/lit/ - Literature

Seethe matterhead. You loose by your own scientism, how pathetic is that?

>>22577429
yeah, I'm thinking based

>>22577429
that Kastrup? he really wanted the +1

>>22577429
He has ruined Schopenhauer
Fuck him

>>22577429
It was crazy how many people defended him when he ran away from Maudlin.

glad to see this faggot get exposed

>>22577429
ah yes, what most people were there for... naturally...

>>22578262
story?

>>22577429
commie

>>22578325
Curt Jamagabuluprapta (or something like that) had Bernardo and Tim Maudlin on his YouTube show to discuss quantum stuff. Bernardo said that physicists and philosophers entertain "grotesque, theoretical fantasies" to explain quantum behavior. Maudlin listens quietly until it was his turn to respond and calls what Bernardo said "silly." Bernardo then proceeds to have a melt-down, continually interrupts Maudlin while saying what Maudlin is saying is "stupid," and leaves the show saying that Maudlin is disrespectful and that this isn't what he agreed to. Curt's comments were then filled with Bernardo fanboys jerking him off and shitting on Maudlin. This was all just a few days ago.

>>22578333
meds

>>22578478
>Bernardo and Tim Maudlin on his YouTube show to discuss quantum stuff
link?

>>22578489
https://youtu.be/rd7a_5M_37I?si=U8Bab5i_-qxm-sXa

>>22578491
i'm not gonna understand this, but the physicist... his introduction... it actually does end weirdly. all i'm gonna bother with.

>>22578503
Starting at 10:35 is all you really need if you're just interested in the fight. It doesn't last long.

>>22578489
>>22578491
>physicalism disproven, implies quantum physicists are self-important masturbants
ballsy bernardini going off

>>22578505
makes sense, but ultimately i have to leave my house to meet this guy and if he picks the wrong location then a bunch of people will see the most recent tiktok: npc or npcs?

>>22577565
how did he ruin schoppy?

>>22578568
watered down the pessimistic heart and butchered the metaphysics

>>22578589

Nobody cares about Schopenhauer ethics. The metaphysics is the only interesting part. What did Kastrup get wrong?

>>22578279
>>22577429

Story? Is this just about the YouTube argument or something else?

>>22578637
I dunno I liked On The Basis Of Morality

>>22578814
read Zapffe

>>22578814

Ethics is simple. God or nothing.

>>22578848

Exactly.

Thus we must only assume "nothing," for to assume God is to assume infinite definitions, forcing "God" into the realm of subjective fiction.

We must, for the sake of not only our sanity, but our SOCIETY, and for the ultimate existence of civilization, we must comprehend that all ethics are FALSE. All morality is FALSITY. Falsity to the objective truth of chemical-physical reality, founded upon the materialistic universe.

We must find another source to guide our actions. Something other than mere ethics or mere morality.

Functionalism. A god unto itself that states that all actions taken MUST WORK; failure is not to be tolerated. Our subjective objectives must bear fruit. This fits into evolution perfectly, and allows plants and animals their lives and beastly actions without our harsh, unfair judgement.

Life beyond humans now has justification and reason and meaning, and humans too are given the ability to act with freedom, liberation, and the will to power.

>>22578859

Will to power is nothing. Smoke and mirrors.

Materialism is false. The truth doesn't care about what you think or want to be true. Your opinion doesn't matter. God is either real or not. The answer to that question either leads to ethics or nothing. There is nothing else except hiding from the truth.

>>22578889

Materialism is not false.

Materialism is that which is real, and materialism in this modern, post-science era must be defined as "Chemical-Physical Reality. The subjective perception of objective reality." My subjective opinion does matter. That is the darkest truth you might ever face.

Luckily, so does yours.

Playing games with God is humiliating you, friend. Is it true that your base premise, "god or nothing," is nothing but you seeking converts to your cult? If that's your actual objective, then you are a false man with a false mind and I hate you.

But if there is more to your opinion, then reveal it openly and without such black and white "either agree with me or you're EVIL!" bullshit. Do not play naivety here, friend. We all know what people who believe in God begin to whisper about people who don't. "Without God, what's stopping you from pooping on kids? Heheh you bad person you!"

Let's not even go there.

Define a reason why materialism, with full awareness of the scientific-method and its fruits, is true, and why ethics do not matter, because goodness and evil are irrelevant. Try it. If you do not even try, then it's because you are tainted by a memetic-virus.

Aim for the truth, and then subjectively equate truth with good and falsity with evil. With your will to power, will the definitional equation of good and truth, and evil and falsity. Make the words the same. Evil is falsity. Good is truth. Ethics beyond a god stems from the comprehension of that principle.

Idealismcord woke up

>>22578920

Retard you have melted your mind. Your entire conception of reality is flawed. I laugh at you, but only out of pity.

>>22578920
let's flip the question.
on what is ethics and morality based, if we're being materialistic?
on what basis can we judge something correct or incorrect? what gives us this innate framework?

don't cop out with some sociological notion.

>>22578928

He'll just say "will to power" and "invent your own morality" without explaining why in any coherent way. It's just egoism/individualism taken to the extreme. A desire to be one's own god in a complete rejection of truth. A teenage rebellion against authority.

>>22578993
ah but you can in fact spread this idea

>>22579001

Well it's what people want. It's the easy answer. The false promise. The coward's way.

who?

>>22578928

I will say Functionalism. What works according to my subjective objectives. The ghost in the machine here is "Love," which is a concept accessible to all animals that breed, have families, and look out for one another.

But even excluding "Love," for being less than material, and instead, raw ideal, we are still dealing with a functional desire to do "something" in this world we live in.

In this case, I will still point to nature, rather than to "egoism/individualism taken to the extreme."

A tree is a being who is alive, and will mate with other trees. Pollen and flowers. This tree has no ego, but it still requires company. It still has a complex genetic code. And it is ALIVE, with a will to live. A will to power. And a tree has power indeed, does it not? When I approach a tree, a living, ancient tree, a massive tree, I feel only deepest reverence. I touch the tree. I promise you; I put out my hand, and I FEEL the tree.

I truly do, I kid you not. I truly, in real life, when on walks in the forest, I put out my hand and I place my palm upon the most ancient of trees. I close my eyes, and let my mind wander, wonder, and ponder. Such an ancient form of life, yet it lives. It is not a rock. It is not a mere tool. It is a living being, with genetic code just like mine. The meaning of this has meaning to me. I will it so.

The function of a tree, in the sense of its subjective objectives, are indeed to not bend so much as to fall over, nor be so stiff as if to break. Yet it must still reach the sun. It must grow roots that go deep; and seek the water it needs to drink. The wind must carry its pollen far, yet not bother its delicate flowers and leaves. The functional will of the tree is no secret to me. I know what it wants and how it lives, and you do too. Do not exclude a tree from philosophy, for there is not only a story of Newton, but also a story of Adam and Eve.

I consider a tree's material existence valid in the context of absolute materialism, where even without souls, without minds, without egos, without God, we are still seeing a will to live, and a will to power. But this power for a tree is a power of peace.

>>22578993
I'm not sure who you are, and why you choose to be my enemy with such hostility. Is it merely because we have different views on reality? I thought I could respect you for your inherent existence as a living creature, but if you treat me as your enemy, even as your prey, then I can only consider you hostile, and a threat to the truth of love.

For in the end, when I ponder which ideals can be real, valid, proven, I know that "Love" can be physically, materially proven. I see it all around me with my own eyes. I can point right at it, and see the true union of souls taking place, on a chemical-physical-biological level.

And when I hear the words, "I love you," I know they are true.

In the end, I define the combination of sex and will to power as a single word:

"Thepowertoprotecttheonesyoulove."

>>22578928

When it comes to innate framework, I wonder why you bother even saying something like that in the first place. What makes you think ANY innate, inherent, intrinsic, framework exists, or even SHOULD exist? WHY?

I have no idea why. Hope? Faith? A mere wish? Rather, it is the exact opposite I expect. I expect you to disagree with me exactly because there is NO innate, inherent, intrinsic, and most certainly, no OBJECTIVE framework of ethics, morality, or even metaphysical truth. Our division springs from the lack of objectivity to morals, faith, ethics, and the nature of the metaphysical.

But there is ONE simple concept at hand here: Non-metaphysical truth is accessible to us both on equal grounds. To do this, we will be using the scientific-method to test different ideas about the world. That is the best we have at the present time, and it has yielded many fruits.

But you will be cast out of this material paradise if you mock this method, and say, "This SCIENTIFIC method does not let me prove myself correct because you cannot test certain things. The things I believe in cannot be experienced! They cannot be part of this world by necessity. They exist outside reality!"

That answer is not one I make up lightly. It is the belief in God that ends up causing theologians to admit that perhaps an "outside" cause is the cause of reality. A cause without prior cause. As if to violate "cause and effect" and the truth of logic.

Violating logic is the darkest sin anyone could ever make, and logic is defined by this material world. In other words: Even the most bizarre aspects of quantum mechanics are logical. Even the most savage forms of animal predatory and parasitic behavior are logic. From the smallest to the largest, to the lowest to the highest, all that is real and functional is LOGICAL.

Logic must be defined by things that functionally work and exist.

Thus, to defy logic by inventing an unprovable entity such as "God or nothing," as if that was actually the truth ....Shame. As if that was logical? Shame and darkness upon you.

There are certain ideas that are so hideously beautiful, so beautifully hideous, that to even see them might drive you insane. But why should it? Just admit the truth of nature. Admit the truth of reality. God IS nothing.

It is the foundation of the world itself that is real, and must be accepted as real. We walk upon the Earth with our feet, and we chop wood with our hands, and with our brains, we invent fire, such that we boil water, and as that water steams, the turbine spins, and electricity is generated through the wires, and thus, the machine moves, and there shall be light.

Enlightenment dawns.

He's such a pseud grifter. Literally just the Andrew Tate of idealism.

>>22579829
>Essentia Foundation or whathave you
>Realist attempts to do the same thing
>Realist knows he is in a direction relation to reality
>Realist knows the quality is the universal and as such all qualities are substantial
>this, of course, mogs the lowly idealist who simply wishes to create the grounds for a connection to reality

I watched one of his videos and read some of his blog posts. His argument goes like this:

>1. Your perception of the real world involves information processing of sensory input. Therefore, you are not perceiving the real world but merely a limited representation of it.
Okay, that's just run-off-the-mill idealist platitudes.
>2. From the first point I conclude that the real world doesn't exist.
Nice non-sequitur, dickhead. Why do you refuse to provide evidence?

>>22580002
I don't think that is quite it. From what I gather he claims that the real world is fundamentally mind outside of our limited access to mind (because we are that mind at large dissociating into smaller minds with limited access or something like that). Its yet another idealism that says "reality is mind, but mind isn't what you think it is!" But I haven't read any of his stuff, I've only heard him speak and only got into him because of his theory on how myth effects reality.

>>22578478
Sounds like Bernardo was hoping a discussion or debate and what he got was a frivolous dismissal. I'd be irritated too if my opponent was unwilling or unable to engage with my thoughts.

>>22578637
As an antinatalist I disagree

>>22580285
yes bernardo is supremely intelligent and absolutely btfo metaphysically uncompetent basedentists.

>>22580002
>From the first point I conclude that the real world doesn't exist.
Burden of proof. How can you prove the real world exists?

>>22580533
>How can you prove the real world exists?
The same way I prove that my soul and my free will exist. By experiencing it. This should be self-evident.

>>22580561
You don't experience the real world though, you experience your own perceptions. The real world could be as real as a dream.

>>22580644
All my dreams are lucid. I fully control the world in my dreams. For example I can actively extend and shape my nightmares because they are less frightening and less hopeless than reality. But when I wake up I have absolutely no control anymore and I am subjected to worse torture than any dream could ever create.

>>22580669
That doesn't prove anything

>>22580751

No, it doesn't, but that anon isn't wrong.

Imagine there are three people.

A materialist, an idealist who believes the world is not real, and a gigachad who is interested in listening.

Will this gigachad, with confidence, good looks, strength, and intelligence, will he really be convinced that the world is false, and that he should just curl up in bed and let his life and all opportunities pass him by? Just confined to a prison of his own mind? To ....study? Pray? Yes, pray. At some point, this shifts to a cult mindset where the "real world" is false and imaginary spiritual concepts begin to take hold. An inversion of reality and truth occurs.

But should the materialist win the debate, then the gigachad, with his good looks, his strength, his knowledge, he will go out into the world and do good things. Get laid. Have a coffee. Be chill and make friends. He'd live a good life.

I see no other path forward in the context of this debate. Materialism must win by default, for even if it IS false, it would still lead to a better life for anyone who accepts that the world is more real than a "soul" or a "god."

Perception is a valid concept here.
We ought to trust it far more than ........ nothing.

>>22580751
The concept of proof is meaningless in your solipsistic idealism. If the real world doesn't exist then there is nobody else to be convinced by proof.

>>22580002
now explain how quantities / abstract matter that has no qualities produces qualities of experience.
are you such a brainlet to believe the world looks like how it appears for your human eyes? does the fly landing on some pile of shit from the sidewalk perceive it as disgusting?

>>22580785
You just demonstrated that you are unable to differentiate between sensory input, the informational content of perception, the subjective experience, and value judgments. We are not the same. You are not on my intellectual level.

>>22577429
why cult leader?

>>22580803
nice, you said nothing again. can you see the world without your eyes or not?

>>22580808
Because he demands dogmatism and throws a tantrum whenever someone questions his nonsense.

>>22580815
>can you see the world without your eyes or not?
I can.

>>22580808
because he's telling people how the mainstream narrative of reality is wrong, and the people agree with him. those people leave the cult of materialism of the experts so they project onto the guy who wrote some books their cult-like mentality.

>>22580845
>if anyone questions my dogma he must be a member of my strawman enemy group
This overly reductive manichaeism is another characteristic of a cult leader.

>>22580862
idealism is still strawmanned in this very thread. >>22580002

your next sentence will be
"but I hit you with rock it hurts therefore world real"

>>22580878
Idealism is an ignorant position. Acknowledging the real world leads to empirical science explaining its laws. Idealism seems to be satisfied with a general "it just is, okay?" onions stance. Idealism is not even attempting to explain anything. The idealism is not just lazy, he is outright anti-intellectual.

More like he's a grifter whose made a career of peddling the same Berkelyan arguments that were bad then and bad now

>muh you can't even think of anything that's non-ideal!
>muh dashboard of dials
>muh extrinsic appearance

Ultimately it's a retarded unprovable metaphysical theory. There's just nothing to say. Science operates under an assumption of materialism and gets results doing it. What does idealism do? Tie you in argumental knots which are unprovable, untestable, and all around gay and cringe.

Every assumes materialism in their everday lives. We all assume put bodies are more than our experience of them. That's why drugs work and we get heart attacks and cancers and a shotgun to the head kills you. Can you make some retarded argument sp that idealism can account for these? I guess. But why would you when it's obviously wrong and retarded. You can make an argument it's all God, or go ultra physicist and deny experience exists entirely like the illusionists. But why would you? It's retarded.

>>22580900
>Science operates under an assumption of materialism and gets results doing it.
Sending people to hell isn’t a good “result.”

You have to be as brain dead as an idealist to believe Dissociative Identity Disorder is anything other than foids being histrionic attention whores LOL

He bases his whole gay philosophy on this jew psykikeatrist nonsense "diagnoses". It's so funny to me. Jews made up this disorder so histrionic attention whoring teens could be billed by big pharma for bunk pills and insurance makes money off it as well.

Some retard comes along and believes the kikes and the foids and says "OMG THE WHOLE OF REALITY IS ONE DISSOCIATED MIND!!!"

What an idiot. He's probably a kike himself and is gonna charge reality to cure its histrionics.

Of course, we aren't minds, but bodies. Perceiving, thinking, feeling - thats what our bodies *do*. Consciousness isn't a thing, it's a collection of nervous system functions.

>>22580924
Judaism is the worship of the material, Aryan spirituality is worship the spiritual. What are you smoking?

>>22580924
How can you make such a redpilled post and then ruin it completely with the last sentence?

>>22580899
well idealism does not deny science, or reality. as Bernardo says, materialism is the position that claims reality is inside your mind and you are just an organism hallucinating what you deem as real. Materialists believe that everything YOUR experience is made out of are particles meaninglessly having an illusory experience of a false reality that you cannot ever access because it's ontologically different, abstract, and non-qualitative.
can you do another strawman? I know you guys are pretty good at it

>>22580924
Very thinly veiled jewish post. Your nose is showing

>>22580924
You don’t think multiple personality schizos are real?

>>22580900
>Science operates under an assumption of materialism and gets results doing it.
Science operates under a very vague framework in which matter(which is itself sometimes not matter but a field or waves or a fucking probability distribution or something) and "forces" interact in a spatio-temporal extent. Fundamental physics doesn't even have an agreed upon definition of what is actually going on, hence the "shut up and calculate" meme which is almost implying reality is like some abstract mathematical equation.

Obviously nobody has reconciled this mess with the problems surrounding qualitative conscious experience either

>>22580940
Idealism also has moral implications. Why should you be upset about seeing your wife cheating on you with a BBC? If it's just a hallucination of your mind then it's not real. It's no different from watching porn. In fact it must be a fantasy your own mind produced. Your own fantasy, hence a good and enjoyable thing. Idealism inevitably leads to cuckoldism.

>>22580956
Not him, but this "multiple personalities" meme has been debunked countless times. It's bullshit and absolutely not how schizophrenia (or any other psychotic condition) works. An elaborate work of fiction.

>>22580961
again another strawman claiming solipsism. next one! do the one where you say that it doesn't matter at all what reality is because it's never going to change your life and there's no point to this discussion! you guys love that one

>>22580940
That's just kastrups strawman of materialism. The reality is that there is no settled science on how consciousness is produced. The assumption is there's a material basis, most likely tondo with brain function but this "inner Cartesian theater" kastrup paints every materialist with is a strawman. There's many hypothesis - panpsychism, Dennet style illusionism, identity theory, etc.

>>22580956
No and neither do most psychiatrists

>>22580972
If idealism is true then why aren't you communicating telepathically with me? Why use the real world as a medium? How is communication even possible under idealism? You are just sending your message into the void? After all, according to you there is no real world and hence no mechanism of communication.

>>22581003
>giving a shit about the opinions of psychiatrists
I seriously hope you guys don't do this.

>>22580997
>There's many hypothesis - panpsychism, Dennet style illusionism, identity theory, etc.
he addressed all of them in his works. especially panpsychism...

>"we will eventually find out how consciousness is produced..."
this is exactly what is the problem. you can't say that when there are better and more plausible alternatives. that is the whole point of idealism vs materialism. You can't just start with the assumption (of materialism) and arrive at a premise.

>>22581005
>If idealism is true then why aren't you communicating telepathically with me?
because evolution shaped us in a way to only perceive certain things at a time.

>>22580900
>why would you when it's obviously wrong and retarded.
ngmi

>Common sense cannot understand speculation; and what is more, it must come to hate speculation when it has experience of it; and, unless it is in the state of perfect indifference that security confers, it is bound to detest and persecute it.

>>22581005
>t. doesn't know
KEK

>>22581005
>according to you there is no real world
you got filtered anon

>>22581022
I don't think you understood the screenshot you posted.

>>22581051
>t. didn't understand it and projects his failure onto others
many such cases

>>22581022
kant wasnt even an idealist

>>22581060
>transcendental idealism
really ngmi

>>22581058
Hint: It doesn't support Kastrup's bullshit.

>>22581095
don't care. Kastrup is still stuck in his baby schopenhauer phase. his takes have not reached the FULL POWER OF GERMAN IDEALISM which materialism can in no way and will never refute.

>>22578834
>>22578848
Duality of /lit/

>>22581108
>still beating the dead materialism strawman
Sigh.

Dualism is so superior that plebs like you won't even notice its existence due to having your ass too deep up your own ass.

>>22581135
>spirits are in material bodies because…magic
bravo dualtards

>>22581135
>Dualism is so superior
>ignores mind-body problem

>>22581011
Sure you can. Materialism is assumed by object permanence. It's our everyday reality that the world is real, public, exists independent of our perceptions of it. When I lose my phone I look for it because it's SOMEWHERE, because it's an object whose existence is not dependent upon being perceived. Babies learn this at a very young age.

Idealism is just stupid and yes I've even read his PhD thesis. He strawmans materialism and then makes essentially the same case as George Berkeley.

>describe what the phone is like independent of your perceptions of it!
>prove it exists!
>the phone is nothing more than an intersubjective experience!!!
>there is no world outside of mind!!!!

It's dumb. There is no such thing as "mind". We are material bodies in a shared world. "Mind" is just the folm psychological notion of a whole plethora of nervous system functions- perception, cognition, planning, etc.

Do you realize how dumb his theory is? When you make a baby that's not another human body in a shared world... actually the babies body is the extrinsic appearance of a monist mind dissociating into another split personality...

You end up sounding like a fucking retard. The reality is kicking a rock disproves idealism.

>>22577429
Bernardo - grotesque theoretical fantasy
Tim Maudlin - That's silly
Bernardo - cry

WTF!

>>22581178
>object permanence
KEK is this a joke?

>>22581188
>muh gay theory about dissociating minds can account for object permanence!
>I worked at CERN!!!
>BUY MY BOOKS!!!!!!1

>>22581186
This just shows if your gonna go idealist you have to go FULL POWER.

>the opposition of idealistic and realistic philosophy has no significance. A philosophy which ascribed veritable, ultimate, absolute being to finite existence as such, would not deserve the name of philosophy

postivists have been seething for YEARS

>>22581195
brainlet materialism is just a much a theory. Idealists deny the theory not the your experience dummkopf.

>>22581186
Yea he's a bit of a crybaby

>>22581178
>It's our everyday reality that the world is real, public, exists independent of our perceptions of it.
but kastrup and all idealists don't deny this.
the problem comes when you make the claim of the world independent of your perceptions as a ontologically separate abstract reality made of matter.

I can use the dream example. you lose a phone in your dream. weren't you and the phone and the entire world of your dream where the phone was lost inside your own mind?

you say "sure the phone is there and exists as a phone", let's say you put the phone on a table, where does the phone and the table separate? that is only an arbitrary practical separation made by your perception to use the things in your everyday life.
take the battery out of the phone, now the battery is out. the screen, the camera. now where is the phone? did the phone become accessories? or is it just an illusion of separation that your brain plays on you to make your life easier?

also told you were going to use this strawman with the rock >>22580878

>>22580778
>Materialism must win by default, for even if it IS false, it would still lead to a better life for anyone who accepts that the world is more real than a "soul" or a "god."
....
>Perception is a valid concept here.
>We ought to trust it far more than ........ nothing.

your life doesn't matter, having fun or not doesn't matter, what matters is figuring out the truth, idealism or not. you seem to twist materialism so you could justify your hedonistic prospects.

>>22577429
holy ballsack fucking like ass niggerfaggot

>>22580803
he's literally saying the same shit you're saying you fucking retard.

>>22578637
>What did Kastrup get wrong?
That Will isn't blind and has a purpose.

Fuck him

>>22581323
Idealist fags LOVE to assert purpose for God/Mind.

>>22581153
it was already solved in Indian philosophy

>>22581323
yea but that's not Kastrup's original thought-- Schopenhauer said it first.

>>22581343
>Indian philosophy
which one knucklehead? there's tons of them

>>22581352
In Yoga, Sankhya and Advaita Vedanta, the so-called "interaction mind-body problem" that is the main objection against the "dualism" of Descartes is preemptively debunked by the fact of mind and consciousness being two different things, since the mind has two-way causal relations by the mind and thereby explains experience while consciousness is a non-interacting and unaffected light that just illuminates what the mind is doing, this preserves consciousness as non-physical and different from insentient phenomena/objects but still explains how the world induces changes in the mind and vice versa.

>The unfolding of thought forms is an integral part of the evolution of prakṛti, and mental processes are simply the result of appropriate transformations of unconscious material substance. It is perhaps worth noting at this point that the Sāṅkhya-Yoga (and Advaita) view thereby avoids one of the most serious pitfalls of Cartesian dualism, since on the Indian account, mental causation does not violate any physical conservation laws. By including mind in the realm of matter, mental events are granted causal efficacy, and are thereby able to directly initiate bodily motions. And, conversely, material objects are able to have genuine mental effects, as required by normal accounts of, say, the flow of information involved in perceptual awareness of the environment. The representational content of sensory experiences, such as those which attend perceiving the blueness of the sky or the pungent flavor of espresso, can now be treated as straightforward consequences of the physical environment's causal impingements upon the mind. This is because, in contrast to standard Western dualism, there is no longer a causal/ontological gulf separating mind from matter

"We have Deepak Chopra at home!"

>>22581224
Dreaming is a bodily state. The body is material. There's all manner of theories about how perception functions in a material ontology - direct, indirect, adverbial, illusionism, etc.

Bernardo just strawmans materialism and says it collapses into idealism because he takes as axiomatic that ones experiences are distinct from a material reality

But the world over people pre-theoretically live in a mode of "naive realism", what we see and sense with our bodies is an external material world that is shared with and sensed by other bodies.

It's just ridiculous to say the dream world is an ideal world and so too is the awake world. Firstly dreams have no stability or even ontology at all. They're phatasms of the brain constructed while the body is sleeping.

How does dreaming even function in kastrups idealism? Some type of ultra dissociated altar of the monist mind that loses touch with the other altars, every night? What's a lucid dream? The altar becomes self aware of its isolation from the other altars?

It's so fucking dumb. We are obviously our bodies not our "minds" whatever the fuck that even means. The bkdy is material take a knife it to your throat and watch you cease being conscious.

>b-but idealism can account for this because the body dying is the extrinsic appearance of a dissociative alter of a singular mind dissolving into nothingness!!
>I deny all common sense to push a stupid theory so I can sell my books pretending to be some type of consciousness guru like those scamming Indians!!
>pay me money!!!!
>I'm just a counterfeit Berkeley for the modern age!!!

>>22581487
ok but that doesn't solve the problem of mind body interaction because you havn't explained if mind and body are two different substances. Sure, consciousness could be distinct from mind, but this only makes the problem wider: if body, mind, and consciousness are three distinct substances, how do they interact? Now instead of a mind-body problem, you have a mind-body-consciousness problem. The only solution is to reduce all three to modes of one of the three, or modes of some higher substance that encompasses all three-- at which point you are back at a monism of sorts.

>>22581693
>watch you cease being conscious.
>empirically tries to disprove a metaphysical theory
They're not sending their best.

>>22581721
Yeah that ls the problem with idealism, isn't it? It's entirely untestable and unprovable. It's just some guy, kastrup, saying a bunch of useless nonsense he can't prove or demonstrate in order to sell his books and make a name for himself.

Personally I think there is an ontology inherent I my visual field. I literally directly see externally existing objects. I don't even knownwhat it would mean to say these objects are "internal" to my mind. They're out there, in the world.

>>22581751
>Yeah that ls the problem with idealism, isn't it?
No. It's not smoothbrain. Because it's a metaphysical theory. If it's true it's true regardless of empirical confirmation, and any empirical confirmation would be merely gratuitous as far as the truth of the theory is concerned.

Bernardo, are you here? amongst us? give us a sign.

>>22581881
I'm here and that's the most pathetic thread I've seen.

>>22581886
gib us you reasons why youss think dis massa

>>22581817
Good thing it's not true then, and the cult leader can be dismissed with prejudice

>>22581924
>Good thing it's not true
>presupposes it's not true
>will never attain to the heights of speculative cognition
ok

>>22581932
>the heights of speculative cognition

You mean crying like a bitch in a YouTube debate because someone hurt your fee-fees?

>>22581939
I already told you faggot: Kastrup is still a baby Idealist. Try refuting Hegel.

>>22581714
>ok but that doesn't solve the problem of mind body interaction because you havn't explained if mind and body are two different substances.
It does solve the ostensible issue of mind-body interaction because mind and body are two aspects of the same complex/object in all 3 schools of thought, in each case it would thereby be capable of both receiving input from external inputs/influences and generated output, which explains how the mind interacts with the world despite awareness/consciousness itself being non-physical and non-reducible to anything besides itself.

>Sure, consciousness could be distinct from mind, but this only makes the problem wider: if body, mind, and consciousness are three distinct substances, how do they interact?
It doesn't make any problem wider, body and mind are not distinct substances but are two aspects of the same thing, since they are more or less inherently connected there is no question of an issue with their interaction. Consciousness itself is completely unchanging and unaffected by anything and it just passively illumines the workings of the mind with the light of its awareness, thus there is by definition no interaction between consciousness and the mind/body complex but the presence of the former is the necessary precondition of the latter having any sort of experience.

Idealists and materialists are talking past each other. They are both talking about the exact same reality, from different sides. Reality appears to us as material. But fundamentally it is not material. God is the missing puzzle piece for both sides to understand.

>>22581960
nta, how would consciousness predicate illumination at a thing reliant on its awareness of being illuminated upon non-interactively? or am I semantically misconstruing?

>>22581960
>thus there is by definition no interaction between consciousness and the mind/body complex but the presence of the former is the necessary precondition of the latter having any sort of experience.
ok so consciousness is the necessary condition of the mind-body complex (just say it one substance then) yet there is not interaction between the two? are you kidding me? so you just said there is no interaction, yet one is a necessary condition for the other. explain how this is possible without interaction. explain how you are not contradicting yourself.

>>22577429
I am Brazilian, and unfortunately I spend a lot of time on the Internet, and i am at the college

Kastrup DOES NOT EXIST in the Brazilian public debate, not even the most passionate about the topic mentions him

>>22582008
>I am Brazilian
literally nobody fucking cares dude

>>22581983
>nta, how would consciousness predicate illumination at a thing reliant on its awareness of being illuminated upon non-interactively?
Can you restate the question? I can try to explain but I'm not sure exactly what you are asking. Thoughts, sense-perceptions and emotions are mental functions. Awareness itself is like a vast space in which these mental functions float around, arising and dissipating but without making any difference upon the space itself. On their own, these mental functions are insentient and unalive, absent the presence of consciousness there would be no experience or knowledge of them. When consciousness is present, it's awareness-presence is like a light which makes the thoughts and perceptions "glow", like a stained glass window glowing when it receives the light of the sun; when these thoughts and sense perceptions are "lit up" and "glow" with the light provided by awareness, it makes them seemingly take on the attributes of awareness and thereby appear in experience as conscious and object-directed (intentional) mental states when consciousness itself is really non-intentional and not a changing mental state.

>>22581991
>ok so consciousness is the necessary condition of the mind-body complex (just say it one substance then)
In Yoga and Sankhya the mind/body complex and consciousness are two real independent substances, but in Advaita only consciousness has substantial being/existence and everything besides itself is an appearance or illusion and is thus non-substantial
>yet there is not interaction between the two? are you kidding me? so you just said there is no interaction, yet one is a necessary condition for the other. explain how this is possible without interaction. explain how you are not contradicting yourself.
You may be making the common mistake of thinking an "interaction" is when two things "have anything to do with eachother" or "are related in any form". The actual meaning of "interaction" however is "reciprocal action or influence". Thus, a one-way non-reciprocal relation of dependence whereby the non-dependent party is wholly unchanged and unaffected by the dependent party is by definition..... *not an interaction*. When consciousness just remains itself without changing, but happens to passively provide illumination to the mind/body (and Advaitins would add that the Divine Consciousness is the source of all phenomena in addition to being the illuminator of all phenomena which Sankhya/Yoga accepts) then by definition that's not "reciprocal action or influence".

>>22580924
I'm an idealist but this post is basically my problem with Bernardo. His whole argument rests on a psychological theory that is dumb as hell. I wonder why more people don't attack him on that point. On the other hand, reading through this thread it's obvious that most people don't understand idealism. It's just metaphysics. It is not against science, the world is still real and things still matter. But ideas and consciousness are more primary than matter, which is the only thing that is being claimed. I dunno how people go from that to saying there is no object permanence, or that things are hallucinations in your mind.

>>22582085

Idiot's think that idealism means solipsism.

>>22582085
>>22582093
Because idealism presupposes scientific anti-realism. That's the issue.

But science is generally unthinkingly realist. When we study brains or bodies or things in the world, we presuppose these are metaphysically mind-independent objects which we are observing and finding out about.

Idealism turns science on its head, claims it's a mere predictive tool for the regularity or our experiences and not giving us true facts about the world.

When we get a xray scan for example, we take as presupposed there is an actual material bone in my arm that the xray machine is detecting using real material wavelengths of light that exist out there, independent of mind.

How does this function in idealism? It doesn't. They say light waves are mind dependent, arms are mind dependent, there's nothing 'out there', etc.

It's just, prima facie, absurd.

Can the theory be worked so that it is internally consistent? Yes. It's a metaphysical theory and so cant really be disproven like all the others. Really you can't even disprove solispism. But the question is what's more reasonable? Some retard theory abkut dissociated alters in a singular mind presenting the illusion of a share intersubjective material world of things and stuff we investigate with the scientific method, of that, just as it is directly presented in the naive realism of our sensory experience- the world is in fact material.

>>22582008
Who cares about what goes on in macacoland?

>>22582008
I just google him and it says he is Dutch, I doubt he gets serious (you)s there either though. Responding to an idealist can, in some ways, be submission

>>22582406
googled* Dutch philosopher*
excuse my crassness

>>22582406
He talks like a spic though

>>22582189
>How does this function in idealism?
Literally the same. Matter exists, laws exist. But what grounds everything is ideas/forms/concepts/information/whatever. Like for neo platonists, we emanate from the divine intellect. For people who believe simulation theory, some higher being is running reality in his computer and we're all data. For Bernardo, there is a big mind and we're all smaller parts of it. Again this is all metaphysics, so it changes nothing about physics or science in general, there is still a material bone in your arm, but idealists are discussing what matter actually is or what gives origin to it.

>>22582189

For me, I've begun to formulate a new philosophy called "Idealistic Materialism."

Specifically in THAT order, and not "Materialist Idealism." I think the absolute foundation must be materialism, such that we assume ZERO.

We should not assume God, nor souls, nor mind, nor truth, nor love, nor good, nor evil. We can only know, "I think, therefore I am," and to establish sanity, we must assume that our perceptions are true, thus we assume that "Our Perception of Reality is Reality." (With flaws due to our own personal flaws. But...)

From there, we must instantly steal the "Scientific Method" from modern times, and insert it quickly into the foundation, such that we can establish observation, experimentation, and peer review, as valid concepts. Peer review eliminates solipsism, thus granting value to outside entities, such as YOU, and grants YOU the value of "ME," along with anyone else along for the ride. Peer review, even this right now, as we speak to each other, allows us to use multiple points of perception to triangulate the truth.

The rest of the scientific method is "take it or leave it," in terms of raw philosophy, but nonetheless, the fruits of science cannot be denied. What we need to take from it in terms of philosophy, in the context of "Spiritual Idealism" or "Solipsistic Materialism" or "Theistic Idealism," is that these three ideas can be defeated by the sword of Idealistic Materialism.

Thus: The ideal that something is real, and that we have each other, grants us reality and love, the ideal that we can know this world, grants us truth and knowledge, the ideal that evolution is an idea that life can grow and become more complex over time, grants us a sense of direction or purpose, and the existence of machines and technology grants us the ideal of advancement, as if there were higher states of civilization and personal power that we can attain.

Hegel is important to note here, because we must indeed build upon the philosophies of the past. Thank you pagans, thank you Christians, thank you rationalists, thank you materialists, thank you scientists, thanks to all philosophies that ever have been and ever were, because without them, how could we build this idea of Idealistic Materialism?

The idea that we actually exist as real material in a real reality, and that this reality has stars, galaxies, and billions of years of history, is very important, if we wish to establish a truth we can depend on in even the darkest of times. Where shall we go from here? For me, I will continue to ponder this philosophy and see what truths and goodness it yields.

A tree with good roots will bear good fruits.

>>22582416
Yeah that just corrupts "material" to the point of nonsense. People literally mean it in the sense that it is ontologically independent of mind. This is fundamentally incompatible with idealism which holds nothing is independent of mind.

Xrays work for materialism because material, mind-independent Lightwaves can be detected by machines. Idealism says these don't exist. You can't just hand wave this away. Yes light waves exist for the idealist but in a diametrically opposed way to the materialist.

>>22582411
that's just his start tho

>>22577429
Destroyed by 190 IQ

>>22577429
*yawn* he doesn't even know what this place is.
let's see him write an essay on a 50k salary and not be a realist.

>>22579316

>>22579316
>What works according to my subjective objectives.
>I know that "Love" can be physically, materially proven. I see it all around me with my own eyes. I can point right at it, and see the true union of souls taking place, on a chemical-physical-biological level.

so you are a materialist that doesn't agree with the conclusions and rationale of materialism. great. might as well be an idealist

>>22582441
>Idealism says these don't exist.
Whether matter exists as a brute fact or as a thought in the mind of God doesn't change the fact that it exists. Material lightwaves can be detected by material machines just the same.

>>22582441
>Idealism says these don't exist.
no it doesn't you absolute retard. it just says they are not what materislists think they are. how can you be this dense?

>>22582189
>there's nothing 'out there'
there is something 'out there' it's just not what midwit materialists think it is. What is 'out there' is dead, inert, unintelligent matter: IT IS MIND.

pic unrelated

>>22583033
*is not dead inert matter

b

>>22578920
>matter exists
prove it. Science does not refute idealism, it reinforces it

>>22580002
idealists do believe in "the real world"
It's just not made of matter.

>>22582583
i dont even think is possible to test IQ above 160

>>22583423
>It's made of energy and information forming particles with mass coupling to gravity but that's totally not matter because ... uhm it just isn't, okay?

>>22583435
Mind faggot. It's mind.

>>22583458
You keep repeating that but you never say what it means. Idealism is just an empty pseud position where you endlessly claim "reality doesn't real" ad nauseam without ever providing a reasonable alternative view.

>>22583467
>you never say what it means.
You don't-- you don't know-- what mind is? Do you not have a mind?

>>22583479
See? Another desperate cope post of yours. You avoid giving an answer.

>>22583490
>t. doesn't have a mind
so your saying you're an NPC?

>>22583490

>>22583500
I have more mind than you, as evidenced by the fact that I'm doubting your bullshit.

>>22583423
>>22583435
It is made of matter even for idealists. But matter is not all there is since mind is more fundamental.

>>22583435
Matter is just a denser mental state.

>>22583595
in Kastrup's words (paraphrasing):
matter is the appearance of inner mental activity across a dissociative boundary

>>22583595
>But matter is not all there is since mind is more fundamental.
That would be dualism. Kastrup is more dogmatic and claims matter doesn't exist.

>>22583615
Kastrup for sure is very dense.

>>22583616
>across a dissociative boundary
aka made up bullshit

>>22583642
>aka made up bullshit
the appearance of the dissociative boundary is the body of a person. which of course is material because that's the boundary of your dissociation.

>>22583647
>meaningless word salad

>>22583650
of course. everything is meaningless in the eyes of a materialist. all that actually matters is what subjectively helps you in the battle for survival as some other materialist pointed out in this thread

>>22579316
>I will say Functionalism. What works according to my subjective objectives.
so what is meaning for a materialist? whatever he thinks in the moment. might as well talk to a rock about meaning.

>>22583660
>in the eyes of a materialist
Good thing I'm not a materialist. Your retarded strawmen run off me like water off a raincoat.

>>22583665
>mind is more fundamental
this is not idealism. there can't be anything "more" fundamental brainlet. you interpret it as "strawman" because you don't even know what you're saying

>>22583680
You are not responding to anything in my post. You are egocentrically talking to yourself.

>>22583642
>That would be dualism.
No. The claim is not that there are 2 things: mind and matter. The idealist claim is that matter somehow comes from mind, is grounded by mind, emanates from mind or something like that depending on your brand of idealism.

>>22583616
The other anon already responded but that quote doesn't mean matter is not real. It's just telling you what matter is according to Bernardo's theory. From what I remember his theory assumes there is a god-like mind that all others are just part of. The inner mental activity in that case is probably talking about this godmind, it doesn't mean things are just ideas in your head and don't exist. That said, using alternate personalities to explain anything is indeed retarded.

>>22583688
you say "even idealists believe the world is made out of matter but mind is more fundamental"
I call you out on your misunderstanding
then you say "actually the boundary of perception is made up bullshit"
I tell you again the boundary exists as your body
you say "meaningless world salad" without addressing anything I said
then you tell me I'm strawmanning your position without anything else then claim I don't actually respond to what you're saying

you are not taking this seriously as a defense mechanism for your failed metaphysics. mind is not "more" fundamental. it is fundamental. you are a confused panpsychist that is not saying anything of substance. classic materialism at work there.

>>22583709
>you say "even idealists believe the world is made out of matter but mind is more fundamental"
I did not say this. Your IQ is too low to participate in two conversations simultaneously.

>I call you out on your misunderstanding
You did no such thing. You merely threw a tantrum like an infant.

>then you say "actually the boundary of perception is made up bullshit"
I said "dissociative" is bullshit. Nice lack of reading comprehension, soiboi.

>I tell you again the boundary exists as your body
>you say "meaningless world salad" without addressing anything I said
Because you said nothing. You posted an empty deepity which is not relevant to the discussion at all.

>you are not taking this seriously as a defense mechanism for your failed metaphysics.
Watch out, he got a degree in online psychology from reddit university.

>mind is not "more" fundamental. it is fundamental.
Mind and matter are both fundamental.

>you are a confused panpsychist
False. I'm neither confused nor a panpsychist.

>>22583708
>doesn't mean matter is not real
saying "made of matter" implies matter exists as is independent of perception. I don't think any idealist would agree. from what I understand Kastrup tends to use a lot of metaphors in his writings to convey his ideas like whirlpools, knot, dream, mirror etc. and he uses DID to explain how it fits with his metaphysical explanations

>>22583743
>Mind and matter are both fundamental.
dude. are you fucking kidding me? Does MIND-BODY PROBLEM not compute?

>>22583743
>I did not say this. Your IQ is too low to participate in two conversations simultaneously.

>>22583595
>It is made of matter even for idealists. But matter is not all there is since mind is more fundamental.

So you deny the post in this thread? word for word, that you wrote? weird

Wooow, I did not expect this thread to blow up like it did. Bravo, friends.

>>22583763
>t. controlled opposition

>>22583755
The mind body problem is solved by dualism.

>>22583759
I did not write that post. You seem to be suffering from a severe case of Fregoli delusion. Time to take your meds.

>>22583743
LMAO some of y'all IQlets better reassociate with the altar with the amount of blatant lack of comprehension KEK

>>22583789
so you did not write it, but you responded to my reply, and then claimed I don't actually respond to allegedly what wasn't your post in the first place

I think you're just a retard or pretending to be

>>22583789
You don't even know the definition of words you're using for example you wrote
>>22583743
>Mind and matter are both fundamental.
>I'm neither confused nor a panpsychist.

but let me guess you didn't write that one either, you're just pretending to be that poster

>>22583801
I pointed out the stupidity of your post (>>22583616) in the same post where I replied to the other post which you are wrongly assigning to me (>>22583595). Read >>22583642 again and admit your IQ is too low.

>>22583753
>implies matter exists as is independent of perception
But if a perfect god is consistently perceiving it, the end results are the same. Or if the simulation is consistent or whatever. My whole point is that nothing changes between idealism, materialism or dualism, science still works with the same predictive powers, and there is still a thing called matter that behaves consistently. We are just arguing about what grounds reality, or the nature of the mind, things like that.

>>22583817
Both of these statements are irrefutably true.

>>22578478
Why should we care about any of these characters?

>>22583828
this discussion is about metaphysics not science.

>>22583827
I think you couldn't make the connection that this quote here in the greentext >>22583680 was for this post here >>22583595 which you replied with >>22583688 implying that was definitely your post that I was "not responding to at all"

anyway the whole point was about the dissociative boundary which you deny and say here >>22583642 that is dogmatic to say "matter doesn't exist" which is not what idealists claim, but they talk about the nature of matter itself which is illusory. it's hard to discuss a think without defining the terms first and what each other means by the specific terms used in the context of the discussion.

>>22583785
>The mind body problem is solved by dualism
now I know you're trolling faggot

>>22581282
>what matters is figuring out the truth, idealism or not
why

>>22583890
I will ignore your blatant disability to tell separate conversations apart and jump straight to this gem of intellectual immaturity:
>it's hard to discuss a think without defining the terms first and what each other means by the specific terms used in the context of the discussion.
Sorry hun, natural language isn't math and that's a good thing. There are no rigorous definitions here. It's a filter to keep the hylic autists out of philosophy.

>>22583926
Tell me you're an NPC without explicitly telling me you're an NPC. Well done.

>>22583959
>thinks dualism solves the mind-body problem
>calls me an NPC
these heretofore unbeknownst levels of retardation

>>22583959
>Sorry hun, natural language isn't math and that's a good thing.
we are discussing philosophy here, not common sense. if you make an assertion make it as clear as possible otherwise I can't guess exactly what you mean by "real, existing, matter, mind". you tell me to guess what you mean by words and then I'm "strawmanning" your position because I guessed wrong what you actually meant by your vague assertion. get real.

you still didn't say anything about the dissociative boundary and just put a label on it and ran away from any explanation.

b

>>22583966
You exhibit an uneducated kneejerk reaction when you see the word "dualism". With 100% certainty you are an NPC. Dualism is proven by quantum mechanics. You probably never heard of it. Keep seething.

>>22583985
>shifting le burden of proof
As already exposed here >>22583467 it is the Kastrupian idealists' fallacy to hide behind empty phrases with no meaning.

>dissociative
Kastrup is alluding to the so called dissociative personally disorder which was proven to be a work of fiction. Nothing more than an unscientific meme narrative in order to excuse hysterical women's misbehavior and to make profit from therapy/pharma scam.

>>22584284
>Dualism is proven by quantum mechanics.
LOL imagine not knowing physical theories already presuppose metaphysical theories

>>22584302
Kant was wrong about everything and your post is wrong, too. Quantum mechanics has cucked philosophy out of metaphysics. Quantum mechanics is the only source of progress in metaphysics after philosoplebs failed to achieve anything in that field for more than two millennia.

>>22584284
>it is the Kastrupian idealists' fallacy to hide behind empty phrases with no meaning.
because claiming that matter and mind are both fundamental without explaining how it can actually be possible and how this occurs isn't a fallacy of empty words with no meaning. "it just happens and this consciousness exists in matter and dualism is true because it just does"

>Kastrup is alluding to the so called dissociative personally disorder which was proven to be a work of fiction. Nothing more than an unscientific meme narrative in order to excuse hysterical women's misbehavior and to make profit from therapy/pharma scam.
all I see is a desperate attempt to disprove a point not by addressing it but by claiming the source of the inspiration doesn't actually happen in reality. dissociation is a real phenomenon, someone who experienced trauma will dissociate from it as a cope mechanism. there are not so extreme examples as entertainment/ video games/ fictional stories people will entertain fictions to cope with the reality of their shitty lives.

>>22584310
>Kant was wrong about everything REEEEEEEEEEE
ROTFL

>>22584310
>Quantum mechanics is the only source of progress in metaphysics after philosoplebs failed to achieve anything in that field for more than two millennia.
Hegel is laughing his ass off on the astral plane

Discussion between Bernardo and Joscha Bach would be cool

>>22577429
Bastardo Kastrate looks like he likes little boys.

>>22584487
>can't win
>resorts to defamation
the seething is unreal

>>22584487
grifter physiognomy

>>22584539
seethe more faggot

>>22581003
>psychiatrists
>appeal to authority
>the fucking psychiatrists are the authority
At least quote someone proper working in the field to help the patients, not fill pharma pockets while maiming people for life.

>>22583431
Yeah but people who believe Langan's claims have no way of knowing that.

>>22584487
>>22584539
Never heard of this guy, but I'm gonna check him out now. Gotta have something worthwhile to say if his enemies resort to acting like this.

>>22585138
>Gotta have something worthwhile to say if his enemies resort to acting like this.
ikr. why do they hate him so much?

>>22585551
Because we hate pseudoscience and cults and see what they’ve done to society and our loved ones.

>>22585717
>pseudoscience
what is the demarcation problem?
>cults
society is basically a cult built of cults

>>22586106
sophistry.

>>22586216
>t. literal retard

>>22586254
t. brainwashed cultist

>>22586216
>>22586254
>>22586260

Focus on the truth, please. Focus on how to find valid truth. Focus on enhancing your sense of benevolence. Let's try to be friends and understand each other.

>>22586260
>forgets to green text
>calls himself a cultist
the jokes write themselves

>>22586269
>>22586260

Just apologize to him and get back to advanced, long-form discussion!
You both should apologize, AND forgive each other for any miscommunications.

Try to actually find understanding with your opponent. Comprehend their position in full, and perhaps your mind will simply change.

>>22578859
>evolution
Which theory? Oken, Cuvier or Darwin?

>>22580291
Nobody cares

>>22580924
you "mental illness isnt real posters" are some of the most retarded posters on this entire website. The flat earth retards have more cognitive function than you. At least they have arguments and can support their position. You idiots you pull shit right of your asshole when you clearly have no clue what you are talking about and throw it at people

>>22580924
I thought was Borderline Personality

>>22586269
green texting your "t." is fairly recent phenomenon and generally only applies when you post a pic representing who you are posting too newfag. Lurk moar and stop being such a try hard, also NTA

>>22584524
that was my first post itt faggot. I don't need to "win" against this charlatan, I don't need to compete with him at all, everytime I heard him participating on the Curt Jewmungle podcast he got schooled by people of very modest intellect. The only one he could manage was that verbose buffoon Langan. They should start a podcast together in fact, at least Langan could learn how to grift more professionally from him.

>>22586430
stfu faggot