds. So define with exactitude please, we await

>>19634892
>Please define thought more exactly.
It's the byproduct (in most cases, the waste) of the nervous system.

>If you identify a thought with a movement of the nervous system you should be able to convey to what exact movement of the nervous system an exact thought corresponds.
No. It isn't necessary to have all of this data on hand.

>>19634111
How can imagined entities have predictive powers if they do not have some form of actuality?
>Utterly meaningless fucking distinction only there to further subvert
Show me how neurons construct syntactical categories and recognizes the apodicticity of axioms. I'm waiting.

>>19634416
There's nothing you know about consciousness. And "emergence" is exactly the kind of "magic" you are talking about. Nice self delusion you have going on there, however.

>>19634942
>Show me something that doesn't have any actuality. I'm waiting.
You are going to be waiting for the rest of your life.

>>19634942
>predictive powers
These are imagined. Prediction doesn't occur, it's only a sensation.

>syntactical categories
These are also imagined. We imagine them for bettering our use of language.

>the apodicticity of axioms
This is the body's imagination reaching its outer limit and succumbing to those limits. Nothing besides the body is evident in this.

>>19634969
Debunk Mary's Room. This is going to be fun.

>>19634982
I already did that in my first post of the thread here >>19633995

Descriptions don't contain anything, they're just fucking descriptions. They symbolize physical phenomena (assuming they are legible to us) and exist like the imagination does (as a function of the body).

>>19634969
The center of gravity of an object is an imagined entity. You are going to try and tell me physicists and engineers' calculations are just there to produce a feeling.
Jesus fuck you are retarded.

>>19634995
You did not. It does not matter if the rose is blue or red or polka-dotted, Mary learns something from the experience of the rose she can never learn from a description of its physical properties, no matter how exhaustive.

>>19634969
>Prediction doesn't occur
Jesus fuck even for a materialist P-zombie you are a dumb one. Prediction is 99% of what the nervous system does.

>>19635011
>You are going to try and tell me physicists and engineers' calculations are just there to produce a feeling.
You must be retarded. What I would tell you is that already existing feelings within the body produced those calculations, not the other way around. The calculations tell us nothing besides something about our own bodies and how they sense and make sense of things.

>>19629796
Does frege count? He gave an argument about cards that shows physicalism accounting for numbers is not a closed system (deck of cards is 52, 1, 2, 4 or there can be objects which have the same set) and it's circular as well (to add 52 apples to 1 apple I need to reference 2 decks of cards to talk about apples etc).

>>19635016
>Mary learns something from the experience of the rose she can never learn from a description of its physical properties
Yeah no shit retard, that's because the description contains nothing on its own, it only exists as symbol, merely symbolizing something about the body, and if the body can't identify that in itself then it will learn nothing from the description. See >>19634436, specifically:

>Language is meaningless and ceases to be language unless imbued with the needs and desires of the bodies employing it and is otherwise undecipherable when these are a mystery.

There is only the body and descriptions (read: symbols imagined by the body) about the body. Nothing here is evidence of something existing separately from the body.

>>19635019
The nervous system doesn't predict, it just feels as if it does at times, this feeling being of use to it.

>>19635049
What about numbers? >>19635045

>>19635051
Same principle, they are imagined and only tell us something about our own bodies and how it operates.

>>19635049
Mary's Room is not a dualist argument, it's an argument for dualism. Again and again you fail to understand the argument.

>>19629796
Nobody here BTFOd physicalism except for the guy who brought up Hempel’s Dilemma. You can all go home.

>>19635053
But 2 hydrogen atoms morph to become a helium atom. Atoms can't reference decks of cards. Of course how we process math points to us but clearly there is an external math out there that dictates quantity relationships that we can't change.

>>19635061
Dualism is a sensation of the body. Nothing at all about Mary's Room indicates that there is something besides the body.

>>19635079
Get help.

>>19635078
We give atoms their structure as atoms. "2 hydrogen atoms morph to become a helium atom" only describes an experience rendered by our bodies and not anything else.

>>19635083
Eat shit, slimy little faggot.

>>19635096
I meant to say "it's an argument for the existence of qualia", but it doesn't matter, you're retarded anyways.

>>19635086
You can say that and not throw the baby out w the bathwater. Clearly it is a relationship between you the observer and the external objects in their own relationship. You can interpret that relationship more correctly or less but it's not fundamentally dictated by the observer what they are doing.

>>19635105
I already explained how it doesn't demonstrate the existence of anything beside the body. If you think I'm arguing against the existence of some aspect of the body's rendered experience, you're wrong and not following the discussion at all.

>>19635023
> If I had a different body eidetic sciences would not be the same.
How fucking dumb do you have to be?

>>19635049
>The nervous system doesn't predict, it just feels as if it does at times, this feeling being of use to it
The nervous system's purpose is to predict its next input based on its previous ones, and to produce outputs that reduce prediction discrepancies. See PPM.

>>19635118
Yes, a body capable of irreducible, non-physical experiences. Some "body."

>>19635111
>external objects
"external" is another sensation that describes only something about the body and how it operates. Whatever "external" elements there are, none of our descriptions will ever touch on them.

>>19635120
>my human experience, rendered entirely by my ever-changing body, is how reality actually is!
How fucking dumb do you have to be?

>>19635130
Its purpose is to generate the sensation of prediction because following that sensation has been found to be useful. It doesn't actually predict a fucking thing.

>>19635132
>irreducible, non-physical experiences
Like seeing a fucking color? Are you beyond retarded?

>>19635144
Please show me what makes the redness of red physical.

>>19635137
No it doesn't because that would mean it's subjective and if you're saying that then that implies epistemology can influence ontology and considering your epistemology changes to interpret the world consistently then the ontology would change consistently causing a circular issue but also meaning you can't perceive or sense anything as it can never point to anything.

>>19635137
> knowledge of essences is an experience.

>>19635147
In math you can show red like in hexadecimal code. That's sociological but it's not existential.

>>19635156
Stop it. Get some help.

>>19635147
"The redness of red" is a dumb fucking phrase. Red is the effect of an eye that functions a certain way. Red does not exist, the body and its functions, which can produce the effect that the description "red" refers to, exists.

>>19635144
>Its purpose is to generate the sensation of prediction because following that sensation has been found to be useful. It doesn't actually predict a fucking thing
> The sensation of prediction is useful, but not the prediction itself.

>>19635157
Wrong person I think. I was just adding a fact.

>>19635158
Let's say some aliens that had never seen the color red before landed on earth. How would you demonstrate for them the existence of this color without showing them a red object?

>>19635172
Use light degrees? If you want a non-physical aspect, you can derive light from math through the massformula and build up to photons.

>>19635176
>you can derive light from math
lmao

So you're relying on qualia, then?

>>19635158
>Red is the effect of an eye that functions a certain way. Red does not exist, the body and its functions, which can produce the effect that the description "red" refers to, exists.
> The body produces something that doesn't and cannot by principle exist.

>>19635188
I'm still the third guy arguing against physicalism through frege >>19635045

>>19635165
There is no "prediction itself," and yes, the sensation is useful. What the fuck are you getting at?

>>19635172
The experience of red doesn't contain within it anything other than the experience of one's own body. Your moronic hypothetical doesn't change this.

>>19635206
>experience
>body
nice dualism you got there

>>19635225
Experience is the expression of the body. It isn't dualistic, fuckface.

>>19635230
What expresses the body? The body again? Lol

>>19635238
Yes, you stupid fuck.

>>19635241
So then the body is meaningless as it can never actually be expressed and it can't ever be experienced as the experience is derived from the body in time yet after the body so the body will be different by the time it's experienced.

>>19635241
>>19635246
So you can't reference body anyways unless experience is the body and not derived from the body but that creates issues w how your hand can't experience like your brain can.

>>19635206
>There is no "prediction itself,"
Pointless distinction. The body predicts its input, there are dozens of exemplification, tickling being the most well know one. The sensation is but a component of the process.

>>19635148
You experience yourself and nothing besides that. Existence outside of experience isn't being debated here because we can't experience it and can't learn anything about it through any descriptions either.

>>19635152
Knowledge is imagination and imagination is the byproduct of your nervous system. We went over this.

>>19635246
>>19635250
"The body" is a symbol referring to something far more complex and which renders many different experiences at once. The experience you're having at your computer right now isn't the only experience your body is rendering at this time. Your hand (again, a symbol referring to something far more complex) has its own experience which is quite different from the one you're familiar with. Bottom line: none of these experiences describe anything other than what is rendering the experiences and how they operate.

>>19634088
I've answered this several times already. The point -- and it is a very simple one -- is that causes are not identical to the things they cause. Even if you could prove that physical processes CAUSE consciousness, you could not thereby conclude that they ARE consciousness.

In fact, it is clear that consciousness is nothing like the physical processes which accompany it. The firing of neurons in the brain does not qualitatively resemble the feeling of pain in any way whatsoever. The two are utterly incomparable, their only connection being the fact that they occur at the same time. Thus it is clear that they are not the same sort of thing.

Now, you keep saying that consciousness is "not empirically verifiable", but nobody is arguing against this. What we are arguing against is your assumption that we can only know that which we can empirically verify. That assumption (which is itself not empirically verifiable) is precisely what is leading you to these confused views.

>>19635276
>Existence outside of experience isn't being debated here because we can't experience it
No this is important because we're trying to see how you can deal w this. If you accept existence can be external then you have to say how you can account for it qua it rather than it qua you.

>"The body" is a symbol referring to something far more complex and which renders many different experiences at once

This isn't a response. You've committed a circular object interpretation which can never allow you to reference itself.
Your body *creates* experience
Body *changes/expresses* body
Experience tries to *grasp* body
Body *changes/expresses* body
Your experience grasps the wrong body.

It's an iteration issue.

>>19635276
>>19635293
You can do an intuition leap but you can never properly use the term body as it doesn't reference what you think it does by definition.

>>19635276
>Knowledge is imagination
No it isnt.
In the context of philosophy of mind, imagination is the ability to create images in your mind. Knowledge is at the very least strongly tied to our subvocalization, which isn't imagination, but precisely the body trying to predict what an event of vocalization will sound like.

>>19635258
>Pointless distinction
Not at all. You want to claim that imagined entities have predictive powers so you can further claim that they have "actuality" (non-imaginary existence), but they don't. What there is is a rendered sensation of such power in those imagined entities. The imagination is still just imagination.

>>19635311
Imagined entities do have predictive power.
If I know my center of gravity I can chart my trajectory without ever having experienced motion.
If I know Santa Claus and see Christmas decorations, I know the mall will be packed.
Your imagination is in reality. It is a psychological component, an object of the world. Essences aren't.

>>19634074
>for it is contradictory to suppose that anything can act on itself.
Stopped reading here. Semantics that are left vague because retards cannot understand biology physics and chemistry.

>>19634129
>as we are unable to confirm that this awareness is physical
Nigga we test proprioception for multiple decades in neurology now. Again dualists showing they're stuck in the stone ages

>>19635293
> If you accept existence can be external then you have to say how you can account for it qua it rather than it qua you.
I neither accept nor deny "external existence" as in the existence of something beside the body because our descriptions can never touch on such a thing one way or another so it's fucking pointless to attempt to do so. Every single description we come up with only describes something about the body itself, and the descriptions that people claim actually describe such an "external existence" always, in some way, at bottom, desire to subvert stronger and healthier bodies in order to prevent them from further acting out their desires (for, if they did not have this desire, they would be honest bodies that realized what I am saying about descriptions and what they contain).

>You've committed a circular object interpretation which can never allow you to reference itself.
Descriptions are always circular in this way. This isn't an issue, this is by design. The body is only concerned with itself and its propagation / release of energy and it produces all kinds of experiences and imaginations in order to further this goal, including notions such as knowledge. It cares not whether these experiences or imaginations accurately reflect what is happening.

>>19635303
It is. Bodies do not "know" anything. The nervous system records sensations it renders and what sensations were rendered in follow up to those, and then attempts to repeat the initial sensations that led to favorable ones. Knowledge is one of those sensations that regularly leads to favorable ones, hence why we give it linguistic importance.

>>19635333
No, they do not. They have sensations of such a thing.

>Your imagination is in reality
Your "reality" is in your imagination only, as are your "essences."

>>19635359
Kek

I don't understand why materialists so desperately want to hold onto their idiotic worldview, despite the hundreds of refutations that can be levied against it. It's not even like materialism is very exciting or meaningful. There is no reason anybody would want materialism to be true. I just don't get why they're so widespread and contagious.

>>19629814
Very disappointing; I would have read it if it really were a "non-philosopher's confession of faith." But then I hopped over and read the endorsement, and I got absolute word-salad.

How can this be from a non-philosopher, when you're just inventing new language games? A non-philosophical approach to Christ would mean asking how Christianity says we should live, and what we should believe, not whether St Paul's Christology was upside down (whatever that means).

>>19635401
Your view is an impediment to science and consequently the betterment of the human body and its performance. Your dualism is a cancer.

>>19635363
>I neither accept nor deny "external existence"
So your opinion on this matter definitionally isn't important.

>Descriptions are always circular in this way. This isn't an issue, this is by design.
>literally can't speak of what he's referencing
Okay man, have a nice day

>>19635410
> Le science meme
Fuck off.

>>19635401
Dualism in a nutshell: bottom feeder trolling or inability to understand concepts.
Ask metaphysicists to turn on a lamp in a dark room and they’ll argue that to room isn’t actually lit because they can close their eyes.

>>19635424
>le darkage mentality
Echoing cries of an obsolete mindset.

>>19635410
Personally I don't have as much respect for scientists as the establishment would like me to, but there is nothing in the rejection of materialism that would in any way impede the progress of science. In fact I would argue that scientists would be better-off with a good grasp of metaphysics and the philosophy which underpins their discipline. Nowadays, most scientists take empiricism and materialism for granted and never get to questioning their presuppositions. That's why they usually make for shallow thinkers.

>>19635412
No one in this thread has successfully described anything other than how their own bodies operate because it can't be done and no amount of whining from you faggots will ever fucking change that. Experience reveals only how a body operates. The goal of each of our lives is to tend to our bodies because it is the only thing that can ever concern us, and faggot cults that wish to spread blatant misinformation on this part ought to be ridiculed and eradicated from the earth along with their proponents and any dipshits that so much as give these cults further ammunition in their crusade against life.

>>19635424
>pic
The irony is palatable.

>>19635463
>scientists would be better-off with a good grasp of metaphysics and the philosophy which underpins their discipline
Why? That's outside the scope of their work.

>>19635465
I don't see how you can be a physicalist and never speak about the physical world outside your body. In some sense there can be validity but nobody is going to examine their anus and expect to be developing the architecture for ai and you refuse to speak about it so nobody can use your framework for anything.

>>19635434
Do you understand that the scientific method itself relies on a bunch of metaphysical assumptions which cannot be proven by the scientific method? For example, a scientist can only formulate a theory through the use of logic. The laws of logic have to guide his thinking and temper his conclusions. Without the laws of logic science could not exist at all.
And yet the laws of logic are nothing less than immaterial, eternal, transcendental truths. If you deny this and say they are merely "operations of the brain", then you at once lose the ability to assert the supremacy of logical thought over other modes of thought. No "operation of the brain" -- which is just the movement of particles -- is "truer" than any other. The movement of particles is not something which can be true or false -- it just is. Consequently if you reduce the laws of logic to "just how my brain works bro" you destroy the possibility of science and land yourself in skepticism.
And the laws of logic are just one of many assumptions the scientist has to make in his theorising.

>>19635505
>I don't see how you can be a physicalist
I never used that term.

>nobody can use your framework for anything.
Completely fucking wrong. Don't speak if you have nothing intelligent to add.

>>19635465
>No one in this thread has successfully described anything other than how their own bodies operate because it can't be done and no amount of whining from you faggots will ever fucking change that. Experience reveals only how a body operates
> He thinks the validity of the Law of Identity rests on how your body operates.
Jesus fuck read Frege and Husserl you idiot.

>>19635539
>Law of Identity
You're quite the brainlet if you think this summarizes what I've been saying here.

>>19635532
We can't use it because you refuse to say how "body" ever can speak about anything external. You refuse to even say external objects even exist. That precludes every science, sociological thing, univerals like logic or math etc. So what can you use it for that matters if not those (which, again, you refuse to acknowledge as existing).

That and again it doesn't even seem like you can speak about body and considering experience derives from body how do you speak of experience. You meaningfully can't say anything.

>>19635549
Not an argument.
Either you know of the apodictic value of the Law of Identity, and it is true to itself, or you have feels about it like you say, and then it simply doesn't exist, and the entire building of knowledge is a non-starter.
The empiricist mind is truly degenerate.

>>19635551
>you refuse to say how "body" ever can speak about anything external.
It can't, retard. Read my fucking posts.

>You refuse to even say external objects even exist.
Because I'm honest and realize that I can't say whether "external objects" do or don't exist as anything other than as a sensation rendered by my body.

>So what can you use it for that matters if not those
Philosophy.

>it doesn't even seem like you can speak about body
You're retarded if you think this. My body is not external to me.

>>19635558
You haven't even been following this thread, have you? You are completely fucking lost. Get the fuck out of here.

>>19635573
Your body is external to your body per >>19635238
>>19635241

In any sense, people will use aristotelian, newtonian etc metaphysics and can get gps and even computers. If you can't provide at least those then why should we accept your metaphysics?

>>19635573
>It can't, retard
> the materialist's mind is so closed of to originary intuition that he cannot even intuit the presence of the external world.
Honestly the whole "materialist are P-zombies" is starting to make sense.

>>19635586
This kinda explains hume's absolutist conception of induction.

>>19635584
>Your body is external to your body
Jesus fucking christ, you're retarded. I AM my body, as in the phenomenon, not the word, which is only a descriptor pointing to the phenomenon, you dumb qualianigger faggot.

>If you can't provide at least those then why should we accept your metaphysics?
Philosophy provides nothing less than life itself. Scientists, sociologists, mathematicians, etc. don't understand anything about life besides their measly little slice of it.

>>19633716
Dont bother trying to explain the difference between the mind and conciousness to these people. They think if someone goes into a coma they are no longer concious, even if they are dreaming.

>>19634074
I liked the part where you used a series of nouns and verbs to imply that reality functions on the same ruleset as grammar, retard

>>19635586
>my human experience, rendered entirely by my ever-changing body, is how reality actually is!
Your mind isn't open, it's fallen out. Your skull is empty.

>>19635594
But if you can't account for their tiny slice then how can you say you speak of life?

If you are the body and you express yourself are you saying you were never born or you constantly rebirth?

>>19633706
> but why does my soul change with physical changes?
It doesn't.

>>19635607
I do account for it. I account for their existence as erroneous, yet necessary.

>If you are the body and you express yourself are you saying you were never born or you constantly rebirth?
How are you this fucking confused? Are you autistic?

>>19635606
Not him but I get what you mean. So you account for development and time through your body which constantly changes itself therefore allowing a developing experience. This works as an output but you can't reference input again.
That reply is begging the question btw

>>19635622
All you have reference to is your body. You can't speak of anything outside your body so how can you ever say you were conceived? I'm following your logic.

>>19634036
Just kill yourself you fucking npc

>>19635284
>but it is separate from the causes!! It’s- it’s a non-physical event caused by a physical event… through the fucking uhhhh pineal gland.

Dualist moment. Still, they can’t get around the interaction problem.

>>19635622
Also if everything is your body, why are you constantly wrong and why are you arguing w yourself?

>>19635527
To type so much and say so little. Stop and wonder why no one, even in academia, gives a rats ass about metaphysics. It’s a solved problem, empiricism has triumphed over rationalism as has materialism over spirituality.
You can reject it, but your worldview is a dead end. Scientific theory has done more for mankind in a shorter time span than any other world view. The history of how it came to be is irrelevant for its purpose or usage.

>>19634436
>posts full of childish insults and I'm right you're wrong
Okay

>>19635606
The transcendental consciousness is not a part of "reality" as you understand it. My body has no bearing towards the pure essences that I meet (although it does have one in regards to the impure ones).

>>19635401
They have been brainwashed by jewish science

>>19635410
see, just look at this bugman for example

>>19634931
Yes it is, if you establish an identity relation. If not, then you are not defining thought, but its physical correlates.

>>19635635
>You can't speak of anything outside your body so how can you ever say you were conceived?
I can say I was conceived because biological conception helps me make sense of my current situation, i.e., it furthers my body's goals to do so. Still not experiencing ANYTHING other than my body and how it operates and seeks connections in its own imagination to further its interests, and the same goes for all of you.

>>19635638
>>19635640
The brain farts of wretched, desperate little qualianiggers.

>>19635644
>Scientific theory has done more for mankind
The kind you reject?

>>19635659
If you can't experience it in some sense then how can you actually say you were biologically conceived? That's an intuition leap.

>>19635651
>towards the pure essences that I meet
You don't meet any. Your body renders the sensations of "meeting" and "pure essences." It's all in your body's capacity for imagination and nowhere else.

>>19635660
Non sequitur. The basic dualism forte.

>>19635667
>then how can you actually say you were biologically conceived?
I can't and neither can you. No one can "actually say" fucking anything.

>>19635644
>why no one
Speak for yourself and your California community college full of trannies. Kys npc.

>>19635659
>all this seething
the npc is unable to use logic or reasoning, non physical intellective faculties. instead the npc reacts to base animal emotions such as anger.

>>19635673
I'm a predicational monist but you say you cannot experience external objects and you just wore the hat of a metaphysics which says you can. Just because you may both have empirical leanings, this doesn't imply you're qualificationally the same. That's an intuition leap because you on the same hand say it can't ever be experienced.
(Btw the negation implies a dualism at least).

>>19635679
If no one can actually say anything then I'll just ignore all your posts as incorrect, by your own admission

>>19635644
You're refusing to engage with the argument. Science relies on metaphysical, transcendental truths like the laws of logic to function. It does not matter one bit what the consensus of academics is about this issue. That's just a fallacious appeal to authority.

>>19635680
Childish rebuttal, as expected from stunted circlejerkers. Doesn’t even make sense since post modernism is dualistic metaphysics taken to an extreme and allows such rabble to exist in the first place.

>>19635679
Then why are you arguing w yourself? We can build gpu's and computers.

>>19635691
>but you say you cannot experience external objects
Never said such thing.

>>19635697
>childish rebuttal
I'm just following your flow, bro
Dont like getting called mean words even though you're throwing them around too? Sounds like a braindead npc liberal tranny to me

>>19635695
He probably is an antivaxxer too

>>19635702
So then you say external objects exist then?
>>19635363

>>19629796
How are all these people denying the existence of the non-physical when it is only by the non-physical that they know the physical?
This is /sci/tard tier. Start with the Greeks and stop embarrasing yourselves.

>>19635668
> But your Honor?, how can you say that I killed someone when none of us can have any knowledge of the existence of anything external to our sensations? How can you judge me when you are just a package of sensations for me to experience? How can the very concept of murder itself exist if no one has ever understood anything, as we are all always only trapped in sensations and never encounter objects? What is the sensation of this Justice you speak of?

>>19635695
The argument has no justification to exist. I don’t need to engage because it is an opinion, a badly supported one at that. The coming of the scientific method is irrelevant to its workings or usage, pretending that people who classify themselves as metaphycisists still hold any authority because of science or what have you is delusional begging.

>>19635720
https://youtu.be/KAxfOTUsi2Q

>>19635712
Not my post.
>>19635703
You have no rebuttal except for perceived trannies, you’re a fish on land.

>>19635717
You can't prove the existence of the non-physical via any argument, sorry.

Who is this fucker?
>>19635363

>>19635738
Did you switch off between another person?

>>19635738
Still seething. You can't prove that concious experience is entirely a product of the body. Go on and point to jewish scientists who wish to dehumanizing everyone.

>>19635738
>>19635741
>>19635747
Did your body change again and now we'll never know?

>>19635685
>>19635693
>>19635700
>>19635720
Qualianigger cope. None of you have any arguments. None of you will ever provide a description of "reality as such." None of you will ever "know" anything besides something about your body (and given how fucking stupid you all are, never anything substantial on that front, either). Your weakling cult propaganda is impotent here.

>>19635756
Hey schizo wake up, you're talking to yourself again. I'm in your walls

>>19635722
In my argument I proved:
(1) That the laws of logic are immaterial, eternal, transcendental laws which govern thought; and that they cannot be reduced to "just how our brains work".
(2) That we grasp these laws through our reason, hence proving that our souls interact with the immaterial realm.
(3) That science itself relies on the existence of these laws in order to exist at all.
These points are highly relevant to this discussion. You just can't answer them.

>>19635739
Of course I can. Every truth is in itself non-physical, because propositions are non-physical objects. Or will you show us otherwise?

>>19635756
>all this seething and no arguments
Watching NPCs work themselves into a fit of rage because others disagree with the "consensus" of Jewish academics is truly hilarious

>>19635756
BASED

>>19635652
It's a very Anglo mindset. Anglos often refuse to or are unable to engage with metaphysics so Jews are able to easily instill metaphysical presuppositions into them and lead them around like dogs on a leash. It's actually quite amusing.

>>19635756
Since when is basic Phenomenology "quilianigger cope"?

>>19635750
>You can't prove that concious experience is entirely a product of the body.
You not willing or unable to understand doesn’t matter.

>>19635766
>That we grasp these laws through our reason, hence proving that our souls interact with the immaterial realm.
Nice leaps of logic, take meds because the ‘immaterial realm’ is rotting your brain

>>19635789
He's right and you wrong. Let me add that the product of something physical is not necessarily phisical.

>>19635789
not an argument they again stay btfo

>>19635775
>Jews are essential for my worldview
lmao

>>19635808
Wrong
>>19635811
Are the Jews with us in the thread right now?

>>19635808
Hmm I wonder how these non physical products interact and create change in a world where physics accounts for all causal energy through physical processes.

>>19635802
Nice bias, implying that things given originally in intuition do not have their own value.

>>19635812
Just sharing observable phenomenon that occurs within the Anglosphere.

>>19635831
4 more posts then dead topic

>>19635820
Yeah. you're a glownigger jew trying to subvert this board and turn us into braindead materialist NPCs only concerned with what feels good to our bodies

>>19635833

2

>>19635831
Logic stops where your beliefs begin. Ah never knew logic worked like dat.

>>19635850
It doesn't get locked at 305 anymore?

>>19635829
Well you see, you're getting closer now. Did you know that when you talk about causal energy you are talking about efficient causality alone? So maybe this wondering will get you in due time to real philosophy.

>>19635839
>turn us into braindead materialist NPCs only concerned with what feels good to our bodies
And this is alluded to in which of my posts?

>>19635767
Truth can't be spoken about.

>>19635864
310 on our way

>>19635872
Is this a truth?

>>19635767
Demonstrate a truth.

>>19635880
You are reading this post

>>19635878
No, it's the sensation of a body that rapes yours with ease.

>>19635802
That's not a leap of logic. If you accept point number 1, that the laws of logic are immaterial, and you accept that we grasp the laws of logic through our reason, then it follows that we interact with the immaterial realm. I hate arguing with someone who won't take me seriously though.

>>19635888
I am listening for the blind cannot see.

>>19635864
you the body is all that matters

>>19635891
The immaterial realm must have souls because logic is immaterial?
Think over your position some more before being offended on being called out.

>>19635893
Who sayed "seeing"?

Gotta say, this thread was something.
I nominate the faggot materialist fregean committing the absolute worst psychologism for MVP.

>>19635894
Never said that.

>>19635902
To read on the internet requires vision.

>>19635911
If you "say" so

>>19635914
Not a truth

>>19635900
You are implying that souls and immateriality are something paranormal.

>>19635919
I think you got demonstrated real good man

>>19635900
This is the last time I'll respond to your sardonic strawman attacks.
I did not say "the immaterial realm must have souls".
I said that our souls (or minds if you prefer) interact with the immaterial realm, because we are able to grasp the laws of logic, which are eternal and immaterial.

>>19635911
>To read on the internet requires vision
To understand what you read you must accept the existence of immaterial entities.

>>19635920
Souls are paranormal.
>>19635928
In that truth cannot be demonstrated?
>>19635942
Circular reasoning… souls exist because you say so, else how could we interact with the immaterial realm which can contain logic as opposed to the material realm.

>>19635950
Immaterial entities don’t exist.

>>19635964
>Souls are paranormal
Well, so are penguin chicks for that matter.

>>19635967
Biased view.

>Grug see Grog hold delicious berry
>Grug want delicious berry
>Grug remember Grog get mad when Grug take delicious berry last time
>Grug think hard
>Grug decide to give Grog beautiful stick for delicious berry
>Grog like beautiful stick, give Grug delicious berry for it
>Grug tummy happy
>Grug now see importance of bartering
>maybe Grug try to communicate this to Grug kids (going on to invent a basic number system)

Tens of thousands of years later

>faggot is taught numbers in grade school
>believes those numbers exist independently of thought (because he's a faggot)
>grows up (to be a bigger faggot) and then boasts, loudly:
>LE LAWS OF LOGIC ARE LE IMMATERIAL, LE ETERNAL, AND LE TRANSCENDENTAL, AND LE SOUL INTERACTS WITH THESE LE LAWS, THEREFORE LE SOUL IS LE IMMATERIAL, LE ETERNAL, AND LE TRANSCENDENTAL TOO, AND LE BODY ISN'T, NOW REPENT FOR JERKING OFF TO TITTIES ON THE INTERNET AND DONATE TO THE CHURCH!

>>19635863
And these causal events are overdetermined just because they are?

>>19636045
> Grug never abstracted the concept or process of abstraction, therefore it cannot be the product of experience, but a transcendantal condition of the possibility of consciousness.

>>19636077
>Grug had no need to be a pseudo-intellectual and therefore never became one
Based Grug

>>19636056
You don't really know what you are talking about do you?

>>19636127
You don’t. Seethe harder dualist

>>19636147
Lol please elaborate on your "causal events overdetermined" thing

This entire thread was retroactively refuted by the Tengen Toppa Gurren Lagann anime.

>>19629796
This kind of guys are presocratic. When they become adults, the most intelligent become aware of the non-physical. Anyway, see you all on the next one

>>19636230
The physical and non-physical are both imaginary.

>>19636238
But imagination is real.

>>19636315
As burps and farts of the nervous system, yes.

>>19636045
>grug le destroys the concept of the immaterial via 4rock post