/lit/ - Literature

Read Plato.

>Hey, I can sense my beliefs are wrong and am drawn to Jung by mystical forces but, my old worldview makes me uncomfortable with it so I call him schizo, is there something else that I'm comfortable with but is also the truth?
no

>>19800361
I never said I sensed my beliefs were wrong I just said I wanted to read opposing views.

>>19800339
Aristotle

>>19800339
Be my guest, have your entire worldview destroyed by eight pages of text
>https://www.newdualism.org/papers/J.Levine/Levine-PPQ1983.pdf

>>19800416
If all is material… why do I feel stuff?
Religicucks should stay out of philosophy for good

>>19800527
>I feel stuff because balls are bouncing on my face and my wife's face
Dude you're a faggot and a cuck.

>>19800339
>I'd like to understand how someone could become this full schizo but still be intelligent

If you actually read these guys you should understand that science is not the only way to render reality and is in fact it's an extremely narrow view with a limited lexicon. Describing the physics of how you balance on top of a bike does not teach someone how to ride a bike, telling someone who's fearful or depressed that it's just chemicals and electrical impulses in the brain is not a panacea for those conditions.

>>19800339
Unironically Nietzsche sounds like he might be a good balance for you and teach you how to be receptive to philosophy, i.e. think. Rather than be stuck in this turgid scientism.

materialism is semantically empoverished
>science is about levers and pressures
>oh no we have to introduce occult "gravity" into materialism
>oh no we have to introduce occult "electromagnetism" into materialism
>oh no we have to introduce occult "quantum mechanics" into materialism
>oh no we have to introduce "psychic entities" into materialism (see chalmers ridiculous proposal to do so)

ask yourself 3-4 questions as to how one would become convinced of materialism, you'll quickly realized little seperates it from dogmatism

>>19800339

>>19800339
You need to read Cassirer. Not schizo at all, pure Enlightenment brain, but he’ll introduce you to what’s at stake in thinking about myth and the mind as distinguished from the brain.

>>19800339
>everything is explained by electrical signals in the brain
the scientific community largely agrees on "the hard problem of consciousness" still being valid and mystifying, you dont need to go full schizo to see materialism be questioned, so look into that

a lot of mysticism is just "as above so below", meaning there are underlying similarities between all things and understanding happens through finding those similarities and connecting them with allegory and metaphor. mysticism and originally religion is mostly just allegory, trying to capture these universal truths that connect everything.

>>19800339
Read Kant

Leibniz's Gap
Nagel's Bat

>>19800339
Just read some stuff on consciousness. As self-evident as it may appear that it's just the result of physical activity in a neural network, there isn't much consensus on what consciousness even is, much less on what creates it.

>>19800642
It is not our problem that you perceive materialism as some rigid dogma and think that its ulterior development somehow invalidate it.

>>19800339
just do this little experiment : Picture something in your mind and realize that what you see is not caused by any sensual input... so what do you see Is your imagination... your thought... that is nothing you can explain by anything materialistic

>>19801060
It's not our problem you cannot understand Jung because you follow materialism.

By the way, the collective unconscious doesn't conflict with materialism. In fact, nothing unconscious conflicts with materialism. Consciousness is the real mystery.

>>19801069
I've read Jung's entire bibliography save for the UFO book and man in search of his soul. My aunt is a jungian analyst married to the owner of a bookshop that specializes in psychoanalysis. In Geneva. I've had access to jungian texts that haven't been published in 70 years. Good try though.

>>19801046
>Nagel's bat
best refutation of materialism of contemporary philosophy

>>19800339
The closest thing I've read is Spengler

>>19801098
You said you've read it but your post says you're a soulless retard who couldn't understand it (due to your following of a shallow dogma). Good try, though. Next time don't be a bugman.

>>19800339
They talk about "the God of the gaps" as a criticism for using God as a catch all for what seems inexplicable. Yet they utilize evolution in the same way. It's just the evolution of the gaps. No evidence for how the brain can become complicated to the point of perceiving meaning and developing philosophy? Just say it was evolution and leave it at that. All the science indicates it is literally impossible for life to begin given our understanding of the universe? It must have been some cosmic evolution at some point in the history of time. Just give it enough time, no need for proof.

>>19800339
>materialist/atheist
>I'd like to understand how someone could become this full schizo but still be intelligent.
Reflect on whether or not you consider yourself to be intelligent while recognizing that you're a dogmatic autist.

>>19800339
You will only find various ways to cope.

>>19801196
I've said nothing, weirdo. Keep battling your own projected demons as if I had anything to do with it kek.

>>19801250
>Just because we don't know yet doesn't mean we never will.
>That's a badly formulated question.
Scientism literally falls into the same logical traps as religious dogmatism.

>>19801066
>I don't know how a brain worx, so it must be a skydaddy or something out theres!!
hint: there's activity in certain areas of brane when you do certain things, like think about stuffs.

>>19801296
>bait
Fuck off.

>>19801250
You and many others do not realize what you can achieve with endless amounts of iteration and time. Probably because you've never even tried to do anything difficult that merits iterative progress, or just gave up immediately when it didn't work after first try.

>>19801312
Cope & seethe all you want, doesn't change the facts.

>>19801296
you are to dumb to realize what I wanted you to

>>19801288
>I've read Jung's entire bibliography
>I've said nothing, weirdo
??

>>19801333
If you want to get Jung, you first need to unlearn being a retard. /lit/ can only take you so far.

This is probably what you want. Based on your question, I'm guessing you want to see critical arguments against physicalism, and to better understand exactly what is meant by physicalism so you know why people accept it even if they know these arguments?

That's metaphysics. This will give you a solid overview of the main debates and the main players so you can follow up with primary sources if you want.

About 80% of professional philosophers are "realists'" as respects the external world. That is they think a world outside experience exists, but only a portion of those are physicalists in the common sense. That also means 1/5 think we have to be agnostic on that front, or that describing meaning and being without observer is meaningless. They have good arguments.

>>19801333
I'll take you seriously because I'm bored. Your argument is that the fact specific regions of the "brane" are responsible for specific functions means that materialism must hold true. That argument is nonsensical...if they all functionality was spread out across the whole brain, does that prove a nonmaterialist standpoint?

The point is that phenomenological experience cannot be described by materialism. There's an easily recognized poverty of explanation in Scientism. It has nothing to do with whether or not materialism has descriptive power at all--it's about recognizing the boundary of such dogmatism.

Can you understand why what you said is stupid now and was written off as bait?

>>19801360
>About 80% of professional philosophers are "realists'" as respects the external world
So philosophy is mostly a larp? Why write all that shit if you don't seriously believe it? Seems dishonest.

>>19801360
Also check this. What the mind is, is pretty essential for knowing what the world it observes is. I think you'll find this very relevant too. Physicalism is the most common philosophy of mind, but only holds a plurality of support. With metaphysics, the book above, you'll also get into the being of categories called universals, things like numbers, or "triangularis" and if they exist. On this front, a plurality think these non-physical things DO exist. Popularity is a poor measure of truth, just pointing out that thoughtful people come to different conclusions and have good arguments.

I would not recommend Jung. I like Jung but he has a lot of pseudoscience in his theories. Not pseudscience as in "bullshit," they are great ideas, they just aren't falsifiable in the way scientific theories should be. Not many people are Jungians. A philosophy of mind guide will cover many views, and get you much more of a lay of the land.

>>19801343
no. it's just that what you said equals to nothing.

>>19801385
There are way more questions in philosophy than if the external world exists as a non-derived ontological entity. There are many realist positions that argue with each other. Also, metaphysics is just one branch of philosophy, so no, I wouldn't say it's a problem.

>>19801370
just because we cannot yet pinpoint and extract the exact mechanism doesn't mean there isn't one.
but nice to see your faith in skydaddy is stronk, it helps with the coping.

>>19801419
>just because we cannot yet pinpoint and extract the exact mechanism doesn't mean there isn't one.
>skydaddy
The point is that the descriptive power of physicalism is limited when it comes to describing mental phenomena; it has nothing to do with believing in God. Further, the whole "we might one day know x" is a faith-based retard. Stop projecting your cope.

>>19801066
im not a materialist and do think the problem of experience is valid, but this is retarded or at least retardedly stated. i just want to say for others that this falsely represents the problem with materialism. in this context, the image you imagine is no different to seeing something infront of you, in that it similarly corresponds to a physical brain state. the real problem is why there is a first person experience at all arising from a brain state.
>>19801296
see above
>>19801072
this. the consciousness in "subconsciousness" or the awareness in "self awareness" refers more to intelligence and not experience/qualia/consciousness.
>>19801250
none of those are mysteries that are debated. evolution is a mechanism that makes sense on a purely theoretical level and has lots of evidence backing it up.
>All the science indicates it is literally impossible for life to begin given our understanding of the universe?
it doesnt

>>19801538
This >>19801066 isn't well stated but he has a point and saying "the image you imagine is no different than seeing something in front of you" severely misses it.

>>19801538
P.S. Evolution is a heuristic. The problem isn't that it lacks explanatory ability but that it's insufficient. People who buy into New Atheism and Scientism bullshit are unable to see its (necessary) limitations and how such restrictions actually increase its value as both a descriptive and predictive tool. Basically, they think "E"volution is "T"rue and don't see it as a means of organizing specific observable phenomena according to a restricted tangent where the actual truth value is in the facts it describes and not necessarily the pragmatism of the heuristic itself.

>>19801565
when talking about the hard problem of consciousness, they are equal. they are both the content of consciousness. one is no more mysterious than the other if you accept that brainstates correspond to experience.

>>19801565
>>19801066
Damage to the visual cortex causes people to go blind. They don't just say they can't see, they claim they have lost the ability to dream of vision, recall the experience of it, or visualize effectively. Meanwhile, people with blindness from eye damage can recall sight and visualize. People with a damaged visual cortex can actually navigate a room or even catch a ball despite claiming not to experience sight. This appears to be because the eyes also have direct connections to the motor cortex for fast reflexes. When people with blind sight do these things, the don't experience sight, but do experience the "choice" of moving a certain way, but not for any reason related to navigation.

This is pretty weird but goes along with the observation that voluntary movement begins before the experience of making a decision to move in experiments.

In any case, you're stuck with the problem of how damage to a physical brain manages to effect non-physical imagination.

My diary desu

>>19800339
>Like even with my beliefs I can see ideas like the collective unconscious being something real
Look into the current research on near death experiences. start here: https://psi-encyclopedia.spr.ac.uk/articles/aware-nde-study..
This topic is the sort of thing you really need to dive into yourself to make heads or tails of. There's so much misinformation out there (By both skeptics and believers) The fact that it isn't more studied, even on plain old anthropological grounds just goes to show the virulent scientism pervading modern academia. There should be many more comparative studies of NDE's between cultures than there currently are. I'm not personally a believer in the reality of the afterlife, but I am a believer in that skeptics and neuroscientists are just getting slapped in the face repeatedly from multiple angles by the evidence (NDEs, Terminal lucidity) of significant non-neuronal cognition.

Now that I think about it someone posted this the other day, might give it a shot if you're le soience guy

>>19801635
I've read all of these except for the first 4 of them and jewish literacy. Still not Christian.

>>19801602
I don't know if this is a critique that will get you very far. The facts meet generally accepted criteria in empiricism for getting truth claims under a correspondence definition of truth. Experimentation shows natural selection in bacteria and even more complex organisms. Speciation has been observed in Darwin finches and London Underground mosquitos. The fossils record has a lot of evidence supporting evolution. The mechanism involved are understood at the level of physics. DNA evidence of genetic lineage and the developmental paths of disparate animals provide further support.

You can claim all physicalists theories are just abstractions, that is ostentatiously true, but what does that get you? That's true of all theories and metaphysics.

There are solid arguments undermining physicalism, for example, the two value logic used only works with an observer. There is the Hard Problem. This though? IDK.

The Kantian turn is a quality argument too but it does have the problem that if metaphysics is merely the study of our mental impressions of reality, that we can say nothing of the noumenal, then Post-Kantian metaphysics is only ever going to an examination of our mental impressions of the world as filtered through our faculties as well. It becomes rather circular, and perhaps a vicious circle, since any claim against knowledge of the noumenal is also necissarily a claim against understanding of mental objects as they actually are for us, since we can only know them as filtered by faculties.

Although, you have some folks who go all in on this, and say Post-Kantian metaphysics hits hard walls because nee have cognitive blind spots due to just the problem above. The whole Blind Brain Theory thing I've see from that fantasy /sci-fi dude /sffg/ loves so much is essentially one of these, but with a turn back to physicalism.

>>19801602
whats an example where evolution is insufficient as an explanation? because the brain and the origin of life are bad examples. consciousness however is a complete mystery unlike the others where we do broadly understand it, and saying evolution did it somehow would be scientism of course. but the hard problem is usually out of the new atheism debates.

>>19801613
Don't take this the wrong way but the way you try to get your ideas across comes out like you're ESL (if you're the same person). If you're OP who started ranting about "skydaddy" you're just retarded.
>>19801614
There is also the "split brain" research (https://youtu.be/ZMLzP1VCANo)) and the fact that you physically react to pain faster than you become consciously aware of the sensation. Again, the problem isn't about direct correspondence to an external reality or that physical material is what makes up material (even though we cannot explain how this is so) but the experience of consciousness. It's the "hard problem" both because of its complexity and the fact that any attempt to construct a heuristic in the same vein as those that are used in "hard" sciences that concern physicalism.

>>19801628
It's because to do science you need to standardize how data is collected and analyzed. If you're not going to be constricted to behavioralism and neuroimaging alone, you need to code descriptions of experience. But paucity of reports makes that hard for NDE. I don't agree with Dennett, but he has a decent write up of the challenges and ways to include narratives of experience in Conciousness Explained.

The problem with NDE is that you can't very well nearly kill your subjects lol. So neuroimaging band behavioralism is out, as is any control of variables. You often also have incomplete and unreliable records of variables.

Like miracles, there just isn't much science can say on it. That said, there are many books and papers on this so I don't see your point. There are papers on ESP too, that's literally what caused the replication crisis in psych fields.

So it's hard to study and there don't seem to be knew things to write. That falsifiers have been found over and over doesn't help, since you have one more thing to worry about with data. There is also huge selection bias against all the people who almost died and report nothing but unconsciouses.

This board is full of tourists. Don't listen to them.

If you want to read something about "soul" (today we call it counsciusness) that is not schizo or weird you should check late 20th century philosophers of mind like Tye, Chalmers, Block, Kripke, Jackson, Nagel, Levine and a lot of other.

If you want something correlated with pan-psichism (the thing you called collective counsciusness) read the latest works of Chalmers.

My bible in this sector is The Conscious Mind by Chalmers (1996). It's the best book about the hard problem (how we account subjective experiences if we are just made of atoms?)

(sorry for my bad english, i'm not used to talk or write in this language).

>>19801877

He is the king about consciousness and panpsychism

>>19801716
i am esl and not op. i wonder what gave it away

>>19801677
One of the biggest 'click' moments I experienced when it comes to learning was using my microscope and seeing a colonial organism in a drop of swamp water. What I wrote wasn't meant as an argument for the fallibility of evolution but was meant to introduce the idea of its place as a heuristic and how limitations--which are a necessary part of its descriptive power--create a border around that of which it is concerned. That which relates to our present discussion is a recognition of the above specifically because you can't found a worldview that describes all phenomena in physicalist terms--as long as that assertion is to be implicitly accepted discussion is impossible because a materialist will assume addressing such isn't even necessary. Basically, it's a bias that has to be addressed before you can define the problem itself.
>>19801691
>whats an example where evolution is insufficient as an explanation?
In what area? Because you could describe something like 'beauty' as being that which is attractive to an organism, using evolution-related terms to do so, but you wouldn't necessarily be describing beauty itself. You can give correspondence details of 'what' physically renders something beautiful and get to the 'why' in terms that make such purposeful. But if that was your only take at an art exhibit people would probably be bored of hearing it fairly quickly, even as it applies to every specific piece of art.

>>19801890
>what gave it away
The fact that it's (obvious) you have knowledge of which you are speaking but it's difficult on my end to discern the exact point you're trying to get across because it's muddled by the language. Context clues are there so one can see what general aspect of what we're discussing you're bringing up but it's not clear what exact point you're trying to make.

Basically, you're limited by language ability and not because you don't know what you're talking about. It's a partial compliment so that's what was meant by 'don't take it the wrong way.'

>>19801664
So are you a materialistic atheist? Could you elaborate a little more why you found the list of books unconvincing?

>>19801969
not a materialist either. Im not affiliated with any specific religion but I believe in perennial wisdom and that there is a God

>>19801896
>beauty
well when talking about different subjects-even if the line between subjects are illusory and nebulus-its more helpful to discuss things as if there are new emergent phenomena, even if at the end they are completely reducible, which is why chemistry and physics are different subjects even if chemistry is reducible to physics. so even if aesthetic psychology is reducile to evolutionary proccesses, its not helpful or in most cases relevant to talk about it at that level. evolution is still the answer to how we became beauty experiencing beings, but it is too broad to be helpful and relevant i agree. but the answer is still within evolution, not outside of it, just like chemistry is within physics. we just need to examine the emergent phenomena at its own relevant level, which is aesthetics here.

having said that, our musical perception (which imo underlies all our aeshetic concerns) is completely a mystery to me as i see no obvious evolutionary function in it despite its complexity and specifity. i would put beauty alongside consciousness as evolutionary mysteries

>>19801923
i hope you eventually understood me then

>>19801717
>you need to code descriptions of experience. But paucity of reports makes that hard for NDE.
Around 10-15 percent experience an NDE. Interestingly, more (46 of the 140 in the aware study) experience memories they feel like come from a time when they were unconscious. A stark contrast from the complete lack of any awareness whatsoever usually "experienced" under anesthesia.
>The problem with NDE is that you can't very well nearly kill your subjects lol
Sure you can! ever seen the film martyrs? :)
>Like miracles, there just isn't much science can say on it.
Nonsense. Why wouldn't science be able to say much about NDEs? It is certainly able to say much more than it has.
>That said, there are many books and papers on this so I don't see your point.
detectable brain function ceases within seconds of cardiac arrest. When this happens, about 10-15 percent of people have an experience which far exceeds the consistency in content of psychedelic experiences (other than maybe 5-meo-dmt). There are not nearly enough books. The best insights I have found regarding the historicity of NDEs has not been from books specifically about NDEs but instead buried in the field of religious studies.
>That falsifiers have been found over and over doesn't help, since you have one more thing to worry about with data.
What are you referring to? falsifiers of what in particular?
>There is also huge selection bias against all the people who almost died and report nothing but unconsciouses.
No there isn't. People who report
mere unconsciousness don't have an NDE by definition.

It's not as if there are not ways to study it, the AWARE study is a great start, but it's pathetically small given how interesting the subject matter is.

>>19802089
>its more helpful to discuss things as if there are new emergent phenomena
It isn't though. That's why scientific theories are a mix of facts and heuristics that form a schema for a given scientist to tie phenomena onto.
>but the answer is still within evolution, not outside of it
See, this is why it was important to explicitly point out the difference between the use of a pragmatic heuristic versus defining something as having been truly explained. You can't use evolution as a justification for a holistic worldview because you will always have to retreat back to the idea that it is pragmatic for how it describes something rather than the fact it is actually describing the thing itself.
>still the answer to how we became beauty experiencing beings
No it isn't. The concept of beauty is wider than what is accounted for (let alone described) by evolution and stating that evolution explains the 'how' of something without accounting for the fact the concept is broader than the heuristic you're using is an obvious example of begging the question.

Look, I agree that there are levels to understanding something and you can come at a different subject from different angles. However, that isn't the point. Basically, what I'm arguing is a justification of metaphysics and the fact that you can't denigrate it via the justification of a worldview specifically based on materialism/physicalism. Evolution is just a specific example (and at least superficially relates to OP's pronouncement that he's a "science atheist materialist") but the same can be argued with regard to a hard science like physics.

>>19802027
You aren't me!
>>19801969
Nope, I just don't find Christianity particularly exceptional. Not that it doesn't have its own unique insights, but all religions do.

>>19802027
this guy isn't me
>>19802272
and neither is this guy
>>19801969
I am not an atheist or a materialist. I am just spiritual

>>19802282
I'm the original you fuck

>>19802272
>>19802297
>>19802027
these are the only posts ive made in this thread just so anons know. there's way too many trolls pretending to be me

>>19802214
People report remembering being under anesthesia all the time. I recall vividly having my tonsils removed while under anesthesia, it was extremely unpleasant. A majority don't recall anything from their time under though, and that is true for cardiac arrest too.

>detectable brain function ceases within seconds of cardiac arrest

This is simply false. And if you're reading that in a source, I would seriously consider their own bias. Delta waves have been detected in humans up to half an hour after cardiac arrest. Changes in the brain related to gene expression and metabolism continue for 2-4 days after death, although activity quickly scales down.

>>19800339
Think of something very mundane.
You take a pinch of salt or sand in your fingers and roll them together, allowing excess grains to fall off in the process. At the beginning, you have a pinch of salt. Eventually, through the movement and filtering, you suddenly have a number of grains, 4 or 5 usually. Without looking, without mentally counting, you made a quantity, a number, appear to you.
This reveals that counting is essentially related to the ability to discern discrete wholes, and that our tactile sense provides that ability when it is capable of mapping the entirety of the surface of an object.
There is obviously a material aspect to be explored here, in relation to the sensitivity of our skin as an interface and the size of both our fingers and the grains to be manipulated. Assuredly some brilliant man has already figured out the majority of the empirical science behind it, down to its axioms and its possible implementations.
However, none of this will explain to you why it is a rule of experience that things that forms a discrete whole can be perceived as mathematical. Materialism can only dismiss the question by saying it is a fiction, that it is not real, in our minds, which not only fails to honor the importance of such things in our lives, but betrays itself by throwing the very axiomatic foundation of its operation to a rather ironic analogical dualistic abyss.
> “Only through a reduction, which we shall call the phenomenological reduction, do I acquire an absolutely givenness that no longer offers anything transcendent” (Husserl 1999a, 34).
> Through the epistemological reduction we exclude all transcendent presuppositions, because the possible validity and sense of transcendence is in question” (Husserl 1999a, 37).

>>19800339
People that believe that they “are the brain” don’t even believe in an actual self. The brain is an aggregate with no inherent identity of its own outside of the mental and linguistic concepts we apply to it. They will usually concede this point and assert that identity is a mere product of the brain. But then they would also have to concede that identity with the brain is a product of the brain, pushing them into absurdity.

>>19800542
>describing how things are doesn't inform you on how to preform therefore the description is wrong
Yes idealists are retarded thank you for the demonstration.

>>19802508
>none of this will explain to you why it is a rule of experience that things that forms a discrete whole can be perceived as mathematical
Baseless word game. Try writing it so that a 4 year old can understand and you'll quickly unmask yourself.

>>19802500
>People report remembering being under anesthesia all the time.
Indeed. However, they usually don't report anything similar to what people experience with NDEs
>Delta waves have been detected in humans up to half an hour after cardiac arrest.
Can I get a source on that? I know there was a study a few years ago that recorded an occasional spike minutes after death, and before that there was the study on the massive burst in rats a minute after their death, but I think there hasn't been evidence of that found in humans yet.
As I said, I don't personally believe in the actuality of NDEs. I'm merely arguing that they are worth much more attention than they have received.

>>19801614
>In any case, you're stuck with the problem of how damage to a physical brain manages to effect non-physical imagination.
This "problem" is trivial. Tell me - if you destroy a radio reciever and music stops playing, does it mean that the music was created BY the radio reciever?

Do the needful. Start with the 'Jeets today.

>>19802886
>radio waves are immaterial
Creationist tier argueing

>>19800339
read plato or spinoza

>>19802898
Based. Buddhists brought materialism to its logical conclusion and left it behind them afterwards.

>>19802917
If you took a person from ancient times and showed them a radio playing, they would have to assume that the radio somehow creates music, because they're not aware of the existence of radio waves. Then they would smash your radio, notice that music stops playing, and proclaim their hypothesis is confirmed. But with our knowledge we know they would be wrong, because the radio only captures information from outside.
It's not impossible that our brains are recievers for a (yet undiscovered) external soul. Damaging the brain would then be like smashing up a radio reciever.

>>19800339
Read Schopenhauer.

>>19800339
>Everything is just atoms
>Atoms are non-ideal
>Therefore everything is non-ideal
>So there doesn't exist ideas
>Therefore consciousness doesn't exist, which is absurd
Have fun not responding to me.

>>19802946
In your analouge the soul would still be material...

/lit/ is genuinely not intelligent enough to understand the concept of materialism, and in their fear, they try to make fun of it and stick to their woo woo religious and spiritual views even though those are just heuristics for spaces of material we do not yet have complete data for (the complexity of the human brain for example). /lit/ is absolutely full of midwits

>>19803100
I guess depends how you define "material".

>>19803118
/lit/ is full of young men with no life direction who instead turn to mysticism and religion to give their empty lives some meaning.

>>19803118
It's not hard to understand. It's must monism with added reddit

>>19802782
>Baseless word game.
i.e "it is a fiction, that it is not real, in our minds"
The materialist has literally no other moves.

>>19801098
My dad totally works at Jungtendo.

>>19800339
It's all schizo nonsense, don't bother. These people would like you to believe that because the subjectivity of an organism can't be quantified, that it must derive from a non-organic element (even though that doesn't logically follow at all), because it benefits them socially for you to believe that.

>>19803118
You're right and it's pathetic...

>>19803121
You've never read a philosophical book have you?

>>19803172
>because the subjectivity of an organism can't be quantified
It's not about "quantifying". It's about providing a model (even theoretical) explaining how a network of synapses can give rise to a subjective experience of consciousness (qualia) - and doing so without handwaving it away as "muh emergence, it's complicated". No one has been able to do it so far. But of course everyone can believe what they want.

>>19803118
I'm a materialist.
I know that my subjective sensation relies on my brain. I also know that my subjective sensation, being nothing but of the material, can occur again and again. This fills me with fear.

>>19800339
Just astral project into engineering schematics

>>19803216
Have you? There are several conflicting definitions of "material" in philosophy. You can't discuss whether something is material without settling on one definition.

>>19803226
>It's not about "quantifying". It's about ...
All of that relies on quantification. Point is, the limits of a brain do not indicate that something other than the brain is responsible for what it perceives or imagines.

>>19803172
A focus on the quantitative instead of the qualitative says more about our time period than it does reality-in-itself. I think materialism (especially physicalism) is the result of a lacking historical sense, either that or historical arrogance produce by the Enlightenment.

>>19803251
Then you should have started with that instead of this sad attempt at moving the goal post.

>>19803268
>. I think materialism (especially physicalism) is the result of a lacking historical sense, either that or historical arrogance produce by the Enlightenment.
Okay cool opinion but this says absolutely nothing about the basis of reality.

>>19803287
>muh objective nature of reality
Read Nietzsche or something.

>Science says that consciousness is purely just a result of chemical reactions in your neural system.
>Can science prove it?
>No.
>Can science explain how it works in theory?
>No.
>Then it's not really science is it?
>Uhhh... Just trust the science bro.

>>19803333
wasted

>>19802932
Pretty much this.

>>19800339
>Tolerance is maximized when the drug is administered in the same situation
>Drugs users are more likely to OD in novel environments because tolerance is not present
>i.e.
>Injection in a distinctive test room = tolerance
>Injection in colony room = no tolerance

So if your (physical/material) brain isn't the one making the decisions then it's your consciousness. The law of conservation of energy states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed - only converted from one form of energy to another. Therefore your consciousness does not stop existing after death.

>>19803531
Retard.

>>19803548
Conditioned place preference is an actual thing.
If you can fool your own brain that easily then it obviously isn't the one in charge.

>>19803562
>If you can fool your own brain that easily then it obviously isn't the one in charge.

That's not at all obvious.

>>19803745
Do you know how addiction and tolerance work?
https://ideas.ted.com/the-science-behind-hangovers-and-what-to-do-when-you-get-one-david-nutt/

>>19803767
>>19803745
https://youtu.be/gCrmFbgT37I
The brain is just another organ, it is not responsible for the choices you as an individual make.

Materialism has been refuted by science itself.

>>19803787
>The brain is just another organ, it is not responsible for the choices you as an individual make.

There is no 'you'. It's all interacting chemical systems.
That only strengthens the materialist argument.

>>19803836
How when all these interacting chemical systems can be fooled that easily by YOU the "player"?

>>19803847
How can you fool a chemical system? It just responds to changing inputs.

>>19802946
>It's not impossible that our brains are recievers for a (yet undiscovered) external soul. Damaging the brain would then be like smashing up a radio reciever.
Serious cope. This is needless. The simple and evident explanation is that the brain is a machine. All our observations in neuroscience and medicine continue to confirm this. The idea that it is a receiver of some kind is wishful thinking and with no evidence to support it.

>dude like nothing matters but I want to
Stopped reading there. It doesn't matter.

>>19803901
Do you have evidence against it?
Is experience physical?

>>19803975
>Do you have evidence against it?
Not him, but if the brain is a receiver, how come the child receives the same message as the parents while the child of a very different set of parents doesn't? (think a human child vs. a puppy)

>>19803239
There is no necessity for your subjective sensation to ever occur again in any form. This fills me with fear.

>>19803836
>There is no 'you'. It's all interacting chemical systems.
How do you know if you don’t exist?

>>19802917
Technically yes they are. They arent material. Just like light photons.

>>19803118
Wow what a truly great argument, you sure have opened my eyes to the legitimacy of materialism.

>>19803901
Friendly reminder that have neuroscience models are applied to a micro
processor, nothing works. The inputs don't match the "outputs".

>>19804238
You didn't even understand that post, did you anon? Another midwit rears his head on /lit/...

>>19804012

>>19800339
Look into Pribham-Bohm theory.

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

The coherent/decoherent nature of our reality must play some sort of a role in the structural/materialistic design of our archetypal knowledge of the universe, and you can even being Kant's noumena into this.

>>19800542
It is if you arent inferior

>>19803901
Isn't this the whole "hard problem" thing.

>>19804262
There's nothing to understand, that post was made by an NPC who is upset people don't think the same way as him.
Come back when you have an actual argument.

>>19801046
Crap

>>19801066
Low IQ

>>19803118
Materialism (specifically, and not necessarily physicalism) is the most thoroughly refuted philosophical paradigm, even by empiricists themselves with no "spiritual" beliefs. You're really behind the curve if you think there is anything subtle or intelligent about it.

>>19804308
What I'm asking is, if the brain "receives" a message from the outside, as opposed to this "message" being an emergent development from within an evolving organism, then what is your explanation for offspring thinking like (i.e., receiving the same "message" as) their parents? Wouldn't it be random? Couldn't non-human animals occasionally be born with the ability to communicate and think like humans? The notion that emergence is not happening, and that there is no internal mechanism involved, and the brain is merely a "receiver" for something external, requires explaining the same phenomena observed in nature that evolution attempts to explain.

>>19802749
>The cyclical nature of this system somehow debunks it

What I find absurd is you.

>over 2500 years of development of materialist doctrine
>still no universally agreed upon definition of matter
There. I refuted it for you.

>>19802946
There is no reason to call it a soul

>>19804364
You want to talk about connection between children and parents? Here. Have a read.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1312.1148.pdf

>>19804372
2500 years is only a long time for the childlike mind of the religious fool

>>19804381
Summarize it, please, within the context of the "receiver" argument of course.

>>19804388
baby rabbits get hurt
mummy rabbit from a far distance away (even inside a faraday cage) feels pain at the same time

>>19800339
The only thing separating us from the Symbolic is myth and personification

>>19804330
You've contributed nothing to the conversation. You could have mentioned any number of things for why you would believe the gaps in our current knowledge set are spaces where it's reasonable to believe in the non-material, but you are incapable of pursuing that avenue of discussion and instead have to rely on over-used, bottom-of-the-barrel dead memes like calling people you disagree with "NPC"s and then having the gall to act like I was upset that people disagree with me, and how that makes me an NPC! Not a single shred of self awareness to be found, it seems!

>>19804383
Yeah, whatever. Materialism came a long way from claiming that all is water through envisioning the world as composed of discrete amounts of balls flying around to the modern view which incorporates gravity, electricity, atomic forces etc. They say that everything is matter because they have successfully diluted the meaning of the word to the point that it includes literally everything there is.

>>19804398
So, what was the conclusion, and are there similar studies / observances between members of different species?

>>19804398
Quantum entanglement/tunneling

Did you know the memory in your phone is stored using the same principle?

>>19804355
Name a single argument that refutes materialism instead of simply referring to nebulous authorities.

>>19804420
Cope

>>19804364

>Wouldn't it be random?

No, I don't see why this is an assumption.


>Couldn't non-human animals occasionally be born with the ability to communicate and think like humans?

I don't get why this is an assumption either?

>>19804398
In what way does that indicate the non-material at work?

>>19804445
Also, going out on a limb here, I lean towards physicalism. But I don't think your response is really a good one.

>>19804445
What's the mechanism connecting offspring to parents in the receiver scenario? That's the main question.

>>19804452
Are you arguing that something like telepathy could be material?

>>19804429
The argument of infinite division/regression, the argument in refutation of material substrate, etc. Many originating with refutations of Democritus, all of them being further developed and refined up until (but not ending with) Hume and Kant.

>>19804452
Explain how the process can happen materially. This experiment was performed by soviet parapsychologists. The entire field of parapsychology dismisses materialism.

>>19804420
>Updates worldview based on better models
>Is somehow still dogma
nigga what?!

>>19804460
Are you claiming quantum entanglement is not part of the material world? You can't say "here's a phenomenon we don't have a full explanation for, therefore it must be non-material!"

>>19804370
>I am the brain
>I am not real
Pick one

>>19804464
As others have mentioned, there are many possible explanations including quantum entanglement

>>19804459
I assume most of these people use a religious argument. So God?

>>19804476

>quantum entanglement

what?

>>19804482

>quantum entanglement

No, it's not, have you taken a physics class in your whole life?

>>19804488
There are particles at the quantum level which appear to have some kind of connection regardless of physical distance between them. If you wish to claim this isn't material, you might as well claim radio waves aren't part of the material world.

>>19804493

>There are particles at the quantum level which appear to have some kind of connection regardless of physical distance between them. If you wish to claim this isn't material, you might as well claim radio waves aren't part of the material world.

That wouldn't work for this example. I don't believe you've ever actually taken a physics class.

>>19804480
You poor retarded creature

I was really into Jung shit as an undergrad (Jordan Peterson was a component of this but not the only part) but have soured on him a little. He's too syncretic and is bent on finding seemingly arbitrary associations between every historical belief system, and he also made some borderline schizo claims like a little girl seeing into the future and predicting her own death because of a slightly uncommon dream. In addition to that weird shit about him talking to his personal demon or something.

Jung is good in that he can help people overcome sex-centric Freud shit but there's a lot of weird baggage with him that makes me hesitant to see him as the end-all-be-all outlook on things.

>>19804491
Not him but in fact David Bohm, the king of quantum physics disagrees with you. There are quantum effects in the brain.

>>19804498
>Ad hominem attacks from a point of utter ignorance

Lol

>>19804520
>dude quantum entanglement affects the brain bro

>wtf no you're the ignorant one

>>19804512
I think Jung is merely suggesting the possibility rather than stating things in a matter of fact way

You know a nigga has lost the debate when they start appealing to quantum mechanics

>it can be God, but it can't be quantum entanglement, no sirree
What's wrong with these retards?

>>19804525
>Doubles down

Anon, physicists are pretty heavy into this these days. You are way behind.

>>19804525
Are you suggesting that quantum effects have no influence over the brain?

>>19804527
It's simple. buddhism/kant/wittgenstein/jung/bohm is the way.

>>19804533
>>19804532

Maybe my physics education is horribly out of date. Post a nature article talking about quantum entanglements effect on the brian.

>>19804461
The only argument you need against materialism is this one by our homeboy Guenon (PBUH)

>Besides, it is very easy to expose the contradiction inherent in atomism, the basic error of which lies in supposing that simple elements can exist in the corporeal order, whereas all that is bodily is necessarily composite, being always divisible from the very fact that it is extended, that is to say subject to the spatial condition; in order to find something simple or indivisible it is necessary to pass outside space, and therefore outside that special modality or manifestation which constitutes corporeal existence.

>If, as must be done in this instance, the word atom be taken in its true sense of 'indivisible', a sense which modern physicists no longer give to it, it may be said that an atom, since it cannot have parts, must also be without extension; now the sum of elements devoid of extension can never form an extension; if atoms fulfill their own definition, it is then impossible for them to make up bodies.

>To this well-known and moreover decisive chain of reasoning, another may also be added, employed by Shankaracharya in order to refute atomism: Two things can come into contact with one another either by a part of themselves or by the whole; for atoms, devoid as they are of parts, the first hypothesis is inadmissable; thus only the second hypothesis remains, which amounts to saying that the aggregation of two atoms can only be realized by saying that the aggregation of two atoms can only be realized by their coincidence purely and simply, whence it clearly follows that two atoms when joined occupy no more space than a single atom and so forth indefinitely; so, as before, atoms, whatever their number, will never form a body. Thus atomism represents nothing but sheer impossibility.

>>19804552
You didn't answer my question, is it your position that quantum effects have no influence on the brain?

>>19804552
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holonomic_brain_theory

>>19804557
My position is that the statement that quantum entanglement has anything to do with the brain is retarded.

>>19804563
This is not the same thing as what we were talking about before

>>19804476
>You can't say "here's a phenomenon we don't have a full explanation for, therefore it must be non-material!"
Yes we can. Science says "heres a phenomenon we dont have any explanation for, it mustnt exist".

>>19804482
Doesnt mean quantum entanglement is material.

>>19804552
https://physicsworld.com/a/do-quantum-effects-play-a-role-in-consciousness/

>>19804575
Yes it is. I want badly to call you retarded. Anything to do with electricity, has quantum effects. Protip: that's everything

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_biology#:~:text=Quantum%20biology%20is%20the%20study,are%20quantum%20mechanical%20in%20nature.

>>19804586
Do you think your toaster communicates with its mom using quantum entanglement?

>>19804597
You are sad and weak

>I don’t believe in magic like you silly idealists
>OMG QUANTUM MECHANICS

>>19804597
Other anon refrained from calling you retarded, I will not. You are retarded.

>>19804613
>T̶h̶e̶ ̶s̶u̶n̶ ̶i̶s̶n̶'̶t̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶c̶e̶n̶t̶e̶r̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶s̶o̶l̶a̶r̶ ̶s̶y̶s̶t̶e̶m̶
>T̶h̶e̶ ̶E̶a̶r̶t̶h̶ ̶i̶s̶n̶'̶t̶ ̶b̶i̶l̶l̶i̶o̶n̶s̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶y̶e̶a̶r̶s̶ ̶o̶l̶d̶
>E̶v̶o̶l̶u̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ ̶i̶s̶n̶'̶t̶ ̶r̶e̶a̶l̶
>Quantum Mechanics aren't real

>>19804635
Seethe

>>19804635
>E̶v̶o̶l̶u̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ ̶i̶s̶n̶'̶t̶ ̶r̶e̶a̶l̶
It isn't. Daily reminder that abiogenesis is straight up impossible and scientists can run 1,000,000,000 simulations per second for the next billion years and the results will always be: NOTHING.

>>19804650
Dawkins unironically based in that image

Fuck yah OP I'm just starting to read Jung myself.
Libre Novus by Jung was just all his notes on being a schizo & his mom was schizo also.

Check out Deepak Chopra he gets a lot of flak from the scientific community but when it comes to blurring the lines of science and mysticism you've got to read modern stuff. To paraphrase Carl Segan, God fills in the gaps where science cannot. Quantum physics is still largely a mystery and Chopra leans heavily on the uncertainty and chaos there.

>>19804673
>To paraphrase Carl Segan, God fills in the gaps where science cannot
Sub-zero IQ take

This thread did a 180 lol

>>19804673
God and science are in different gaps

>>19804666
Thanks for the insight into the value of pride Satan.

>>19804653
>the original evolution of life or living organisms from inorganic or inanimate substances
Does anyone worth their salt even think that living organisms evolved out of inanimate substances?

>>19804806
....most of the scientific community?

>>19804825
I suppose most of the scientific community hasn't heard of Simpson's theory of quantum evolution then.

>>19802764
The description isn’t wrong, it’s incomplete

>>19802764

>science is WRONG

no one said this, way to be disingenuous, retard

>>19800339
Jung didn't disagree too much with "science atheist materialist" positions. He largely psychologized religions so I don't see what you'd have a problem with? Maybe you didn't like when he says that MAYBE paranormal things like synchronicity (which isn't any bolder a claim than vague things like "luck") or parapsychology (I think at least a third of Americans believe in ghosts) might exist. Even in >>19800370 this book about flying saucers he opens it by saying it's most likely mass psychosis and most likely aliens don't exist, but he wanted to entertain the idea.

My advice when reading Jung is just entertain his ideas. They really are closer to materialism than mainstream religious views are, and most often he says he doesn't fully believe this stuff himself.

Maybe something like this is what you're looking for.

>>19804383
>2500 years is only a long time for the childlike mind of the religious fool
Then what's your basis for affirming that physicalism is the one true way to understand reality? By you're own logic you're taking it on faith. Carnap retreated from logical positivism/atomism into a bayesian truth value approach as an admission that positivism and atomism had failed and the verification principle was therefore implicitly restictive.

Also, 7-8% of all humans who ever lived are alive right now. However, that point doesn't prove areas like idealism or phenomenology or even something like theology doesn't contain validity and descriptive power. It actually proves that settling the score in favor of a current understanding of materialism/physicalism is ridiculously premature.

>>19804383
P.S. Since this is a /lit board I'll advise you to read Milton. Even though you're a dogmatic physicalist and might be filtered, it might do you well to try to take the concept of (satanic) pride as meaningful.

>>19800339
>I'd like to read convincing arguments for the opposing view.
Jan Assmann

Schwaller de Lubicz

Karl Kerenyi

Nicholas Luhman

Humberto Maturana

Edward T. Hall

Alexander Roob

Walter Otto

William Blake

Nietzsche

Byung Chul Han

Alfred North Whitehead

Douglas Hofsdatler

Kazimiers Dabrowski

Northrop Frye

Goethe

Holderlin

Heraclitus

Schiller

Alfred Korzybski

Ludwig Von Bertalanffy

Schelling

>>19805109
>forgot about Gianbattista Vico

>>19805109
I thought Hofstadter was a materialist?

>>19800339
>I'm a science atheist materialist everything is just atoms
Yes but the almost absurd complexity of those atoms and the energies and how they through millions of years influence humans is something that science can't answer.
This complexity isn't beyond comprehension is even before introducing the biological layer that we're controlled by

>>19804695
Isn't it because of Satan that we have free will and the knowledge of what actions are good and which are evil? In the Christian story, wouldn't we be mindlessly obedient automatons serving God without any understanding had Satan not intervened? Doesn't that mean that within the Christian's own story, Satan is kind of a hero? Or do you not value the pursuit of knowledge and individual agency?

>>19805346
>This complexity is beyond comprehension even before introducing the biological layer that we're controlled by*

>>19805346
>muh complexity
btfo'd by Leibniz in 1714 (section 17 of the monadology). It's all so tiring.

>>19805394
If we knew how to make a machine as described we'd know the simple substance that goes into it and be able to model it to our desires, as far as I'm aware that's not the case.

>>19800339
Plato, unironically the Gospels, and also Jeremy Narby has some FASCINATING material that DNA is conscious and it's not mystic at all. In terms of other worldly stuff, check out Project Gateway, Grill Flame (CIA confirms astral projection) as well as what some historical geniuses have said their inspiration comes from (Ramnajan, Tesla, and otherwise all cite sprituality)

>>19805350
You're conflating the idea of satanic pride with freedom while ignoring both the cost and inherent responsibility that comes with it.
>Or do you not value the pursuit of knowledge and individual agency?
This strawman is why you're filtered. Read Frankenstein if you're not ready for Milton.

>>19805433
Nice cope

>>19805394
You mean where Leibniz proved the existence of God by showing how an infinite regress can only exist in an infinite mind?

>>19805438
>No! You can't point out I was being retarded by straw-manning! I'm assuming you're religious and religious people are unable to find value in freedom and the pursuit of knowledge! Satan was based in Paradise Lost! Well, that's what I heard...I wasn't filtered!
Which one of us is coping again?

>>19801046
These just seem like limitations on our ability to know things. No one claims we can know everything.

>>19800339
All you need to do to not be a materialist is think

>>19800339
>everything is just atoms bro
You don’t even exist lol. Why should I care what a bunch of atoms says?

>thoughts are just electrical signals
OK, but what causes those signals? Let's say I decide to think about sex - what is it that causes a horny signal to be sent through my nerves?
> External input i.e. you saw something that made you think about sex
No. I can be in a sensory deprivation tank and still decide to think about (or imagine) literally anything.
>Your thought is the result of a previous thought
And what was the previous thought caused by? An even older thought? This is obviously an infinite regress.

The idea that I can generate measurable electrical (or chemical) signals in a physical brain, just by choosing to think about something, is literally mind-over-matter i.e. a refutation of materialism.

>>19803158
lol you're the only one who said that schizo

>>19803787
>>19803836
>The brain is just another organ, it is not responsible for the choices you as an individual make.
my organs will be responsible for my choices if, say, my
>bladder's full
>appendix explodes
>heart stops
>skin starts sloughing away

>>19800339
You have learned materialism, but these atoms are not just sitting there. They are composed of internal contradictions between positive and negative electric charge, positive and negative repulsion in the strong force etc, and they are further defined by their interaction with one another and other external forces acting on their internal contradictions. Study materialist dialectics for a fuller picture, you can start with Anti-Duhring by Engels, or a smaller text Socialism: Utopian and Scientific by Engels.

>>19800339
>I'm a science atheist materialist everything is just atoms bro everything is explained by electrical signals in the brain but I'd like to read convincing arguments for the opposing view.
Hans Jonas has a 30-page appendix to the Imperative of Responsibility where he completely destroys the idea that consciousness is just an epiphenomenon.

>>19805080
You just said so much nothing. Did you just want to say it? 2500 years is just not a long time. That is not to say anything else is a long time. Don't bring Carnap into this. I think you might have literally just wanted to say words here. There was no purpose of your post.

>>19803100
This presumes that the material cannot interact with the immaterial. Perhaps this is not the case.

>>19805093
>>19804847
You guys are big nothings. Real big nothings.

>>19805109
Start with the Assmann, egyptologist Jan Assmann.

>>19805982
This is part of what is enjoyable about materialism, for me. Humans were not designed to comprehend it, but we are a product of it so we can make strides in such a way.

The double slit experiment is enough

>>19806037
Extrapolate. The double slit experiment has multiple interpretations that has nothing to do with the supernatural.

>if it doesnt appeal to the sensibilities of humans it must mean materialism is bogus and its all just god

Insanely lazy and shortsighted

>>19806064
Man is the measure of all things

Good thread

>>19806065
Narcissistic at best, almost entirely devoid of imagination.

>>19806074
Is being a narcissist an insult to you? I pity the person who doesn't live for themself.

>>19806076
It's a description of a limitation. It simply sounds nice to say that man is the measure of all things. Most of the world is hidden to us, and our day to day lives are just a handful of variations of events. So small.

>>19806076
Based

>>19806079
>Most of the world is hidden to us
No. Or maybe to you, if you choose to limit yourself.

>>19806088
Lol okay oh great wizard of the thousand cock stare

>>19806045
>Extrapolate

>>19804493
>There are particles at the quantum level which appear to have some kind of connection regardless of physical distance between them.
yes
>If you wish to claim this isn't material, you might as well claim radio waves aren't part of the material world.
realism, causality, locality
from all we know about QM it would seem that at least one of these three most fundamental assumptions (assumptions - not theories, hypotheses, etc.) are false.

>>19804525
>>19804552
>dude quantum entanglement affects the brain bro
the guy who seriously put forth a theory which expressly attributes consciousness wholly and entirely to quantum effects is Laureate Roger Penrose, the physicist who received the Nobel prize along with Stephen Hawking for describing the space-time geometry of black hole singularities.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orchestrated_objective_reduction
Unfortunately, he is not a medical doctor, researcher, or anything of the sort. He basically just haphazardly dipped his toes in the field took a guess at it. One of the greatest minds in physics in the late 20th century was ridiculed for his ridiculous idea

>>19804557
>>19804575
>>19804586
quantum entanglement is a necessary element of any quantum theory (QM is the most validated theory ever). It's ubiquitous, and plays a critical role in every type of force, action, and event in the universe... AT THE QUANTUM LEVEL, or, if you prefer, "in the quantum realm". Neurons and the brain are so much larger than individual particles that they behave in the exact same way as cars and people. In other words, in a classical, non-quantum manner. That means no Q Entanglement or Q Tunneling for your consciousness, which, though a proper model hasn't been proposed yet, is almost certainty emergent from apparently inert particles.

>>19804597
based

>>19806028
If you feel that way you will enjoy getting into materialist dialectics, it can be an extremely interesting way of looking at the world.

>*blocks your path*

>>19806094
You dont understand QM at all. Coherence is not locked out of decoherence, and vice versa. There are structures that lend themselves to enhanced effects, particularly in the form of the weak forces and electromagnetism.

I recommend you look into the subject more. Quantum biology is a great field.

>>19806094
You use quantum tunneling in your every day life fyi, you are using it right now

>>19806122
>>19806129
Your own materialist dogma got BTFO by another materialist kek

>>19806122
If you're talking about the quantum biology wikipedia page that was posted, you neglected this important section immediately after
>Single molecule spectroscopy now shows the quantum characteristics of photosynthesis without the interference of static disorder, and some studies use this method to assign reported signatures of electronic quantum coherence to nuclear dynamics occurring in chromophores.[12][13][14][15][16][17][18
>Coherence is not locked out of decoherence, and vice versa.
Quantum decoherence is the loss of quantum coherence. That's the definition. There are mixed states but they can't be described using a single ket vector, which describes a quantum state. Because of this they can't be worked with or studied using existing QM theories in any way at all.

>There are structures that lend themselves to enhanced effects
got any examples?

>>19806183
Anon hes wrong. It's a common misconception. Of course the quantum world is inextricably connected to the world you engage in. You wouldn't even be able to have a light bulb if this wasn't the case.
>>19806187
Memory in any device. You are basically asking me to describe "what is natural" it is that fundamental. I understand what you're arguing but you are taking it way too far, essentially ignoring the bridge between the two. Bohm was right. Is QM going to effect your every day life? The answer is it feels like no, but the answer is yes. You cannot separate yourself from it. You will always be subject the fundamental forces, and those forces are always behaving in ways that the observer is locked out of. That doesn't remove it.

>>19806187
>>19806288
If you want it franed differently, you are always going to deal with the "product" of QM, even if QM is insulated from the coherent.

I cannot see how in good faith, a person could deny the relationship.

>>19806297
Framed*

cope seethe dilate

>>19806288
>and those forces are always behaving in ways that the observer is locked out of.
How would you know if you’re locked out of knowing how they behave? Not that guy btw.

>>19800361
Accurate.

>>19806487
The field of QM itself is the answer to that anon this is a really odd question

>>19806512
Odd way to dodge a question

>>19801538
I didn't say evolution as a fundamental principle of biology wasn't real or didn't have evidence backing it. My point was because it is real they extrapolate the concept to cover unsubstantiated assertions, because their current model can't work any other way. If you ask any honest biologist they will acknowledge that the human brain is far more complex than could have occurred during the proposed history of human evolution, so there is an unsolved problem there. Another fact is that the organic molecules that are necessary precursors for life to begin could not have formed on their own given the conditions of the early universe. "Step 1" is literally impossible without intervention to construct the necessary conditions. Meaning at least one "miracle" must have happen at some point in time to allow for increasingly complex structures to form.

>>19806796
>If you ask any honest biologist they will acknowledge that the human brain is far more complex than could have occurred during the proposed history of human evolution
Like who?
Not saying I agree or disagree and not who you're replying to. Just wondering which biologists claim this

>>19806007
>I can't answer your argument so I'm just going to mention a couple of words you used and pretend you didn't use my own argument against me.
Sure retard.

Its fucking pointless, the government would have destroyed any hope of a C.U. since the creation of the Orgon in the 70s.

>>19806110
>Out of my way, boy

>>19801456
>descriptive power is the be all end all
lolol yeah about that projecting....

>>19806871
I'm still waiting for MY evidence that he promised ME, I think we might be waiting a while, he must be drunk lol
>>19806187

>>19804159
I hope for my sake you're right and for your sake, I'm right.

>>19800527
the question is why do you feel stuff in the way you do, and not in another way. "The way", i.e. qualitative aspect of it being what you really need to explain, there. You win philosophy if you can answer that. But you can't!

>>19800339
Maybe try justifying / having a coherent position first. You don't need to jump on some cult. Just be honest and careful.

>>19804348
i have a low iq because you dont get it... makes sense

>>19807520
>"I wasn't convinced by any of the arguments I put forward, but maybe you will be"
Yes, such a true genius. Stick to your roots Christfags, you believe because voices in your head told you to- sorry, I meant the Holy Spirit revealed itself to you.

>>19808235
Based, because my sensations so far have been wonderful and I hope it continues that way

>>19800339
>I'm a science atheist materialist everything is just atoms bro everything is explained by electrical signals
Is the fact that something is, instead of isn't, explained by just atoms?
Also, "scientific" explanations of consciousness are less convincing than esoteric ones.

Why are materialists so willing to believe a theory like quantum mechanics being responsible for consciousness, with absolutely zero evidence to support such a ridiculous claim, and then they act all high and mighty because 'lol i cant see God or your soul tho'.
Fucking kill yourselves.

>>19810012
>Is the fact that something is, instead of isn't, explained by just atoms?
No, being able to record that it is doesnt answer why it is. This is the fundamental problem of science.

>>19805935
> "materialists have only one move, and it's to say the entities idealists entertain are in their head."
> NOOOO THATS NOT TRUE THATS BASELESS WORD PLAY."
> "I.e. 'it's in your head's, right?"
> "YOUR A SCHIZO" [ I.e. "that's in your head"]
I await your next move.

>>19810045
>there's some kind of intelligent entity out there
Makes sense.
>therefore you need to mutilate your genitals and worship this random desert tribe
Yeah nah lol

>>19800339
it's turtles all the way down m8

>>19810055
>therefore you need to mutilate your genitals
Christians dont follow circumcision.

>worship this random desert tribe
Last time I checked I worshiped no tribe, Just the Father and the Son.

Why are materialists so intellectually dishonest?

>>19810045
QM has plenty of evidence, retard. Look up the fucking experiments yourself.

>>19810122
>QM has plenty of evidence, retard
I'm not denying that... I'm denying that its responsible for consciousness.
Do you have any experiments of it creating consciousness in a non-conscious creature? No? Then suck my dick bitch and fuck off with your schizo theories.

>>19810140
>I'm denying that its responsible for consciousness.
Well, here's the thing: consciousness as a concept is constructed by itself, so the likelihood that we will EVER establish the direct cause of it is next to zero. What that means is that the cause that we end up assuming for it says something about us more than about consciousness. You can say that God is responsible for it, and you would be a slave moralist for doing so, because you're leaving the responsibility of your existence up to a distant universal, OR you can say that something in your body (i.e., you) is responsible for it, and you would be a master moralist for doing so, because you're taking full responsibility for yourself. Any other position lies somewhere in grayness between these two. I'd say the choice is yours, but that depends on how you look at it.

>>19810160
>OR you can say that something in your body (i.e., you) is responsible for it
Why would I delude myself in such a way? If people who have lived previously to me are conscious, why should I believe that consciousness was created by something in my body when its no different in any way to the consciousness of people who lived 4000 years earlier?

>because you're taking full responsibility for yourself
This doesnt follow either... Materialists are often ones who take zero responsibility. "We are monkeys on a flying rock so lets fuck kids"..
Yep a master moralist.

>>19800339

>>19810188
>If people who have lived previously to me are conscious, why should I believe that consciousness was created by something in my body when its no different in any way to the consciousness of people who lived 4000 years earlier?
Because you're inbred? My guess.

>This doesnt follow either
If I am my body and my body is responsible for consciousness, then I am responsible for it. Not the distant universal, me. My entire life is my responsibility then, and it is up to me to will a better life for myself, not up to the distant universal or anyone else. This is the master moralist viewpoint, of course; the slave sees it the other way around and feels empowered by the chain around his neck.

>>19801098
None of that is true you fucking psycho

>>19810160
> consciousness as a concept is constructed by itself
Every concept is the product of a consciousness. If this was problematic to consciousness (which it is, but can be resolved as it was by Husserl through his treatment of phenomenological closure) this would be problematic to the entirety of all transcendental facts (which, again, is a question worth exploring, but not one without hope of resolution.

>>19810233
>If this was problematic to consciousness [...] this would be problematic to the entirety of all transcendental facts
Correct, and it is

>>19810215
my point is conciousness doesn't change along with other parts of the human body over thousands of years
our mouths are too small for wisdom teeth. is our brain too small for conciousness?

conciousness is just awareness. it should make a difference to how you choose to live your life. it isn't your personality, Brainlet

>>19810269
>my point is conciousness doesn't change along with other parts of the human body over thousands of years
And my point is that it does and you're just inbred, hence why yours is no different from your ancestor's from 4000 years ago.

>>19810269
it shouldn't make a difference*

>>19810215
To believe in god is quite the opposite of being a slave, i can life and die for my ideals without fear
You materialists are all the same, you preach your moral superiority but in reality you rationalize all your sins away with le ebin :DD logic
Guess what, you are lying to yourself, you are a slave to this material world, slave to your body
But perish not, in face of certain death you will cry out for god like every faggy materialistic cunt

>>19810273
If you don't understand what conciousness is, please leave this thread.
It is awareness. Not your psyche, not your personality, not your intelligence.

t. atheist midwit using r/atheism arguments in 2022

>>19810238
> The materialist is so blind the to apodictic originality of intuition that he becomes a solipsist.
Kek.

>>19810291
>To believe in god is quite the opposite of being a slave, i can life and die for my ideals without fear
aka, you are a slave empowered by the chain around your neck.

>>19810293
I understand what it is. What you don't understand is that you're an inbred—or, that you're entirely mistaken about your consciousness matching 1:1 with your ancestors. Consciousness/awareness is multilayered, differences between generations will typically be extremely subtle.

>>19810374
You're right, it's not the same as our ancestors. People are fucking stupid now.
Plato vs Twitch streamers
How far we have fallen

>>19810349
The realization that everything "transcendental" is impermissible to consciousness doesn't mean there is absolutely nothing external to consciousness.

>>19810374
Nice counter argument, your shitposting is low level and weak

>>19810452
Return to your master, knight of faith.

>>19810426
The externality of the World is itself a transcendantal fact.

>>19810537
Don't flatter yourself. You are shouting into a vacuum like the rest of us.

>>19810573
>shouting into a vacuum
That's no way to talk about how I pleasure your mother orally, anon.

This thread has been an interesting read. There is more to the mind than meets the eye.
The tongue cannot taste itself
The eye cannot see itself
The nose cannot smell itself
How can we think that consciousness can conceive itself

>>19810597
Got me to kek

>>19800339
beta detected opinion discarded

>>19811505
Bro, look in a mirror, the eye can definitely see itself

>>19811505
>>19811603
But can you kiss yourself elsewhere than on the lips?

>>19800339
Here you go OP

>>19812766

Just love how these debates get so heated. Seems to have the same effect on /his/ and /sci/
>Is my self awareness the result of processes?
>Or is it numinous?
--> paradox, subjectivity, Buddhism & eastern philosophy, collective unconscious.
Everyone sure wants to grab hold of something.
Inb4 your dad's dick

>>19809938
Keep coping nigger

>>19812770
Why not kill yourself if you believe this lmao

>>19814166
Most people that truly understand do kill themselves