/lit/ - Literature

>>4467424
NO, EMOTIONS AND ANTI-EMOTIONS ARE DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED.

>>4467431

what are anti-emotions?

>>4467439
"ANTI-EMOTIONS" ARE THE DIAMETRICAL OPPOSITION OF EMOTIONS; WHICH ARE DISTINCT FROM "FEELINGS"

FOR EXAMPLE: AUTISM

Emotions are perfectly logical. They are biochemical reactions obeying the laws of physics. Humans are biological robots.

>>4467424
Even logic is predicated on emotion. Emotions tell us how much we value each potential outcome of a decision, and logic lets us reach that outcome and maximize our emotional well-being. I think there are very few instances where emotion and logic would lead us to opposite conclusions

ARE PAIN AND MATH DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED?

>>4467481
Math is painful.

>>4467424
no not at all. example:

driving fast cars make me feel an emotion: happiness
i use logic to then plan my life so i can drive really fast cars as much as i can to maximize my personal emotional well-being

there are likely problems with this statement, but hows this: emotion is an outcome, logic is a method

>>4467487
"FOR YOU"

WHAT IS EVERYBODY YELLING ABOUT?

WHERE IS THE TRIPFAG WHO ALWAYS TYPES IN CAPS? SOMEONE NEEDS TO TELL HIM WHAT'S HAPPENING HERE.

>>4467424
how have i never heard of this qt before? goddamn

>>4469282
She's the girl in 'The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo'. Even if you'd seen the film I doubt most people would look her up because she's scary in that film.

Speaking of which are Stieg Larssons 'Millenium' books any good? I've been meaning to check them out ever since I saw the film of the first one but haven't gotten round to it yet.

>>4469267
please tell me i'm not the only one who read that in bane's voice

>ARE EMOTION AND LOGIC DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED?

YES.

EMOTIONS ARE BODILY; PHYSICAL, LOGIC IS MENTAL; NONPHYSICAL.

>>4469896

YOU ARE CONFLATING MIND, AND BRAIN.

>>4469864
Mental is physical, nerd.

>>4467424
Not diametrically. There's some overlap where the two, logic and emotion, agree. However, when an emotional decision is a logical decision, it's not logical because it followed any logic; the two just happen to agree.

>>4469898
The brain is the physical object whose partial function is thought, which forms the mind. Ergo, it's physical. Now that I put it in words it seems to be a non sequitur. Statement retracted. You're right.

Where's the gif from?

>>4469912

"HER" (2013).

IT IS AN AWFUL "MOVIE", BUT CERTAIN TYPES OF PERSONS MAY OVERLY LIKE IT.

>>4469912
The film Her

>>4469898

There are some that distinguish between mind, intelligence, and intellect, and the mind is the lowest of those three distinctions.

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-09-06/science-of-spirituality/29773797_1_intellect-intelligence-periodicals-and-publications

>>4470010

SO?

>>4469999
Hey quadbitch, why do you think 'Her' is an awful movie?

>>4470034

IT IS EARNESTLY NAIVE & MAWKISH, AND PERSONALLY; SUBJECTIVELY, I DISLIKE SCARLETT JOHANSSON'S VOICE.

>>4470022

It was related, and interesting, in my opinion. Why does there have to be a reason beyond that?

>>4470042
that's because you are an 'anti-semite'.

>>4470042
hey man, I really like your music why are you on /lit/ go do something with ur talent

>>4470042

I didn't think the film was as good as critics and denizens of /tv/ have said it was but it was entertaining. It looked nice too.

Logic's only utility is to serve emotion.

Noun's only noun is to adjective noun.

No, but emotions tend to disregard consistency, whereas logic depends on it

>>4470154
everything begins with an idea

>>4469293

I read the first two. Don't waste your time. The first one is pretty good but there are a loose ends that never get tied(I know because I wiki'd it) in the third book because the author died before he could finish writing the series - it was supposed to have a few more books.

>>4469898
THEY ARE TWO MODES OF THE SAME PHENOMENA. THE MIND IS PHYSICAL.

>>4470617

>>4469898
>he's not a metaphysical materialist
top pleb

>>4470628
TYPICAL RETARDED DUALIST POSTING REDDIT MEME IMAGES INSTEAD OF FORMULATING A COUNTER-ARGUMENT.

>>4470632
Not that guy, but why are you trying to be such an ugly-ass eyesore on /lit/? Drop trip and take off the caps. I promise you'll get far better responses to your input.

>>4470617
if my mind is so physical where is what i am thinking of your post circa thirty seconds ago

you can only reply by pointing

>>4470636
I DO WHAT I WANT WHEN I WANT YOU COCKEYED PORCHMONKEY.

>>4470642
ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE. WE HAVE NOT COMPLETELY REVERSED ENGINEERED PRECISE 1:1 MAPPING OF QUALIA AS OF YET, BUT THAT IS NOT AN ARGUMENT AGAINST THE IDENTITY THEORY. WE HAVE BROCA'S AREAS. WE HAVE PENFIELD'S EXPERIMENTS.

>>4470636
> I promise you'll get far better responses to your input.
He means you won't get any responses at all

>>4470649
>we have no figured it out yet but we will therefore the mind is physical

>>4470642
If my beer is so physical, where is all the fizz that i had thirty seconds ago?

>>4470652
I HAVE ALREADY HAD "THREE" RESPONSES. "YOU WON'T GET ANY RESPONSES AT ALL" IMPLIES I WON'T GET "ONE" OR MORE. I ALREADY HAD "ONE" OR MORE RESPONSES BY THE TIME YOU RESPONDED THUS RENDERING HIS STATEMENT FALSE AND YOURS REDUNDANT. THANKS FOR THE REPLY DEEP AND EDGY SELF PROCLAIMING WORTHY-TRIP.

>>4470656
IN YOUR STOMACH OBVIOUSLY. I THINK A BETTER ANALOGICAL REFUTATION WOULD BE "IF WATER IS SO PHYSICAL, WHERE IS ALL THE FLUID THAT TURNED HARD WHEN THE TEMPERATURE DROPPED?"

>>4470649
>ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE

subject goes in subject field

oooh deep&edgy got burned by the newbie

u gun get got gurl, u made the shitlist (it's long but there's always room for more)

>>4470662
THERE IS NO WAY TO UNDERSTAND MENTAL CAUSATION WITHOUT PHYSICAL CAUSATION; IT DEFIES THE CAUSALLY CLOSED PHYSICAL UNIVERSE AS WE KNOW IT. THERE IS NO WAY TO UNDERSTAND PHYSICAL CAUSATION WITHOUT MENTAL CAUSATION; IT DEFINES THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE AS WE KNOW IT. IF I ALTER THE PHYSICAL BRAIN, MENTAL CAUSATION IS ALTERED ALONGSIDE IT 100% OF THE TIME; IT IS CLEAR THAT THE MIND SUPERVENES ON THE BRAIN IN THE SAME MANNER THAT WATER SUPERVENES ON H2O ARRANGED IN A CERTAIN WAY. CHANGE THE ARRANGEMENT OF H2O AND YOU GET STEAM, ICE, ETC. CHANGE THE ARRANGEMENT OF THE BRAIN AND YOU GET DIFFERENT MENTAL EFFECTS. BY CAUSAL EXCLUSION, THE MIND BEING SUPERVENIENT ON THE BRAIN IS RENDERED ONE AND THE SAME BY ALEXANDERS DICTUM.

THANKS FOR THE REPLY.

>>4470661
Hey, faggsy, you forgot the Caps on.
There's only one thing worse than being Rei and it's emulating Rei.

Sorry for the off-topic post, but this thread itself is shit anyway, so I don't think anything will be lost with some derailing.

>>4470675
>THANKS FOR THE REPLY.

ur a charmer

i briefly read the rest of your post but then promptly forgot it. i will find the memory at some later point and hang it on my wall in your memory.

>>4470686
"REI" DOES NOT EXIST AS A CONCRETE ENTITY. "REI" IS AN ATTITUDE, A WAY OF LIFE. THE REASON THAT YOU ARE TRIBULATED BY MY POSTS IS BECAUSE YOU HELD THE UNWARRANTED PRESUPPOSITION THAT "REI" IS A SINGULAR, CONCRETE ENTITY. "REI" IS AN ABSTRACTION, ONE WHICH IS ABLE TO VICARIOUSLY LIVE THROUGH THE BODY OF AS MANY MORTALS AS IT AFFECTS.

>>4470693
So it's more like some Autistically Transmitted Disease?
Damn, it's worse than I expected then...

>>4470655

either troll or religious person detected

(worthless pieces of shit)

>>4470693
I kind of want to read your posts but the caps puts me off doing it.

mate people have remembered me for the approx. four years I have been here, two of which I have maintained only a fleeting presence. i can guarantee you that the moment you drop that faggoty effeminate trip no-one will ever bother to search the archives for so much as a single forgettable line of text you have stammered out here. now as far as what you are now yammering on about, the preceding statements anon and I made were under the condition that you dropped trip, you have not dropped trip so it is irrelevant, you have had responses but only with the use of a tripcode. And as far as your laughable identity theory drivel is concerned, forget about it. The concept of mind is in now way, besides that of dogmatism, capable of being reduced to a physical relation in the way you are talking about, you need only look at the wide variety of mannerisms it is employed in in everyday life (people do not have two brains and yet almost everyone intuitively understands the statement "I am in two minds") or its poetical uses in art to see that, nor is Superman as a concept reducible to the individual Clark Kent and vice versa, nor would we somehow not consider creatures with significantly different physical structures who demonstrated features we historically associate with a mind to not in fact have them simply because they do not have human brains. And this qualia shit is equally nonsense, there is nothing to map because there is no such thing as qualia, it is merely a poetical means of emphasizing some experience.

>>4470693
>"REI" IS AN ATTITUDE, A WAY OF LIFE.

>>4470714
Remembering for being a dick and having posted a lot (I remember other trips like Quentin or Fagulous) doesn't mean anybody gives a shit about you, or even worse, searches the archives to find anything posted by you. Don't get me wrong, that guy is a worthless faggot, but you are not much better than him.

>>4470714
>PEOPLE HAVE X, I X
WHO ARE "PEOPLE"? HOW DO YOU KNOW THIS? HOW CAN I BE SURE OF YOUR TESTIMONY? HUME SAID BELIEF IS CARRIED BY CONSTANT CONJUNCATION AND CORRELATIVE OF THE STRENGTH IS A DETERMINATE OF HOW STRONG THE BELIEF IS. MY PAST CONSTANT CONJUNCTIONS OF TESTIMONY AND TRUTH-VALUE HAVE CONCLUDED POORLY. MY BELIEF IN YOUR TESTIMONY IS CONCLUDED POORLY. ANYTHING YOU SAY WHICH IS COUNTER-FACTUAL CANNOT BE TRUSTED.

>I CAN GUARANTEE YOU COUNTER-FACTUAL X
THE FUTURE DOES NOT EXIST AND SO WHAT YOU ARE SAYING IS LITERALLY SENSELESS.

>MY OPINION ABOUT THE MIND X ASSERTED DOGMATICALLY
LOL

>(people do not have two brains and yet almost everyone intuitively understands the statement "I am in two minds")
PEOPLE CAN UNDERSTAND ALL SORTS OF MODAL COUNTER-FACTUALS WHICH HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH REALITY.

>CLARK KENT/SUPERMAN
MASKED MAN FALLACY

>HUMAN BRAINS
I DID NOT CLAIM IT WAS LIMITED TO HUMAN BRAINS DID I? THE BRAIN IS MULTIPLY REALIZABLE.

>And this qualia shit is equally nonsense, there is nothing to map because there is no such thing as qualia, it is merely a poetical means of emphasizing some experience.
HOW ARE YOU DIFFERENTIATING BETWEEN THE BLACK CHARACTERS YOU ARE LOOKING AT RIGHT NOW? IT'S DUE TO A PHENOMENAL CONTRAST OF SUBJECTIVE COLOUR EXPERIENCE; THAT INEFFABLE EXPERIENCE WHICH IS TITLED QUALIA. WE CAN TALK ABOUT IT THROUGH ITS RELATIONS, BUT NOT ABOUT IT IN ITSELF.

NICE ATTEMPT AT DENNETTIAN ARGUMENTATION ONE-OH-ONE, MR DEEP AND EDGY SELF PROCLAIMED WORTHY-TRIP.

THANKS FOR THE REPLY.

THANKS FOR THE REPLY DEEP AND EDGY SELF-PROCLAIMED WORTHY-TRIP.

>>4470714
fuck you, you will always be a shit placeholder for the real D&E, you will never be as skilled as him, you are a useless waste of bandwidth and oxygen, no one will remember your posts
fuck off, stan

so how is going around with a stick up your ass trying to get tripfags to not trip working for you these days btw

I want the real D&E back

>>4470744
>WHO ARE "PEOPLE"?
Everyone who makes worthwhile posts on the board.
>HOW DO YOU KNOW THIS?
I've been here a long time and gotten a good feel for the board's culture and trends.
>HOW CAN I BE SURE OF YOUR TESTIMONY?
You don't have to be sure of anything, nor am I asking you to be. I am the boss here, the most important person. I don't go around proving things to anyone.
>MY PAST CONSTANT CONJUNCTIONS OF TESTIMONY AND TRUTH-VALUE HAVE CONCLUDED POORLY.
Belief, like causation, implies, if not facticity, then a certain reliability of the interpretation of past experiences, or in your case constant conunctions of testimony and truth-value. I assume in your case this will be impossible because you are appear to be severely retarded and certainly not to be trusted with interpreting your own prior experiences.

>THE FUTURE DOES NOT EXIST AND SO WHAT YOU ARE SAYING IS LITERALLY SENSELESS
If it were literally senseless you would not be capable of interpreting it in the first place in order to say of it that it was senseless. This is why all statements of senselessness are misleading.

>LOL
It's okay to be dogmatic when you're the smartest guy in the room.

>MASKED MAN FALLACY
That's not at all relevant to what I said. What I said is that the concept of superman, which is not simply a physical identity, any more than Clark Kent is reducible to a physical identity, is not reducible to the latter. There is no confusion over the identities of either unless you are capable of demonstrating how the concept superman is entirely reducible to clark kent.

>HOW ARE YOU DIFFERENTIATING BETWEEN THE BLACK CHARACTERS YOU ARE LOOKING AT RIGHT NOW? IT'S DUE TO A PHENOMENAL CONTRAST OF SUBJECTIVE COLOUR EXPERIENCE
Which is a nice and poetical way of saying that light off a the screen is reflecting on my eyes and various parts of my body are responding to that stimulus. Where there is supposed to be some sort of singular experience here captured under the term 'qualia' that is not redundantly supervenient on the physical processes transpiring is for you to demonstrate.
>WE CAN TALK ABOUT IT THROUGH ITS RELATIONS
Which is true, except there is no "it" to talk about
>BUT NOT ABOUT IT IN ITSELF.
Clearly, for reasons above, not for the hokey handwaving and mysticism you are advocating.

>NICE ATTEMPT AT DENNETTIAN ARGUMENTATION ONE-OH-ONE
Dennett is equally deluded in his ideas about mind, but at least he is not an idiot enough to be taken in by spiritualism, if that is his position, it's been a while since I even glanced at any of this tedious nonsense that comes under the rubrick of philosophy of mind.

>>4470792
>Everyone who makes worthwhile posts on the board.
THATS IMPOSSIBLE TO CALCULATE DUE TO THE ANONYMITY AND EPHEMERALITY OF THE BOARD SO WHAT YOU SAID IS LITERALLY SENSELESS, AGAIN.

>I've been here a long time and gotten a good feel for the board's culture and trends.
IVE GOTTEN A "FEEL" IS AN EMOTIVE RESPONSE NOT ROOTED IN LOGIC.

>You don't have to be sure of anything, nor am I asking you to be. I am the boss here, the most important person. I don't go around proving things to anyone.
FIRST OF ALL THATS CONTRADICTORY BECAUSE THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE CURRENTLY ATTEMPTING AND SECONDLY SELF PROCLAMATION OF AUTHORITY IS A DEFENCE MECHANISM FOR INFERIORITY-COMPLEX.

>Belief, like causation, implies, if not facticity, then a certain reliability of the interpretation of past experiences,
NO IT DOES NOT AT ALL. I CAN BELIEVE THINGS WHICH ARE NOT RELIABLE AT ALL, PHINEAS GAGE DID.

>If it were literally senseless you would not be capable of interpreting it in the first place in order to say of it that it was senseless.
SENSELESS LITERALLY MEANS "UNABLE TO BE SENSED". IT DOES NOT ONTOLOGICALLY EXIST AND CANNOT THEREFORE BE SENSED. ANY STRING OF WORDS CAN BE PUT TOGETHER TO REFER TO AN ABSTRACTION, THAT DOES NOT INFER ONTOLOGICAL EXISTENCE. THE ABSTRACTION "4" DOES NOT REFER TO ANY CONCRETE ENTITY, IT IS THEREFORE SENSELESS TO ASSERT IT'S TRUTH-VALUE OR ANYTHING RELATED TO ITS TRUTH-VALUE, LIKEWISE WITH THINGS IN THE FUTURE.

>It's okay to be dogmatic when you're the smartest guy in the room.
DUNNING-KRUGER EFFECT

>That's not at all relevant to what I said.
ACTUALLY IT IS. YOU ARE DICHOTOMISING CLARK KENT AND SUPERMAN UNDER THE ASSUMPTION THAT THEY ARE NOT TWO MODES OF THE SAME PHENOMENA BECAUSE YOU ONLY HAVE ACCESS TO ONE (CLARK KENT). THIS IS THE SIMILAR ISSUE WITH KNOWING OTHER "MINDS" (SUPERMAN) DUE TO THE FIRST PERSON AUTHORITY AND PRIVACY OF ONES OWN MIND. NOW BECAUSE YOU DONT HAVE ACCESS TO ANOTHER'S MIND OR SUPERMAN, THAT DOES NOT MEAN THEY ARE NOT ONE AND THE SAME.

>concept of superman, which is not simply a physical identity,
BUT IT IS.

>any more than Clark Kent is reducible to a physical identity, is not reducible to the latter.
BUT IT IS.

THE MORNING STAR AND THE EVENING STAR ARE THE SAME THING.

>Which is a nice and poetical way of saying that light off a the screen is reflecting on my eyes and various parts of my body are responding to that stimulus.
WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY "LIGHT"? HOW DO YOU KNOW IT EXISTS? OH BECAUSE IT IS CAUSALLY EFFICACIOUS FOR QUALIA (WHAT IT'S LIKE TO EXPERIENCE SOMETHING).

>Which is true, except there is no "it" to talk about
I KNOW MY OWN PRIVATE QUALIA, AS I'M SURE EVERYBODY ELSE WILL VOUCH. INEFFABILITY ISNT EQUAL TO NON-EXISTENCE. EPISTEMOLOGY DOESNT DETERMINE METAPHYSICS.

>>4470846
>THATS IMPOSSIBLE TO CALCULATE
Why should it need to be calculated? The proper course of study here is scholarly interpretation of all the posts, especially those by or relating to within the archiver, and I suspect such a study would lead to certain trends on the board being disclosed with regard to the influence of my posts. It's by no means an issue of calculation but rather informed estimation, which is entirely sensical.

>WHAT YOU SAID IS LITERALLY SENSELESS, AGAIN.
If it were literally senseless you would not be capable of interpreting it in the first place in order to say of it that it was senseless. This is why all statements of senselessness are misleading.

>IVE GOTTEN A "FEEL" IS AN EMOTIVE RESPONSE NOT ROOTED IN LOGIC.
Of course it is, it's a familiarity rooted within social logic. Of course, all logic is at base the product of an emotion, because logic is historical and therefore embodied, so I guess you have no point to make either way.

>THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE CURRENTLY ATTEMPTING
No, I am not attempting to prove anything to you, you are free to take the statements I make or leave them. Insofar as you continue to consider them, however, I will continue to point out and correct any stupidities that you happen to express. This is not, however, a process of proof, nor is being so gracious as to explain something that you are ignorant to.

>SELF PROCLAMATION OF AUTHORITY IS A DEFENCE MECHANISM FOR INFERIORITY-COMPLEX
I doubt that's consistent with the general behaviour of anyone diagnosed with an inferiority complex, it rather belongs to a disorder more akin to narcissism. Either way, it does not follow that I am not thereby an authority.

>I CAN BELIEVE THINGS WHICH ARE NOT RELIABLE AT ALL
How do you know that's what you actually believed if your interpretation of that past experience of belief was not reliable? The same goes for Phineas Gage, although he seems to have been a bit more clever than you. I mean this is just a rehash of kripke's wittgenstein when it comes to quaddition, which I suppose itself is a hand-me-down from Hume, although I had not considered that when I originally posted. This is probably another reason why I am such a great poster, these things come so naturally to me.

>SENSELESS LITERALLY MEANS "UNABLE TO BE SENSED"
Senseles literally means to not have sense, a sense. If it meant what you said it meant you would not have sensed what I said in the first place in order to have said of it that it was senseless. Your red herring concerning ontological existence has no relevance to this exchange. That something has no corresponding fact in the world does not mean it has no sense with which to be interpreted, nor does the fact it has no truth value, although you are free to demonstrate other wise.

>DUNNING-KRUGER EFFECT
I have yet to see anyone demonstrate that anything otherwise is the case, and your buzzwords certainly will not do it for you.

(1/2)

>>4469864
>>4470649
>>4470714

So can we all agree tripfags are pretty much the most cancerous thing on /lit/ these days?

>>4470983
D&E go hard dough

>>4470846

>YOU ARE DICHOTOMISING CLARK KENT AND SUPERMAN UNDER THE ASSUMPTION THAT THEY ARE NOT TWO MODES OF THE SAME PHENOMENA BECAUSE YOU ONLY HAVE ACCESS TO ONE (CLARK KENT)
No, this is a barefaced misinterpretation of what I said. Social identities, which are constructs within a social context, are not reducible to a physical state in the manner you are discussing any more than minds are. To claim that the concepts of 'superman' and 'clark kent' are identical on the basis that they allegedly reduce to the description of a single physical organism is ludicrous, blatantly idiotic. Superman as a concept reflects both a number of ethics, an aesthetic, that one would not associate with Clark Kent, and vice versa. Equally there are any number of, men in the DC universe with black hair who can fly and lift skyscrapers, who are not identical to either Superman or Clark Kent, and that would stand even if they were physically identical. The same goes for mind, and this has nothing to do with privacy issues or being able to look into superman's mind.

>BUT IT IS
But it isn't, for reasons stated above.

>THE MORNING STAR AND THE EVENING STAR ARE THE SAME THING.
The morning star and evening star are fairly distinct astronomical concepts, which are entirely different to social identities and minds.

>I KNOW MY OWN PRIVATE QUALIA
What's there to know? Tell me something informative that a physical description of the underlying processes of the qualia doesn't tell me.

>EPISTEMOLOGY DOESNT DETERMINE METAPHYSICS.
Epistemology at its basic is metaphysics, but this is besides the point. In this case one doesn't need to determine a metaphysic, one simply needs to show that it adds nothing to one's understanding of anything and can therefore be removed without affecting any state of affairs.The concept of qualia does not contribute anything to understanding whatsoever.

>>4470983

>>4470952
>If it were literally senseless you would not be capable of interpreting it in the first place in order to say of it that it was senseless. This is why all statements of senselessness are misleading.
SOMETHING DOES NOT HAVE TO BE SENSIBLE TO BE ABLE TO BE TALKED ABOUT. THIS WAS ALREADY EVIDENCED WITH MY "4" EXAMPLE IN THE PREVIOUS POST.

>Of course it is, it's a familiarity rooted within social logic.
>SOCIAL LOGIC
LOL STOP

>Of course, all logic is at base the product of an emotion,
INTUITION ISNT SYNONYMOUS WITH EMOTION

>No, I am not attempting to prove anything to you
THIS BY ITSELF IS PROOF OR YOUR ATTEMPT TO PROVE THAT YOU'RE NOT PROVING ANYTHING. THANKS FOR THE REAFFIRMATION.

>This is not, however, a process of proof, nor is being so gracious as to explain something that you are ignorant to.
RED HERRING. THE QUOTE YOU WERE REPLYING TO WAS IN REGARDS TO YOUR SELF PROCLAMATION OF AUTHORITY, NOT THE ACCURACY OF MY POSTS.

>Either way, it does not follow that I am not thereby an authority.
NOR DOES IT FOLLOW THAT YOU ARE. THIS IS BESIDES THE TOPIC.

>How do you know that's what you actually believed if your interpretation of that past experience of belief was not reliable?
I DONT. IT DOESNT FOLLOW THAT YOU DO. OR OTHERS.

>Senseles literally means to not have sense, a sense.
>If it meant what you said it meant you would not have sensed what I said in the first place in order to have said of it that it was senseless.
WHY ARE YOU CONFLATING THE ABILITY TO SENSE A LINGUISTIC SYNTAX LIKE "FUTURE" AND "ASDFASDFSAD" WITH AN ONTOLOGICALLY NON-EXISTENCE REFERENT?

> and your buzzwords certainly will not do it for you.
BUZZWORD IS A BUZZWORD, AND IT WILL CERTAINLY NOT DO IT FOR YOU.

>>4471000
>Social identities, which are constructs within a social context,
>WHICH ARE "CONSTRUCTS"
"CONSTRUCTS" DO NOT HAVE ONTOLOGICAL EXISTENCE. THE LINGUISTIC APPELLATION YOU APPLY ONTO ONTOLOGICAL EXISTENCE IS IRRELEVANT TO THE ONTOLOGICAL OBJECTHOOD'S TRUTH-VALUE. SUPPOSING THAT WHEN YOU USE THE WORDS "CLARK KENT" AND "SUPERMAN" YOU ARE REFERRING TO THE SAME OBJECT, THEN BOTH CLARK KENT AND SUPERMAN ARE PHYSICALLY REDUCIBLE.

>Superman as a concept reflects both a number of ethics, an aesthetic, that one would not associate with Clark Kent, and vice versa
YOU ARE EXACTLY COMMITTING THE MASKED MAN FALLACY HERE. THIS IS WHAT IT IS. YOU ARE CONFLATING THE APPELLATION YOU ARE APPLYING ONTO THE ONTOLOGICAL OBJECT WITH THE OBJECT ITSELF. THE OBJECT IS THE SAME REGARDLESS OF THE TITLE YOU APPLY, AND CONCEDING THAT YOU CAN APPLY TWO TITLES TO THE SAME OBJECT DOES NOT CHANGE THE TRUTH-VALUE OF THE OBJECT BEING ONE AND THE SAME WITH THE TITLE. THE MIND AND THE BRAIN ARE ONE AND THE SAME.

>The morning star and evening star are fairly distinct astronomical concepts, which are entirely different to social identities and minds.
THE MORNING STAR AND THE EVENING STAR HAVE THE SAME ONTOLOGICAL OBJECT AS THEIR REFERENT. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THEM IS THEIR RELATIVITY TO THE HUMAN OBSERVER. NOW YOU MAY SEE THE MORNING STAR (MY BRAIN) BECAUSE YOU ARE RELATIVE TO MY MY MIND EXTERNAL TO ME, BUT I CAN SEE THE EVENING STAR (MY MIND) BECAUSE HAVE A DIFFERENT RELATION TO THE MIND THAN YOU WHICH ALLOWS ACCESS. THEY HAVE THE SAME ONTOLOGICAL EXISTENCE, THIS IS MY ARGUMENT.
THE MIND AND THE BRAIN ARE ONE AND THE SAME ONTOLOGICAL OBJECT AND THE SOCIALLY CONSTRUCTED PROPERTIES WHICH YOU ARE APPLYING TO THEM AND TO CLARK KENT ARE IRRELEVANT TO THIS TRUTH VALUE.

> Tell me something informative
I JUST TOLD YOU ITS PRIVATE.

ANSWER MY QUESTION ABOUT LIGHT.

>Epistemology at its basic is metaphysics,
LOL NO
EPISTEMOLOGY IS HOW WE COME TO KNOW ABOUT METAPHYSICS. ITS NON SEQUITOR THAT METAPHYSICS IS DETERMINED BY EPISTEMOLOGY

>In this case one doesn't need to determine a metaphysic, one simply needs to show that it adds nothing to one's understanding of anything and can therefore be removed without affecting any state of affairs.
NICE ARBITRARY PRAGMATIC ASSUMPTION YOU TRIED SLIPPING THERE. WHETHER IT CHANGES ANYTHING OR NOT IS DETERMINED EPISTEMOLOGICALLY. THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH METAPHYSICS. METAPHYSICS CONCERNS THE ACTUALITY OF THINGS, NOT HOW WE PERCEIVE THEM TO BE.

>The concept of qualia does not contribute anything to understanding whatsoever.
THATS BECAUSE YOU HAVE AN ARBITRARY PRAGMATIC CRITERIA WHICH IS DISREGARDING TRUTH-VALUE

>>4470983
Yeah, I agree. Tripfagging on /lit/ is cancerous and those that do it are fucking scum.

>>4471009
>SOMETHING DOES NOT HAVE TO BE SENSIBLE TO BE ABLE TO BE TALKED ABOUT.
Yes, it does. Something has to have a sense, no matter how abstract, in order to be interpreted in the first place, otherwise it is intelligible within the bounds of subjective experience. If someone speaks to me in gibberish, I at least understand a sense that it is gibberish. You are free to demonstrate that anything I am saying is gibberish, but you are making no headway in saying that it is senseless. All your 4 example achieved was to divert maybe two or three lines between at most to an issue over truth value that has no relevance to this discussion. I can be sensible in the sense I have already mentioned without the need for my statements to correspond to some state of affairs in the world.

>THIS BY ITSELF IS PROOF OR YOUR ATTEMPT TO PROVE THAT YOU'RE NOT PROVING ANYTHING
I am simply responding to you, that's not the same as proving something. There is probably something wrong with if you think that someone responding to you is thereby trying to prove something to you. I have, after all, nothing to prove to someone like you.

>THE QUOTE YOU WERE REPLYING TO WAS IN REGARDS TO YOUR SELF PROCLAMATION OF AUTHORITY
No it wasn't. It was replying to the quote "THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE CURRENTLY ATTEMPTING", in which you displayed that you were ignorant to whether I was proving something to someone like you or not. How is that a red herring?

>NOR DOES IT FOLLOW THAT YOU ARE.
Nor do I need to prove to anyone that I am.
>THIS IS BESIDES THE TOPIC.
Red herring, this is perfectly on topic. I suspect you are simply trying to weasel out of this particular issue because you have no ground to stand on and no means of compelling me into a position of having to prove myself.

>I DONT
Hence your belief that your belief in my testimony is concluded poorly is unreliable and therefore not itself not a reliable means of determining whether what I say that is counter-factual (or even factual, for that matter) can be trusted.
>DOESNT FOLLOW THAT YOU DO. OR OTHERS.
I'm not the one attempting to prove anything though, so that is unimportant, I need only demonstrate that your reasons for not believing my testimony are poorly founded.

>WHY ARE YOU CONFLATING THE ABILITY TO SENSE A LINGUISTIC SYNTAX LIKE "FUTURE" AND "ASDFASDFSAD" WITH AN ONTOLOGICALLY NON-EXISTENCE REFERENT?
Where did I do that?

>BUZZWORD IS A BUZZWORD, AND IT WILL CERTAINLY NOT DO IT FOR YOU.
As I said, I don't have to do anything in this thread besides pick apart your fool notions, which I have perfectly good at so far.

>>4471081
>Something has to have a sense, no matter how abstract, in order to be interpreted in the first place, otherwise it is intelligible within the bounds of subjective experience.
NOW YOU ARE CONFLATING SENSIBILITY WITH UNDERSTANDING.
PLEASE LOOK AT THE DETONATIVE DEFINITION OF SENSIBLE. GIBBERISH CAN BE SENSED BY THE EARS STILL. THE FUTURE CAN NEVER BE SENSED.

>I am simply responding to you, that's not the same as proving something.
ASSERTING THAT STATEMENT THAT YOU DID AMOUNTS TO AN ATTEMPT AT PROOF, AS IS RESPONDING.


>No it wasn't.
>>4470846
">You don't have to be sure of anything, nor am I asking you to be. I am the boss here, the most important person. I don't go around proving things to anyone.
FIRST OF ALL THATS CONTRADICTORY BECAUSE THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE CURRENTLY ATTEMPTING "

>Nor do I need to prove to anyone that I am.
WELL THEN YOUR ASSERTION IS RENDERED A PROJECTION OF THE DUNNING KRUGER EFFECT.

>Red herring, this is perfectly on topic.
WHETHER OR NOT YOU THINK YOU HAVE "AUTHORITY" ON THIS BOARD IS BESIDES THE TOPIC OF TRUTH-VALUE OF THE IDENTITY THEORY.

>Hence your belief that your belief in my testimony is concluded poorly is unreliable and therefore not itself not a reliable means of determining whether what I say that is counter-factual (or even factual, for that matter) can be trusted.
WHETHER OR NOT SOMETHING IS "KNOWN" (AS AN ABSOLUTE) IS NOT EQUIVALENT TO WHETHER IT CAN BE TRUSTED OR NOT. PLEASE INTO POPPER.

>I'm not the one attempting to prove anything though, so that is unimportant,
DISPROOF AMOUNTS TO A PROOF. YOU WERE ATTEMPTING TO DISPROVE IDENTITY THEORY. THIS AMOUNTS TO A PROOF AGAINST IT.

>, I need only demonstrate that your reasons for not believing my testimony are poorly founded.
IM NOT CONCERNED WITH YOUR TANGENTIAL TOPIC OF AUTHORITY, THE ORIGINAL TOPIC WHICH YOU RED HERRING'D WAS IDENTITY THEORY. AND DONT BOTHER REPLYING ATTEMPTING TO RE-ASSERT IT WAS AND THAT'S WHY YOU ARE REPLYING BECAUSE IF IT IS I DO NOT CARE. MY CARE IS WITH DEFENDING IDENTITY THEORY WHICH WAS MY ORIGINAL POST.

>Where did I do that?
IN THE WHOLE QUOTE THAT I REPLIED.

>>4471044
>"CONSTRUCTS" DO NOT HAVE ONTOLOGICAL EXISTENCE
Ontological existence does not have ontological existence. I am surprised I let you get away with this one for so long, actually. You are free to demonstrate in what manner the concept of ontological existence correspond to anything in the world, otherwise it is open to the same criticsm you are levelling against constructs.

>SUPPOSING THAT WHEN YOU USE THE WORDS "CLARK KENT" AND "SUPERMAN" YOU ARE REFERRING TO THE SAME OBJECT, THEN BOTH CLARK KENT AND SUPERMAN ARE PHYSICALLY REDUCIBLE.
Yes, but that is merely one use of those words. If all that people meant when they used the word 'mind' was the physical object of a brain, then the identity theory of mind would be sufficient. However, many people use the term 'mind' in a variety of different manners and contexts with different meanings, nor would they use the term mind simply as 'human brain' with regard to extraterrestrials with vastly different features yet who demonstrated traits we associate with the mind. All this I said several hundreds of posts earlier to which you still have no sufficient reply.

>YOU ARE CONFLATING THE APPELLATION YOU ARE APPLYING ONTO THE ONTOLOGICAL OBJECT WITH THE OBJECT ITSELF
There is no object itself, nor do any of my claims apply to the object but rather the different social constructs that emerge from it, hence the irrelevance of the masked man fallacy.
>THE OBJECT IS THE SAME REGARDLESS OF THE TITLE YOU APPLY,
There is no object in-itself (you are an imbecile if you thought I'd let you get away with that). Demonstrate to me a perspective of the object that is not necessarily subjective or a god's-eye-view. Also, consider phenomena such as the Heisenberg effect which factors in the effect of the observer on the observed.
>CONCEDING THAT YOU CAN APPLY TWO TITLES TO THE SAME OBJECT DOES NOT CHANGE THE TRUTH-VALUE OF THE OBJECT
Again, truth value has no relevance here. It is true that superman is clark kent and vice versa, but that does not mean either as concepts (you use the term 'title' which is a strawman in the sense that concepts are much more complex and meaning-laden with many more uses than simple titles) are reducible to the identical physical object and so it is with the brain.

>THE MORNING STAR AND THE EVENING STAR HAVE THE SAME ONTOLOGICAL OBJECT AS THEIR REFERENT.
Yes, and there are virtually no uses of those terms beyond a few poetical ones which warrant it being entirely possible to reduce their concepts to that of physical objects without such concepts being perniciously reductive (i.e. without leading to a number of situations in which the use of those concepts is totally incoherent or nonsensical in the traditional sense). The same is not the case with either superman or minds, and your nonsense about relativity and externality is neither here nor there when it comes to that point.

>>4471142
>Ontological existence does not have ontological existence
LOL NICE FALSE TAUTOLOGY

>You are free to demonstrate in what manner the concept of ontological existence correspond to anything in the world, otherwise it is open to the same criticsm you are levelling against constructs.
DEMONSTRATION IS EPISTEMOLOGICAL. YOU MISUNDERSTAND THAT METAPHYSICAL CORRESPONDS TO THING IN ITSELF.

>Yes, but that is merely one use of those words.
THE TOPIC OF CONVERSATION ISNT THE MEANING OF LANGUAGE AND ITS USE. ITS WHETHER THE MIND AND THE BRAIN ARE IDENTICAL. PEOPLE CAN REFER TO THEIR BALLSACK AS A BRAIN AND SAY "DONT MIND ME!", BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THE MIND AND THE BRAIN IN THE TOPIC OF THIS DISCUSSION ARE NOT ONE AND THE SAME.
IF YOU ARGUE FOR REDUCTIVE MATERIALISM AS YOU WERE ATTEMPTING EARLIER, THEN YOU ARE ARGUING AROUND ME AND SHOULD JUST ASSERT THAT THE MIND DOES NOT EXIST AND THE BRAIN IS ALL THERE IS. THERE IS NO SUPERMAN, THERES ONLY CLARK KENT.
IF THATS THE CASE I WILL REPLY ACCORDINGLY. IF YOU BELIEVE THERE IS A MIND, THEN YOU ARE CONCEDING THERE ARE QUALIA.

> nor would they use the term mind simply as 'human brain'
YOU MISUNDERSTAND. I USE THE TERM "BRAIN" ABSTRACTLY TO REFER TO ANY AGGREGATION OF NERVE CELL BODIES WITH MULTIPLE LAYERS OF ARRANGEMENT. IT DOES NOT HAVE TO BE HUMAN.

>There is no object itself,
ARE YOU SAYING THAT VENUS ISNT A PLANET? BECAUSE THATS WHAT THE MORNING AND EVENING STAR REFER TO. VENUS' RELATION TO THE HUMAN OBSERVER. THAT BALL OF MASS IS VENUS IRRELEVANT OF YOUR DISTANCE.

>Also, consider phenomena such as the Heisenberg effect which factors in the effect of the observer on the observed.
QUANTUM MECHANICS ARE IRRELEVANT TO MEREOLOGICAL PLANETS.

>and there are virtually no uses of those terms beyond
AGAIN RECEDING INTO PRAGMATIC IMPLICATIONS WHICH ARE IRRELEVANT TO TRUTH-VALUE.

HOWS YOUR HABERMAS COMING? LOL


TO BE REAL IS TO BE CAUSALLY EFFICACIOUS. MONEY CAN BE MULTIPLY REALIZED AS DIGITAL NUMBERS, AS NOTES, AS COINS, AS ANYTHING BARTERED. BUT WHAT MAKES MONEY REAL IS THAT THE PHYSICAL REALIZERS ARE CAUSALLY EFFICACIOUS. IF THERE WERE NO PHYSICAL REALIZERS, THERE WOULD BE NO MONEY. IF THERE WERE NO TRUTH-VALUE TO THE OBJECTHOOD OF CLARK-KENT AND SUPERMAN BEING THE SAME, I WOULD BE ABLE TO CUT SUPERMANS ARM OFF WITHOUT CUTTING CLARK KENTS ARM OFF. WE CAN PERCEIVE THINGS IN ALL SORTS OF WAYS BUT THEY ARE IRRELEVANT TO WHAT IS AND ISNT REAL. THE MIND IS ONE AND THE SAME AS THE BRAIN.

THANKS FOR THE REPLY.

>>4471044
>EPISTEMOLOGY IS HOW WE COME TO KNOW ABOUT METAPHYSICS

There is no objective knowledge in philosophy. All of metaphysics boils down to "I choose to believe the fairy tale which most appeals to me". Metaphysics is untestable and pointless pseudo-intellectualism, an infantile waste of time.

In this ITT: philosotards getting mad @ SCIENCE /b/cauze SCIENCE __OBJECTIVELY__ disproved their "muh feelings" bullshittery.

Deal with it!!

>>4471190
>There is no objective knowledge in philosophy.
THERE IS NO OBJECTIVE KNOWLEDGE AT ALL. THATS A TAUTOLOGY. THERE IS NO KNOWLEDGE AT ALL. THERE ARE ONLY HIERACHIES OF BELIEF.

>All of metaphysics boils down to "I choose to believe the fairy tale which most appeals to me".
STRAWMAN.

>Metaphysics is untestable and pointless pseudo-intellectualism, an infantile waste of time.
ANOTHER UNEDUCATED STRAWMAN.

AS FOR THAT PIC, PRETTY MUCH EVERY SCIENTIST AND PHILOSOPHER OF SCIENCE WORTH HIS SALT AGREES YOU CANNOT HAVE ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY ABOUT ANYTHING. NICE THOUGHT-TERMINATING CLICHE IDIOT.

>>4471044
>I JUST TOLD YOU ITS PRIVATE.
come on mate i won't tell anyone. But this is nothing more than an argument for private language, which is too ridiculous for words. If you indeed feel something by it then you should be able to state it, seeing as what you felt would necessarily have to be interpreted through words, which are social. Otherwise there would be no fact of the matter over what you felt or perhaps whether you felt it at all. So there is no qualia that is private, or rather there is no qualia of which one can say anything definite about. It is contentless, you are saying nothing.

>EPISTEMOLOGY IS HOW WE COME TO KNOW ABOUT METAPHYSICS
Epistemology at its base assumes fundamental starting points which have no factual basis and are therefore metaphysical claims. It is therefore ultimately only an extension of metaphysics, if one were to adopt different metaphysical claims about knowledge one would have a different epistemology, hence the epistemologies of Kierkegaard or William James.

>WHETHER IT CHANGES ANYTHING OR NOT IS DETERMINED EPISTEMOLOGICALLY.
As I have shown, at the level of this exchange there is no essential difference. My knowledge claim is derived from a metaphysical notion or axiom, i.e. one that cannot be derived from epistemology alone (like Occam's razor) about superfluousness.
>METAPHYSICS CONCERNS THE ACTUALITY OF THINGS, NOT HOW WE PERCEIVE THEM TO BE.
There is no fundamental difference, note again such phenomena as the heisenberg effect.

>THATS BECAUSE YOU HAVE AN ARBITRARY PRAGMATIC CRITERIA WHICH IS DISREGARDING TRUTH-VALUE
Truth-value has nothing to do with it, although you are correct in me saying that your waffle being empty is based off an arbitrary judgment about how epistemological claims should be. You are entirely free to have epistemological claims that include empty waffle, but I would not be surprised if people did not heckle you for it.

>>4471112
>NOW YOU ARE CONFLATING SENSIBILITY WITH UNDERSTANDING.
PLEASE LOOK AT THE DETONATIVE DEFINITION OF SENSIBLE. GIBBERISH CAN BE SENSED BY THE EARS STILL. THE FUTURE CAN NEVER BE SENSED.
Your notion of sensibility has no relevance in this thread, it's about time you learned that. All we are talking about in this thread that is worth talking about on this issue is sensicality or sense, purely in the linguistic meaning. No-one fucking cares that you can't touch the future or smell it or whatever nonsense you want to bring up, that has no impact on anything anyone is saying. But talking about the future is entirely sensical, not only demonstrated by the fact that everyone does it all the time with little problem, but also because what they are referring to is a constructed narrative and not a thing in itself, so your point is irrelevant. The future is sensical.

>ASSERTING THAT STATEMENT THAT YOU DID AMOUNTS TO AN ATTEMPT AT PROOF, AS IS RESPONDING.
Begging the question.

>>4471198
>THERE IS NO OBJECTIVE KNOWLEDGE AT ALL
All of science and math is objective truth.

>STRAWMAN.
You might want to look that word up in a dictionary before using it incorrectly again, you dimwitted simpleton.

>ANOTHER UNEDUCATED STRAWMAN.
A philosotard calls a scientist uneducated? My lels are in orbit.

>PRETTY MUCH EVERY SCIENTIST AND PHILOSOPHER OF SCIENCE
Appeal to authority and argumentum ad populum are fallacies.

>YOU CANNOT HAVE ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY ABOUT ANYTHING
Yes, I can. Everything in science and math is 100% true.

>>4471208
Kindergarten tier sophistry doesn't solve the hard problem of consciousness. Try again when you grew up and learned some science.

>>4471208
>If you indeed feel something by it then you should be able to state it
ANSWER MY QUESTION ABOUT LIGHT.

>Epistemology at its base assumes fundamental starting points which have no factual basis and are therefore metaphysical claims.
NON SEQUITOR THAT EPISTEMOLOGY D E T E R M I N E S METAPHYSICS.

>It is therefore ultimately only an extension of metaphysics
YES I AGREE.

>As I have shown, at the level of this exchange there is no essential difference.
GOOD POINT THIS IS IRRELEVANT TO THE IDENTITY THEORY AND IS PERSISTING YOUR CLARK KENT STRAWMAN.

>heisenberg effect.
STILL CONCERNS EPISTEMOLOGY.

>Your notion of sensibility has no relevance in this thread, it's about time you learned that.
I AM PERSISTING YOUR TRAIN OF THOUGHT ABOUT THE ONTOLOGICAL EXISTENCE OF THE FUTURE. ALTHOUGH I DO AGREE IT IS IRRELEVANT TO THE TRUTH-VALUE OF THE IDENTITY THEORY, SO I WILL DISMISS PERSISTENCE OF IT UNLESS REGAINS RELEVANCE.

>But talking about the future is entirely sensical,
YOU ARE CONFUSING THE USE OF THE WORD 'SENSE' AS IN 'MAKING SENSE' (IE BEING INTELLIGIBLE) WITH "SENSIBLE" AS I WAS USING IT, LITERALLY MEANING ABLE TO BE PERCEIVED BY THE SENSE ORGANS.

>>4471213
>All of science and math is objective truth.
DEFINE "SCIENCE" AND "OBJECTIVE TRUTH" BEFORE I TAKE YOUR CLAIMS SERIOUSLY.

>You might want to look that word up in a dictionary before using it incorrectly again, you dimwitted simpleton.
I UNDERSTAND WHAT IT MEANS, AND I USED IT CORRECTLY. YOU PORTRAYED WHAT METAPHYSICS IS.

>A philosotard calls a scientist uneducated?
DEFINE "SCIENTIST".

>Appeal to authority and argumentum ad populum are fallacies.
ITS ONLY A FALLACY IF IT IS NOT AN AUTHORITY AMONG THE MANNER WHICH ONE IS SPEAKING.

>Yes, I can. Everything in science and math is 100% true.
WHAT GROUNDS DO YOU HAVE FOR THIS ASSERTION?

>>4471213
I'm about to finish my bachelors in math and physics, everything in math is objectively true not so much science.

>>4471213
>All of science and math is objective truth.
That's significantly up for debate, not least because of accounting the way our perceptions, experience, senses, and consciousness color what we see.

>>4471244

>everything in math is objectively true

Mathematics is part of a language game. The terms in mathematics are defined exactly as any word is defined and they have no tangible existence. Math is objective truth to math.

>>4471112
>WELL THEN YOUR ASSERTION IS RENDERED A PROJECTION OF THE DUNNING KRUGER EFFECT.
You can render it as anything you want, that doesn't necessarily make it an accurate projection.

>WHETHER OR NOT SOMETHING IS "KNOWN" (AS AN ABSOLUTE) IS NOT EQUIVALENT TO WHETHER IT CAN BE TRUSTED OR NOT
The same can be said about your initial comment, what's your point?
>ANYTHING YOU SAY WHICH IS COUNTER-FACTUAL CANNOT BE TRUSTED.

>YOU WERE ATTEMPTING TO DISPROVE IDENTITY THEORY.
What? No, I'm simply showing why it's too ridiculous for anyone to consider it a useful theory for explaining the concept of mind. That's not disproving it as theory of mind. You're free to use it, it's just really fucking stupid, as I've shown, and will get you into a lot of muddled situations.

>IM NOT CONCERNED WITH YOUR TANGENTIAL TOPIC OF AUTHORITY,
You sure responded to it lots
>THE ORIGINAL TOPIC WHICH YOU RED HERRING'D WAS IDENTITY THEORY.
We've been talking about both my authority and identity theory throughout, where has the red herring occurred besides your own red herring by insinuating there was a red herring.

>
>WHY ARE YOU CONFLATING THE ABILITY TO SENSE A LINGUISTIC SYNTAX LIKE "FUTURE" AND "ASDFASDFSAD" WITH AN ONTOLOGICALLY NON-EXISTENCE REFERENT?
I did not do that, although you are free to demonstrate how I did that by referencing the quote and explaining how I did so.

>>4471188
>LOL NICE FALSE TAUTOLOGY
You are misleading the sense in which I use ontological existence initially, maybe deliberately or maybe because you are a moron. The concept of ontological existence itself does not have ontological existence, ontological existence is itself nothing more than a concept, unless you wish to demonstrate a correspondence to ontological existence that itself is not merely a concept.

>DEMONSTRATION IS EPISTEMOLOGICAL
And how is the epistemological demonstration not merely a concept with no metaphysical correspondence to the thing itself? There is no thing in itself, there are merely subject-bound interpretations of the thing, although you are free to demonstrate otherwise. Using the word "epistemological" is not really sufficient, however.

>THE TOPIC OF CONVERSATION ISNT THE MEANING OF LANGUAGE AND ITS USE
No, but that is integral to understand the concept of mind.
> PEOPLE CAN REFER TO THEIR BALLSACK AS A BRAIN AND SAY "DONT MIND ME!", BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THE MIND AND THE BRAIN IN THE TOPIC OF THIS DISCUSSION ARE NOT ONE AND THE SAME.
The topic of discussion is what's being called into question in the first place, you don't get to arbitrarily define mind as a physical identity as the starting point of the discussion, it's what's being discussed. Again, I am saying that the concept of mind as you put forward in this thread is reductive and therefore not a particularly good explanation of it, although considering what we said earlier about arbitrary pragmatic epistemology you're entitled to be happy with your retarded theory of mind while we all laugh at you.

In a very direct understanding and definition of Emotions, you would need to break down how they function.
Feelings- being rooted in physical sensations, are the primary. You cant lie about how you feel to your body. Emotions are the stories you tack on to those feelings- completely in your own mind, and at your disposal.

Therefore logic, being based in fact, and emotion being based on opinion, are diametrically opposed.

>>4471267
>I'm simply showing why it's too ridiculous for anyone to consider it a useful theory for explaining the concept of mind.
YOU HAVEN'T SHOWN WHY YET AT ALL. PLEASE SHOW.

>The concept of ontological existence itself does not have ontological existence
ONTOLOGICAL EXISTENCE MEANS MIND INDEPENDENT EXISTENCE. IF YOU ARE GOING TO POSITIVELY ASSERT THAT IT DOESNT EXIST THEN YOU MUST SHOW HOW AND WHY. WAITING FOR THE IDIOTIC IDEALIST ARGUMENTS.

> There is no thing in itself, there are merely subject-bound interpretations of the thing,
THE THING IN ITSELF IS THAT WHICH IS CAUSALLY EFFICACIOUS ON OUR EXPERIENCES. THAT WHICH PRECEDES OUR EXISTENCE. THAT WHICH CAUSES OUR MENTAL STATES TO CHANGE.

>you don't get to arbitrarily define mind as a physical identity as the starting point of the discussion, it's what's being discussed.
OBVIOUSLY THE WORD MIND AND BRAIN BEING USED IN REFERENCE TO IDENTITY THEORY OBVIOUSLY HAVE A PRESET MEANING WHICH SI THE ONE WHICH I WAS ADOPTING AND NOT A SOLITARILY ARBITRARY ONE. THE MIND IS THE AGGREGATE TERM FOR PHENOMENAL QUALITIES. THE BRAIN IS THE PHYSICAL REALIZER OF SAID PHENOMENAL QUALITIES.

> Again, I am saying that the concept of mind as you put forward in this thread is reductive and therefore not a particularly good explanation of it,
"IS NOT PARTICULARLY GOOD" IS NOT A PARTICULARLY GOOD ARGUMENT.

>>4470744
>>4470792
>>4470846
>>4470952
>>4471000
>>4471009
>>4471044
>>4471081
>>4471112
>>4471142
>>4471188
>>4471198
>>4471208
>>4471238
>>4471267
>>4471293

You two come off as a pair of Betta fish fighting and also very stupid. It kind of perfectly exemplifies the massive overlap that exists among logic and emotion and how they can inhibit and fuel one another because hey, doesn't it seem logical to defend your ego at the cost of mild anger or frustration?

It isn't.

>>4471188
>IF YOU ARGUE FOR REDUCTIVE MATERIALISM AS YOU WERE ATTEMPTING EARLIER
I did not do that at any stage

>SHOULD JUST ASSERT THAT THE MIND DOES NOT EXIST AND THE BRAIN IS ALL THERE IS
The mind does not exist as an object in the world besides in the physical sense of being a brain, but this is not the only sense in which the term 'mind' is used, nor is it all the concept of mind implies.
>THERE IS NO SUPERMAN, THERES ONLY CLARK KENT
Both superman and clark kent are socially constructed identities which have varying meanings for different people and different uses in general though they both are taken to correspond to the same thing in a physical sense.

>IF YOU BELIEVE THERE IS A MIND, THEN YOU ARE CONCEDING THERE ARE QUALIA
I believe in a mind only in the sense that I have been talking about, that it is a concept people use in a multitude of ways, sometimes to refer to the brain, sometimes poetically, sometimes with regard to functions that one would properly associate with the brain. None of this directly implies the belief in the existence of qualia.

>I USE THE TERM "BRAIN" ABSTRACTLY TO REFER TO ANY AGGREGATION OF NERVE CELL BODIES WITH MULTIPLE LAYERS OF ARRANGEMENT.
Dogs have brains, as most animals do, and yet they do not have what most would say to be a mind. Zombies often have brains and yet they are claimed to be mindless. Perhaps, considering this idiotic nonsense you have just said, you too have a brain but not what we would call a mind. Or rather, maybe you have a highly primitive mind, like dogs. Need I say more on how this reference is totally inadequate in a variety of circumstances?

>ARE YOU SAYING THAT VENUS ISNT A PLANET?
Venus is a concept, derived from roman mythology, that we have applied to sensory stimulus along with a geographical concept of a planet, or whatever type of concept it is supposed to be. Again, this simply proves my point once more. The concept of venus is not reducible to a barren, acidic planet, it has many uses in society, such as being a roman goddess.

>QUANTUM MECHANICS ARE IRRELEVANT TO MEREOLOGICAL PLANETS.
No, but they are relevant to our discussion about being able to perceive things as they are.

>IF THERE WERE NO TRUTH-VALUE TO THE OBJECTHOOD OF CLARK-KENT AND SUPERMAN BEING THE SAME
You cannot cut the arm off a social construct, therefore your truth value here has no relevance. You cut it off the physical object, but that is neither true nor false because you have no way of establishing how that physical act corresponds to a truth or falsity value. It is neither here nor there. Cutting the arm off would necessarily effect a change in the way in which both social identities, (which refer to the same physical object but are not entirely reducible to that identity), function.

>>4471225
> hard problem of consciousness
There is no such thing as consciousness, therefore no problem. That would imply there is a conscious that is apart from a being-conscious-of.

>>4471318
>you two
>implying

>>4471322
>I did not do that at any stage
YOU ARGUED THAT QUALIA DOESN'T EXIST.

>The mind does not exist as an object in the world besides in the physical sense of being a brain
THATS EXACTLY WHAT IM ASSERTING. WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY MIND?

I DONT CARE ABOUT YOUR CLARK KENT ANALOGY. TELL ME WHAT -YOU- MEAN BY THE MIND IN THE CONTEXT OF IDENTITY THEORY.

>I believe in a mind only in the sense that I have been talking about,
YOU HAVEN'T TALKED ABOUT THE SENSE WHICH YOU BELIEVE IN IT. WHAT IS A MIND?

>I believe in a mind only in the sense that I have been talking about, that it is a concept people use in a multitude of ways, sometimes to refer to the brain, sometimes poetically, sometimes with regard to functions that one would properly associate with the brain. None of this directly implies the belief in the existence of qualia.
ANSWER MY QUESTION ABOUT LIGHT. WHY DO YOU BELIEVE IN A 'BRAIN'?

>ogs have brains, as most animals do, and yet they do not have what most would say to be a mind.
I DISAGREE.

>Zombies often have brains and yet they are claimed to be mindless.
ZOMBIES ARE STUPID MODALITIES THAT DONT HAVE ONTOLOGICAL EXISTENCE. STOP TRYING TO RED HERRING AGAIN AND STICK WITH THE MIND AND BRAIN, FIRSTLY BY DEFINING YOUR AMBIGUOUS CONCEPTS.

>Venus is a concept, derived from roman mythology, that we have applied to sensory stimulus along with a geographical concept of a planet, or whatever type of concept it is supposed to be.
WHICH IS THE OBJECT INDEPENDENT OF YOUR DISTANCE.

>The concept of venus is not reducible to a barren, acidic planet, it has many uses in society, such as being a roman goddess.
CONGRATULATIONS ON READING WITTGENSTEIN. EVERYBODY KNOWS AND NOBODY CARES THAT TERMS HAVE A MULTITUDE OF REFERENTS. WE ARE SPECIFICALLY USING WORDS IN A SPECIFIC CONTEXT HERE.

IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO AVOID THE AMBIGUITIES DEFINE THE CONCEPTS MIND AND BRAIN WHICH YOU HAVE USED IN EVERY POST WITHOUT JUSTIFICATION.

>No, but they are relevant to our discussion about being able to perceive things as they are.
MICROPHYSICS ARE SPASTIC; MACROPHYSICS ARE NOT.

>You cannot cut the arm off a social construct,
READY? IM NOW IMAGINING CLARK KENT WITH ONE ARM.

>therefore your truth value here has no relevance.
THE TRUTH VALUE IS WITHIN THE OBJECT ITSELF - AND I CAN CUT HIS ARM OFF TOO.
GOOD JOB DUCKING MY QUESTION ABOUT LIGHT.

>>4471238
>WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY "LIGHT"?
That depends on the context.I mean certain stimuli that burn into my eyeballs when I look in certain directions, whose use I learnt from the way others said it.
>HOW DO YOU KNOW IT EXISTS?
The fact or non fact of its existence has nothing to do with its use in language. I get a stimulus, my response is to tell someone to dim the lights. There is nothing that needs to be added to this explanation. The concept of qualia adds nothing to that statement, the result is the same either way and therefore you can get rid of the concept altogether with no change.

>NON SEQUITOR THAT EPISTEMOLOGY D E T E R M I N E S METAPHYSICS.
No, that's a misunderstanding. Metaphysics determines epistemology, and it does follow for if one follows the chain of reason of an epistemology back far enough one will necessarily find an axiom that has only a metaphysical justification. We seem to have mixed up the point here.

>YOU ARE CONFUSING THE USE OF THE WORD 'SENSE' AS IN 'MAKING SENSE' (IE BEING INTELLIGIBLE) WITH "SENSIBLE" AS I WAS USING IT, LITERALLY MEANING ABLE TO BE PERCEIVED BY THE SENSE ORGANS
Your use of the word sensible is fucking stupid in the context of this thread because not being able to smell the future has fucking nothing to do with anything anyone's been talking about, and I was right about the future literally making sense.

>>4471293
>YOU HAVEN'T SHOWN WHY YET AT ALL. PLEASE SHOW.
Consider: "To claim that the concepts of 'superman' and 'clark kent' are identical on the basis that they allegedly reduce to the description of a single physical organism is ludicrous, blatantly idiotic. Superman as a concept reflects both a number of ethics, an aesthetic, that one would not associate with Clark Kent, and vice versa. Equally there are any number of, men in the DC universe with black hair who can fly and lift skyscrapers, who are not identical to either Superman or Clark Kent, and that would stand even if they were physically identical. The same goes for mind, and this has nothing to do with privacy issues or being able to look into superman's mind."
"Dogs have brains, as most animals do, and yet they do not have what most would say to be a mind. Zombies often have brains and yet they are claimed to be mindless. Perhaps, considering this idiotic nonsense you have just said, you too have a brain but not what we would call a mind. Or rather, maybe you have a highly primitive mind, like dogs. Need I say more on how this reference is totally inadequate in a variety of circumstances?"
None of which you have had a sufficient response to.

>ONTOLOGICAL EXISTENCE MEANS MIND INDEPENDENT EXISTENCE.
Mind-independent existence itself does not have ontological existence, it's a concept. The only way you can say it exists is that it is in the world as a mental object constituted by linguistic signs within the heads of philosophers, scientists, etc. It is language, is it not a thing-in-itself. You are free to demonstrate otherwise.

>>4471359
> mean certain stimuli that burn into my eyeballs when I look in certain directions, whose use I learnt from the way others said it.
WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY EYEBALLS? WHY DO YOU BELIEVE THEY EXIST?

>The fact or non fact of its existence has nothing to do with its use in language. I get a stimulus, my response is to tell someone to dim the lights. There is nothing that needs to be added to this explanation. The concept of qualia adds nothing to that statement, the result is the same either way and therefore you can get rid of the concept altogether with no change.
WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY SOMEONE, BY DIM, AND WHY DO YOU BELIEVE THESE THINGS EXIST? WHAT ARE 'YOU' AND WHY DO YOU BELIEVE 'YOU' EXIST?

>Your use of the word sensible is fucking stupid in the context of this thread because not being able to smell the future has fucking nothing to do with anything anyone's been talking about, and I was right about the future literally making sense.
IF YOU GO BACK FAR ENOUGH IT IS INTELLIGIBLE BUT THIS IS NOW IRRELEVANT.

>"To claim that the concepts of 'superman' and 'clark kent' are identical on the basis that they allegedly reduce to the description of a single physical organism is ludicrous, blatantly idiotic.
LUDICROUS AND BLATANTLY IDIOTIC? PLEASE SHOW WHY.

>Superman as a concept reflects both a number of ethics, an aesthetic, that one would not associate with Clark Kent, and vice versa.
SEE MY PREVIOUS POST. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ACTUALITIES HERE.

>Mind-independent existence itself does not have ontological existence, it's a concept. T
IF YOU'RE GOING TO POSITIVELY ASSERT THAT YOU MUST PROVE WHY.

>>4471318

"Male bettas are particularly territorial in that they are competing both for females and food, but, when either the female or the male is unready to spawn, the female is simply competition for limited food resources."

/lit/ mode unlocked?

No, they both kind of need each other to balance out. With pure logic, you could just start treating people as means to an end and become a complete sociopath. With pure emotion, you could start killing people just because you feel like it. Either one could be a bad thing all on its own.

>>4471293
>THE THING IN ITSELF IS THAT WHICH IS CAUSALLY EFFICACIOUS ON OUR EXPERIENCES.
The thing itself is not itself causally efficacious because causal efficacy is a concept within language, not a property of a thing-in-itself. Or perhaps part of the structure of subjective experience.Kant says hi on this point, although quantum physics has something to say about that. Either way, causal efficacy is not a property of the thing in itself. There is no thing in itself to begin with because it presupposes an objective, outside perspective in the world apart from all others, one that cannot exist unless one is a christian or something similar.

>THE MIND IS THE AGGREGATE TERM FOR PHENOMENAL QUALITIES. THE BRAIN IS THE PHYSICAL REALIZER OF SAID PHENOMENAL QUALITIES.
That is not equivalent to the thesis of identity theorists and certainly not in the spirit of what you have been arguing in this thread.

>"IS NOT PARTICULARLY GOOD" IS NOT A PARTICULARLY GOOD ARGUMENT.
No, but the various reasons I've been giving for why your identifying of the mind with the brain as overly reductive is.

>>4471371
>WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY EYEBALLS?
I use the term in a variety of contexts in response to certain social prompts. The metaphysical question of their existence is really irrelevant as to whether the term functions or not.

>WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY SOMEONE, BY DIM, AND WHY DO YOU BELIEVE THESE THINGS EXIST? WHAT ARE 'YOU' AND WHY DO YOU BELIEVE 'YOU' EXIST?
What I mean by any of those terms is just as well represented by my immediate response above. I use any of those terms as appropriate within society as I have been taught to, the question as belief and identity have little to do with it.

>LUDICROUS AND BLATANTLY IDIOTIC? PLEASE SHOW WHY.
Because the concept of superman clearly represents any number of ethical and aesthetic notions that the concept of Clark Kent does not.

>WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ACTUALITIES HERE.
What actualities?

>IF YOU'RE GOING TO POSITIVELY ASSERT THAT YOU MUST PROVE WHY.
Because concepts do not exist in the world besides as linguistic signs in the heads of scientists, academics, etc, that would be a category mistake.

going to bed now don't think I won't respond again just because i'm going to sleep mate i'll bump the thread all day every over the next week if i have to you little shit stirrer

>>4471401
>I CANT DESCRIBE ANY OF THE WORDS I USE BECAUSE I USE THEM IN A VARIETY OF CONTEXTS

WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY WORDS AND WHY DO YOU BELIEVE THEY EXIST?

>>4471238
>DEFINE "SCIENCE" AND "OBJECTIVE TRUTH" BEFORE I TAKE YOUR CLAIMS SERIOUSLY.
How old are you? Did you never go to school? Are you diagnosed with an intellectual disability or why do you fail to understand words every 6 year old knows?

>I UNDERSTAND WHAT IT MEANS, AND I USED IT CORRECTLY.
No, you didn't. You used it incorrectly and your inability to recognize when you were wrong only provides further evidence of your underdeveloped cognitive skills.

>DEFINE "SCIENTIST".
Someone who believes in scientism.

>ITS ONLY A FALLACY IF IT IS NOT AN AUTHORITY AMONG THE MANNER WHICH ONE IS SPEAKING.
There are no authorities in philosophy because philosophy is nothing more than the pseudo-intellectual musings of preschoolers. Every infant could be equally regarded as an authority on philosophy.

>WHAT GROUNDS DO YOU HAVE FOR THIS ASSERTION?
I have science and math education.

>>4471322
>There is no such thing as consciousness, therefore no problem.
You don't have subjective experience like normally developed people do? Somehow it doesn't even surprise me anymore, given the enormous extent of brain damage you proved in this ITT. What neurological disorder are you suffering from?

>That would imply there is a conscious that is apart from a being-conscious-of.
Is irrelevant semantical strawman bickering the only thing a philosotard without science education can do? Pathetic.

>>4472315
Give me an example of subjective experience that is not reducible to physical processes in the manner in the manner in which qualia is capable of being reduced and thereby made redundant.

>Is irrelevant semantical strawman bickering
how is it any of these things?

>>4472319

WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY WORDS AND WHY DO YOU BELIEVE THEY EXIST?

>>4472321
>WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY WORDS
the bog standard definition should be sufficient

> WHY DO YOU BELIEVE THEY EXIST?
What do you mean by the terms belief and existence here?

>>4472319
Show me the mechanism by which qualia arise from neuronal activation. Where did you publish your solution to the hard problem of consciousness? Why hasn't this been covered by the media yet? I can already imagine the head lines: "Teenager with down syndrome solves mystery that got scientists stumped for millennia". Your Nobel prize is on the way.

>>4472308
>How old are you? Did you never go to school? Are you diagnosed with an intellectual disability or why do you fail to understand words every 6 year old knows?
STRAWMAN RED HERRING AD HOMINEM BRAVO

>No, you didn't. You used it incorrectly and your inability to recognize when you were wrong only provides further evidence of your underdeveloped cognitive skills.
STRAWMAN RED HERRING AD HOMINEM BRAVO

>Someone who believes in scientism.
PLEASE DEFINE THE SAID THING (SCIENTISM) WHICH IS THE THING WHICH THE "SCIENTIST" IS MADE AN ARCHETYPE BY BELIEVING IN.

>There are no authorities in philosophy because philosophy is nothing more than the pseudo-intellectual musings of preschoolers. Every infant could be equally regarded as an authority on philosophy.
I SAID SCIENTIST OR PHILOSOPHER.

>I have science and math education.
ME TOO. AND I DISAGREE. PROVE WHY YOU'RE RIGHT.

>>4472329
I ASKED WHAT YOU MEANT BY THEM. PLEASE POST THE DEFINITION THAT YOU MEAN.

>What do you mean by the terms belief and existence here?
WHAT ARE YOU REFERRING TO WHEN YOU USE THE SYMBOLS "WORD"?

>>4472334
>>Show me the mechanism by which qualia arise from neuronal activation.
THAT IS NONSENSICAL AND EQUIVALENT TO SAYING SHOW THE "MECHANISM" BY WHICH WATER ARISES FROM H2O ARRANGED IN A CERTAIN WAY.

IT DOESN'T "ARISE" - THEY ARE ONE AND THE SAME.

>>4472334
>Show me the mechanism by which qualia arise from neuronal activation
They don't, because there is no such thing.

> Where did you publish your solution to the hard problem of consciousness?
It's not my solution.

>Why hasn't this been covered by the media yet?
Because the media is right in not caring about something as idiotic as this.

>I ASKED WHAT YOU MEANT BY THEM. PLEASE POST THE DEFINITION THAT YOU MEAN.
How are either terms relevant for the discussion we're having?

>WHAT ARE YOU REFERRING TO WHEN YOU USE THE SYMBOLS "WORD"?
Again, what relevance does this have to the discussion at hand? I am not willing to engage questions that are not directly related to what we have been talking about.

I've just found out that seeing people get REKT by posters who post in all caps gives me intense pleasure.

>>4472332
>STRAWMAN RED HERRING AD HOMINEM BRAVO
You used these words incorrectly. Please look them up in a dictionary or ask your mom what they mean.

>PLEASE DEFINE THE SAID THING (SCIENTISM) WHICH IS THE THING WHICH THE "SCIENTIST" IS MADE AN ARCHETYPE BY BELIEVING IN.
Why should I teach you things you failed to learn in elementary school? Do I look like a special ed teacher?

>I SAID SCIENTIST OR PHILOSOPHER.
And I explained why neither is an authority in the field of philosophy. Professional philosophers fail in their own field even harder than scientists attempting philosophy. They are lacking the logical inference skills, almost like you are lacking reading comprehension.

>ME TOO.
I highly doubt that. Passing your middle school biology class with a D doesn't qualify as science education.

>>4472341
HELLO PLEASE REPLY TO THIS POST HERE >>4472332

THANK YOU DEEP AND EDGY SELF PROCLAIMED WORTHY-TRIP.

>>4472344
I already did i just forgot to link the post. probably because you are both idiots and i unconsciously lumped all your shitposts in together

>>4472343
You argue like a kid m80, just saying.

>"haha you're in a lower school than me"

>>4472343
THERE IS NO "CORRECT" USE OF WORDS. YOUR IDIOT PRESUMPTION ABOUT A CORRESPONDENCE THEORY OF TRUTH IS OUTDATED, FRIENDO.

>Why should I teach you things you failed to learn in elementary school? Do I look like a special ed teacher?
IF YOU CANNOT DEFINE THE WORD IN THE MANNER THAT YOU ARE ATTEMPTING TO USE IT, THEN IT IS LITERALLY MEANINGLESS. BY SELF PROCLAIMING THAT YOU ARE A "SCIENTIST" AND THAT "SCIENCE" IS 100% OBJECTIVE, THIS STRING IS AS INTELLIGIBLE AS "SADF SAD FAS DF ASDGA SDSHG" UNTIL YOU EXPLAIN THE REFERENT OF THESE TERMS WHICH YOU ARE REFERRING TO.

>And I explained why neither is an authority in the field of philosophy.
NO ACTUALLY YOU SAID PHILOSOPHY. BUT I'LL CONCEDE.

>Professional philosophers fail in their own field even harder than scientists attempting philosophy.
HOW DO YOU "FAIL" AT PHILOSOPHY?


> They are lacking the logical inference skills,
IT DOES NOT TAKE A GENIUS TO UNDERSTAND BAYESIANISM.

>I highly doubt that. Passing your middle school biology class with a D doesn't qualify as science education.
STRAWMAN. AND YOU MISSED THE SECOND PART WHERE IT SAID "AND I DISAGREE. PROVE WHY YOU'RE RIGHT."

>>4472345
WAITING FOR YOUR REPLY DEEP AND EDGY.

>>4472349
>WAITING FOR YOUR REPLY DEEP AND EDGY.

see the latter part of
>>4472341

>>4472338
This is a highly absurd and very uneducated claim. Please explain how to test it scientifically, considering the fact that subjective experience is private and therefore unobservable.

>>4472341
>They don't, because there is no such thing.
There is no such thing to you as subjective experience? You should get your brain checked by neuroscientists, so can finally find out how to identify p-zombies.

>It's not my solution.
Obviously, since you're not capable of thinking on your own.

>Because the media is right in not caring about something as idiotic as this.
Right, media is for celebrity gossip. I guess that's more on your level. Science would be too intellectual.

>>4472351
>le bazzinga

>>4472351
>You should get your brain checked by neuroscientists
None of this is necessarily, all that is necessary is a proper understanding of how language works.

>Obviously, since you're not capable of thinking on your own.
I'm the smartest, most original person in this thread, I simply don't waste time on problems that have already been solved.

>I guess that's more on your level.
As I said, I'm the smartest and most original guy in this thread.

>>4472350
MY MISTAKE.

>How are either terms relevant for the discussion we're having?
>Again, what relevance does this have to the discussion at hand?
IM ATTEMPTING TO DECONSTRUCT YOUR "NON EXISTENT" EPISTEMIC FACULTIES AND HOW YOU COME TO KNOW ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF THE BRAIN AS ASSERTED HERE >>4471000 VIS, " Tell me something informative that a physical description of the underlying processes of the qualia doesn't tell me."

>>4472351
THE CLAIM WAS FOUNDED BY LOGIC, NOT BY THE SCIENCES (WHICH RELY ON LOGIC). IT WAS A FORM OF ANALOGICAL REFUTATION. THE RELEVANTLY SIMILAR PROPERTIES OF WATER AND MIND IS THAT THEY BOTH SUPERVENE ON LOW LEVEL PHYSICAL REALIZERS.

>>4472351
THAT IS, UNLESS YOU WERE REFERRING TO THE SECOND PART WHEREIN I ASSERTED "IT DOESN'T "ARISE" - THEY ARE ONE AND THE SAME.", IN WHICH CASE MY REPLY HERE >>4470675 IS CERTAINLY FALSIFIABLE. TEST IT RIGHT NOW BY SHOOTING YOUR BRAIN, ALTERING YOUR BRAIN CHEMISTRY WITH DRUGS, OR ATTEMPTING TO COMMUNICATE WITH A CHILD.

>>4472351
Why can't you stop using ad Homs and raise the quality of your arguments. Pls get a trip so I can filter you.

>>4472361
>IM ATTEMPTING TO DECONSTRUCT YOUR "NON EXISTENT" EPISTEMIC FACULTIES AND HOW YOU COME TO KNOW ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF THE BRAIN AS ASSERTED HERE
I don't follow you, I don't say epistemic faculties don't exist in that post nor do I say anything about the existence of the brain or the brain itself.

>>4472365
SO WHAT ARE THE EPISTEMIC FACULTIES THAT YOU COME TO BELIEVE IN THE "PHYSICAL" WITH?

ITT people falling for /sci/tard bait

>>4472366
What relevance does that have to the discussion we're having? Stop trying to get me to jump through hoops to a conclusion you want mate it's not going to work.

>>4472368
RED HERRING. PLEASE ANSWER THE QUESTION.

>>4472370
>RED HERRING
How is it a red herring?

>>4472348
>argumentum ad hominem
And I'm not even arguing. I'm merely ridiculing and mocking - the only appropriate reaction to utter idiocy.

>>4472349
>THERE IS NO "CORRECT" USE OF WORDS. YOUR IDIOT PRESUMPTION ABOUT A CORRESPONDENCE THEORY OF TRUTH IS OUTDATED, FRIENDO.
This has nothing to do with linguistic prescriptivism, you nutty nitwit. Irregardless of pre- vs descriptivism words have a meaning by common consensus and if you use them incorrectly, you will be called out for your cognitvie deficits.

>IF YOU CANNOT DEFINE THE WORD IN THE MANNER THAT YOU ARE ATTEMPTING TO USE IT, THEN IT IS LITERALLY MEANINGLESS.
In other words what you're saying is "bawwwww she doesn't fall for muh semantical bullshittery red herrings". How about posting an actual argument instead? Stop pretending to be retarded.

>BY SELF PROCLAIMING THAT YOU ARE A "SCIENTIST" AND THAT "SCIENCE" IS 100% OBJECTIVE, THIS STRING IS AS INTELLIGIBLE AS "SADF SAD FAS DF ASDGA SDSHG" UNTIL YOU EXPLAIN THE REFERENT OF THESE TERMS WHICH YOU ARE REFERRING TO.
I'm sorry to hear that you have problems understanding the English language. If you ever want to learn it, you can start here: http://learnenglishkids.britishcouncil.org/en/

>NO ACTUALLY YOU SAID PHILOSOPHY. BUT I'LL CONCEDE.
What the fuck? Of course I said "philosophy" because that's what we're talking about. Is short term memory another function in which you're impaired?

>HOW DO YOU "FAIL" AT PHILOSOPHY?
How do you NOT fail at philosophy? Philosphy means failure because it can never produce objective results.

>IT DOES NOT TAKE A GENIUS TO UNDERSTAND BAYESIANISM.
Show me some more highly impressive vocabulary from your philosophy 101 class. (This was sarcasm, in case you didn't notice.)

>YOU MISSED THE SECOND PART WHERE IT SAID "AND I DISAGREE. PROVE WHY YOU'RE RIGHT."
Shifting the burden of proof is a fallacy.

>>4472371
IT IS A RED HERRING BECAUSE YOU ARE DIVERGING INTO THIS CURRENT THREAD OF WHY ITS A RED HERRING AS OPPOSED TO ANSWERING WHY YOU BELIEVE IN THE "PHYSICAL". YOU QUESTIONED WHAT RELEVANCE IT HAS TO THE DISCUSSION HERE.
THE RELEVANCE TO THE DISCUSSION HERE IS THAT YOU DENIED THAT QUALIA EXIST AND ALL THAT EXISTS IS THE PHYSICAL; BUT YOU ARE AVOIDING ANSWER MY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE EPISTEMIC FACULTIES YOU COME TO BELIEVE ABOUT THE PHYSICAL WITH BECAUSE YOU CAN ALREADY PRECONCEIVE THAT I AM RIGHT AND THAT YOU KNOW ABOUT THEM BY THEIR QUALITATIVE PROPERTIES (THEIR QUALIA); WHICH WILL THUS RENDER YOUR ORIGINAL ASSERTIONS AGAINST THE EXISTENCE OF QUALIA UNFOUNDED AND WRONG WHICH WOULD BE HURTFUL FOR YOU DUE TO IDENTIFYING YOURSELF WITH THAT TRIP.

>>4472374
>How do you NOT fail at philosophy? Philosphy means failure because it can never produce objective results.
How do you NOT fail at philosophy? Philosphy means failure because it can never produce objective results.

You do realise that is a philosophical claim on itself, right?
Or are you really that obtuse?

>>4472374
>In other words what you're saying is "bawwwww she doesn't fall for muh semantical bullshittery red herrings". How about posting an actual argument instead? Stop pretending to be retarded.
HOW ARE YOU SUPPOSING I COUNTER ARGUE AGAINST A CONCEPT WHICH YOU HAVEN'T DEFINED YET?

I'LL IGNORE THE REST OF YOUR PSEUDOTROLL POST AND ADDRESS THE POINTS YOU WOULD LIKE TO CONTEST AND PERHAPS LEARN SOMETHING FROM AN INTELLECTUAL SUPERIOR. THANKS FOR THE REPLY.

>>4472359
>None of this is necessarily, all that is necessary is a proper understanding of how language works.
We're talking about science, not philosophy. Keep your pseudo-intellectual musings on your facebook wall where you can discuss them with equally dysfunctional 13 year olds.

>I'm the smartest, most original person in this thread
Nope, that would be me. Nice try though.

>I simply don't waste time on problems that have already been solved.
How has it been solved? Scientific problems are not solved by preschool rhetorics.

>As I said, I'm the smartest and most original guy in this thread.
And I'm the smartest and most original girl in this ITT and I outperform you easily. Do you even have any education at all?

>>4472377
>IT IS A RED HERRING BECAUSE YOU ARE DIVERGING INTO THIS CURRENT THREAD OF WHY ITS A RED HERRING
That's not a red herring, I'm perfectly entitled to demand that you explain your reasoning for saying that what I am saying is a red herring, because unless your reasoning is soild you would be mistaken and thereby committing a red herring yourself.

>BUT YOU ARE AVOIDING ANSWER MY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE EPISTEMIC FACULTIES YOU COME TO BELIEVE ABOUT THE PHYSICAL WITH BECAUSE YOU CAN ALREADY PRECONCEIVE THAT I AM RIGHT AND THAT YOU KNOW ABOUT THEM BY THEIR QUALITATIVE PROPERTIES (THEIR QUALIA); WHICH WILL THUS RENDER YOUR ORIGINAL ASSERTIONS AGAINST THE EXISTENCE OF QUALIA UNFOUNDED AND WRONG WHICH WOULD BE HURTFUL FOR YOU DUE TO IDENTIFYING YOURSELF WITH THAT TRIP.
I am not avoiding answering your questions, I am simply refusing to answer them until you explain their relevance to the discussion at hand. If anything, your assumed inability to do so gives me even more reason not to indulge them because it suggests they are simply misleading.

I do not, in any case, see how your argument would demonstrate anything. I could grant that I believe what I do about physical phenomena through epistemic faculties in the traditional sense and none of this would be equivalent to accept the notion of qualia, because all of that process can be explained quite well without the concept of qualia adding or detracting to that explanation beyond in a poetical sense.

>>4472384
>ctrl+f 'RED HERRING'
>21 results

>>4472388
now 27

>>4472384
>>>/sci/

You are boring and can't argue for shit, sweetheart. Get a trip so we can filter you.

>>4472384
I am the smartest and most original guy in this this thread, sorry.

>>4472361
>THE CLAIM WAS FOUNDED BY LOGIC
You don't even know what logic means. Take a course on formal logic and stop abusing that word. Not every retarded idea you have while taking a shit qualifies as "logic" just because it emotionally appeals to you.

>NOT BY THE SCIENCES
The hard problem of consciousness is a scientific problem. Subjective experience happens and requires a scientific explanation.

>>4472363
You didn't even understand the problem, you fucking pleb. Even if we assume causation, that still doesn't explain how subjective experience arises. "Hurr durr it's physical" is not an appropriate answer. That's like going to CERN and telling them "lol I solved gravity xD it's definitely ... physical!!!" You are way too uneducated to talk about science. Stop dragging down the average intelligence of 4chan.

>>4472387
>I do not, in any case, see how your argument would demonstrate anything. I could grant that I believe what I do about physical phenomena through epistemic faculties in the traditional sense and none of this would be equivalent to accept the notion of qualia, because all of that process can be explained quite well without the concept of qualia adding or detracting to that explanation beyond in a poetical sense.
I CLEARLY EXPLAINED WHAT IT WOULD DEMONSTRATE. BY NOT REPLYING DIRECTLY YOU ARE ADMITTING THAT THE QUESTION WHICH I AM PROPOSING WILL UNDERMINE YOUR ARGUMENT.

>I could grant that I believe what I do about physical phenomena through epistemic faculties in the traditional sense
WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY "TRADITIONAL SENSE"?

>>4472394
>You don't even know what logic means.
LOGIC IS THE EXPRESSION OF THE LAWS OF THOUGHT.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_thought

>The hard problem of consciousness is a scientific problem. Subjective experience happens and requires a scientific explanation.
WHAT'S THE "HARD PROBLEM"? I ALREADY EXPLAINED THE MIND AND THE BRAIN ARE THE SAME THING. WHAT DO YOU NEED EXPLAINED TO YOU THIS TIME, SQUAREHEADED CHILD?

>>4472364
I never used an "ad hom". Educate yourself, fuckwit (<-- this wan't an "ad hom" either), and learn what ad hominem means.
http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html

>>4472380
>You do realise that is a philosophical claim on itself, right?
No, it isn't. It's just common sense.

>>4472399
>I never used an "ad hom".

You attacks the man and not the argument every time, get a trip pls, honey.

>>4472393
>I CLEARLY EXPLAINED WHAT IT WOULD DEMONSTRATE.
And I explained that what you demonstrated would not amount to a proof of qualia in any way, for reasons stated above.

>BY NOT REPLYING DIRECTLY YOU ARE ADMITTING THAT THE QUESTION WHICH I AM PROPOSING WILL UNDERMINE YOUR ARGUMENT.
I don't admit that, and I only indirectly replied to what you mentioned in order to demonstrate that it would not undermine what I am discussing. And even if it did, although it does not, it would not undermine anything I have already demonstrated about why the identity theory is overly reductive, which has taken up the majority of our discussion.

>WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY "TRADITIONAL SENSE"?
I should have been clearer, I meant that I could grant that I believe what I do about physical phenomena through using epistemic faculties to interpret stimula with socially conditioned beliefs and none of this would be equivalent to accepting the notion of qualia

>>4472381
>HOW ARE YOU SUPPOSING I COUNTER ARGUE AGAINST A CONCEPT WHICH YOU HAVEN'T DEFINED YET?
I apologize for overestimating your intellectual capacities. I incorrectly expected you to possess at least the verbal intelligence of a 6 year old. Turns out I was wrong in my assumption. And no, you're not supposed to "counter argue" against anything. In fact you cannot argue against science, facts and logic. I'm not arguing, I'm explaining why you and your posts are retarded.

>I'LL IGNORE THE REST
In other words: "I have the right to remain an uneducated dullard and there's nothing you can do about it!!!"
Okay....

>>4472405
>I don't admit that, and I only indirectly replied to what you mentioned in order to demonstrate that it would not undermine what I am discussing. And even if it did, although it does not, it would not undermine anything I have already demonstrated about why the identity theory is overly reductive, which has taken up the majority of our discussion.
I AM ATTACKING YOUR FOUNDATIONS BEFORE I CAN RESTORE IDENTITY THEORY. MY PREVIOUS QUESTIONS ABOUT YOUR USE OF LANGUAGE WERE NOT IN REGARD TO IDENTITY THEORY, THEY WERE IN REGARDS TO THE EXISTENCE OF QUALIA.

NOW, AS EXPLAINED HERE >>4472377
"BUT YOU ARE AVOIDING ANSWER MY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE EPISTEMIC FACULTIES YOU COME TO BELIEVE ABOUT THE PHYSICAL WITH BECAUSE YOU CAN ALREADY PRECONCEIVE THAT I AM RIGHT AND THAT YOU KNOW ABOUT THEM BY THEIR QUALITATIVE PROPERTIES (THEIR QUALIA); WHICH WILL THUS RENDER YOUR ORIGINAL ASSERTIONS AGAINST THE EXISTENCE OF QUALIA UNFOUNDED" WHICH YOU REPLIED TO HERE >>4472387 "I am not avoiding answering your questions, I am simply refusing to answer them", I FURTHER REPLIED HERE >>4472393 THAT "BY NOT REPLYING DIRECTLY YOU ARE ADMITTING THAT THE QUESTION WHICH I AM PROPOSING WILL UNDERMINE YOUR ARGUMENT."

YOU ARE NOW REPLYING WITH ANOTHER RED HERRING UNRELATED TO THE CURRENT TOPIC OF THE EXISTENCE OF QUALIA WITH >>4472405 ". And even if it did, although it does not, it would not undermine anything I have already demonstrated about why the identity theory is overly reductive," WHICH IS CLEARLY IRRELEVANT DUE TO REASON STATED IN THIS POST.

>I should have been clearer, I meant that I could grant that I believe what I do about physical phenomena through using epistemic faculties to interpret stimula with socially conditioned beliefs and none of this would be equivalent to accepting the notion of qualia
ARE YOU INSINUATING THAT FERAL CHILDREN WITHOUT LANGUAGE DONT HAVE MINDS?

>>4472409
>In fact you cannot argue against science, facts and logic.
I DONT KNOW WHAT THESE WORDS MEAN.

>>4472390
You are just 2 unintelligent 2 understand science. Not my fault.

>>4472392
Only because I am not a guy.

>>4472396
>LOGIC IS THE EXPRESSION OF THE LAWS OF THOUGHT.
And now we can see you don't know shit. The "logic" taught to philosophy students is a heavily dumbed down version that doesn't even deserve the name "logic" anymore. Try to take a course on formal logic, offered by the math department. I know all the mathy symbols and notation will make your tiny liberal arts brain explode, but at least that'll make you shut up and stop insulting logic.

>WHAT'S THE "HARD PROBLEM"?
It is the problem that some people can't into google.

> I ALREADY EXPLAINED THE MIND AND THE BRAIN ARE THE SAME THING.
You didn't explain shit. You made baseless and unscientific assertions. The mind and the brain cannot be the same thing. Even if the mind is caused by the brain, they are not the same. That's like saying the software and the hardware of my computer are the same thing. They are clearly not. Do you even into different layers of abstraction and causation? Abstract thinking seems to be another cognitive skill you will never have.

>>4472404
I'm gonna get a trip once I run out of reaction images insulting your intelligence (or more precisely the lack thereof).

>>4472426
YOU HAVE ALREADY DEMONSTRATED YOUR STUPIDITY AND UNWORTHINESS IN NUMEROUS POSTS AND WILL NOT BE REPLIED TO FROM MYSELF HENCEFORTH. THANKS FOR PARTICIPATING IN THIS DISCUSSION THREAD.

>>4472426
I am the smartest and most original guy in this this thread, sorry.

>>4472416
>ARE YOU INSINUATING THAT FERAL CHILDREN WITHOUT LANGUAGE DONT HAVE MINDS?
I did not say anything about feral children.

>>4472421
Learn English.

>>4472438
>has been scientifically disproved
>resorts to infantile insults
Maybe later when you grew up, you will learn to be thankful for corrections.

>>4472380
>>4472380
>Philosphy means failure because it can never produce objective results.
You do realise the notion of objectivity and valueing it are itself philosophical positions, right?

GOING TO BED NOW AND DON'T THINK I WON'T RESPOND AGAIN JUST BECAUSE I'M GOING TO SLEEP MATE I'LL BUMP THE THREAD ALL DAY EVERY DAY OVER THE NEXT CENTURY IF I HAVE TO YOU LITTLE SHIT STIRRER

LOOKING FORWARD TO THE REPLY TO THE REST OF THIS POST >>4472416 DEEP AND EDGY SELF-PROCLAIMED WORTHY TRIP.

GOOD NIGHT BLOSSOMS. XO

>>4472453
Good night sweet prince.

>>4472447
>I am the smartest and most original guy in this this thread, sorry.

This is your third repetition. You're embarrassing yourself, kid.

>>4470294
Ok, thanks.

>>4472416
>"BUT YOU ARE AVOIDING ANSWER MY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE EPISTEMIC FACULTIES YOU COME TO BELIEVE ABOUT THE PHYSICAL WITH BECAUSE YOU CAN ALREADY PRECONCEIVE THAT I AM RIGHT AND THAT YOU KNOW ABOUT THEM BY THEIR QUALITATIVE PROPERTIES (THEIR QUALIA); WHICH WILL THUS RENDER YOUR ORIGINAL ASSERTIONS AGAINST THE EXISTENCE OF QUALIA UNFOUNDED" WHICH YOU REPLIED TO HERE >>4472387 "I am not avoiding answering your questions, I am simply refusing to answer them", I FURTHER REPLIED HERE >>4472393 THAT "BY NOT REPLYING DIRECTLY YOU ARE ADMITTING THAT THE QUESTION WHICH I AM PROPOSING WILL UNDERMINE YOUR ARGUMENT."
I refused to answer your questions until you determined how they were relevant to the discussion, you did so here
>I AM ATTACKING YOUR FOUNDATIONS BEFORE I CAN RESTORE IDENTITY THEORY. MY PREVIOUS QUESTIONS ABOUT YOUR USE OF LANGUAGE WERE NOT IN REGARD TO IDENTITY THEORY, THEY WERE IN REGARDS TO THE EXISTENCE OF QUALIA.
And so I will consider them.

>YOU ARE NOW REPLYING WITH ANOTHER RED HERRING UNRELATED TO THE CURRENT TOPIC OF THE EXISTENCE OF QUALIA WITH >>4472405 ". And even if it did, although it does not, it would not undermine anything I have already demonstrated about why the identity theory is overly reductive,"
That's not a red herring, because identity theory is relevant to the discussion we're having, which includes qualia.

>>4467424

no. logic is ultimately an emotional response. it gives us security by contorting and exploiting an inherent framework in our minds.

>>4472377

there is no hard problem of consciousness anymore than there is a hard problem for anything that can be said to be known

epistemology and metaphysics are synergistic but epistemology is king because we are the proving ground

the idea of qualia is an attempt to reconcile our belief that we need to be able to ascertain objective answers

it is ipso facto a coping paradigm.

it also lacks creativity.

>>4472359
>I'm the smartest, most original person in this thread

that you were

>>4472456

>You're embarrassing yourself, kid.
>reddit as fuck picture
>getting this baited

just leave /lit/ already you milquetoast faggot lol why would you even try to call that instigating cunt out on his shitposting are you fukin new?

>>4472456
I am the smartest and most original guy in this this thread, sorry.

>>4472468
Copypaste it again. It is truly satisfying to see you wasting your time in such an unintellectual manner.

>>4472470

a

>>4472467
I enjoy seeing wannabe shitposters break down psychologically. Just look at it. When he entered the thread, he was full of himself, believing he is the ultimate ubertroll. Now I have reduced him to a pathetic little heap of shit who cannot stop responding and who even resorts to going full retard just because he cannot emotionally handle the humiliation anymore, the humiliation he brought upon himself by being too autistic to keep up his false pretense "troll" attitude.

>>4472475
D'awww, has your brain gone to mush?

>>4472478
a

>This shit-thread is still alive
What the fuck, /lit/? Seriously...

>>4467424
Don't shout at me, why are you shouting?

>>4472478

>I have reduced him to a pathetic little heap of shit who cannot stop responding
>he cannot emotionally handle the humiliation anymore, the humiliation he brought upon himself by being too autistic

you have raised this thread from mere sperging to a full blown work of autismal art

i love it

>>4472486
Because he is retarded.

Looks like I win

wow /lit/ is suddenly my favourite board

do you have threads like this often? its quite fun

>>4472517
Check it out this, you will like it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CdUsJ1HALI0

>>4472478
Didn't know asburgers was capable of this level of emotion.

>>4472478

>>Wow I won an argument on the internet
>>By being deliberatly obtuse and cussing.

Man I wish I was an 1/8 as intellectual as you.

>>4467424
To be a competent philosopher is to ask the right questions. This isn't one of them.

>>4472478

>all this impotent rage
>your life when

Please start posting in every thread on this board from now on. Your comedic value is undeniable.

>>4472478

>I enjoy seeing wannabe shitposters break down psychologically.

>>4472478

>I enjoy seeing wannabe shitposters break down psychologically.

>>4472478

>I enjoy seeing wannabe shitposters break down psychologically.

>>4472478
>I enjoy seeing wannabe shitposters break down psychologically. Just look at it. When he entered the thread, he was full of himself, believing he is the ultimate ubertroll. Now I have reduced him to a pathetic little heap of shit who cannot stop responding and who even resorts to going full retard just because he cannot emotionally handle the humiliation anymore, the humiliation he brought upon himself by being too autistic to keep up his false pretense "troll" attitude.

I think everything is an emotion, of sorts. When you work out a maths sum, for instance, you sort of feel the right answer before you form the answer to communicate externally.

Does anyone know where i'm coming from?

>>>4472453

OP here, thank you Adam for making this my most popular thread!

>>4467461
C19th 'humans are like steam engines.'

it still doesnt hold water

>>4472684
I see what you mean. There are the academic types who try to suppress their emotions, though invariably they fail. That's because we're inextricably bound to our emotions. Some are simply better at hiding their feelings.

>>4469864
alright plato, no one asked you

>>4471213
i agree i think newtonian physics are objectively true as well.

>>4472343
if you have ever had any form of education you would understand how important definitions are. you have no backing for what youre saying or if you do you aren't showing it just saying words then calling those who don't like the words dumb.
If you want to start an internet argument about how dumb philosophers are (as well as anyone who disagrees with you) go to /sci/
you are not there now here you need to learn to argue or fuck off.

>>4472399
common sense doesn't work if you are retarded as you are, you need a guiding hand.

>>4472450
seriously guy youre so full of shit.

>another function in which you're impaired?
> called out for your cognitvie deficits.
>And I'm not even arguing. I'm merely ridiculing and mocking - the only appropriate reaction to utter idiocy.


but finishing the agument with
>resorts to infantile insults

eat shit

>>4473014
>how important definitions are
Did you even follow the conversation or is a linear sequence of posts already hurting your puny liberal arts brain? We're not talking about definitions like "weak isospin" or "symmetric monoidal category". No, that tripfag seriously asked me to define "science", "facts" and "logic". If he went through more than a decade of education without having learned the scientific method, then there's no hope for him. But even worse, he is apparently also too stupid to use google. Same goes for you. Please GTFO from our genepool with your reading and comprehension disability.

>>4473019
Common sense works pretty fine for someone like me with an IQ > 170. What would you like me to dumb down for you?

>>4473022
>seriously guy youre so full of shit.
And you are obviously reading impaired. I already said ITT that I'm not a guy.

>>4473284
Get a trip pls.

>>4473284
Define science, fact and logic

>>4473284
>someonelike me with an IQ >170
>IQ >170

>>4472489
>>4472534
>>4472542
>>4472554
>>4472563
>>4472576
>>4472594
>>4472673
I suspect at least 5 of these posts are a samefag. Was my post really that impressive to you? Come on, how new are you to 4chan?

>>4473296
Why? Post a convincing argument why I should get a trip.
inb4 "hurr durr I want to filter you're posts"

>>4473314
U jellly, low IQ pleb?

>>4467424
No.

It is interesting though, we inherited this notion via the Greeks who asserted the dichotomy between passion/reason, while in other cultures like in nearly all of Asia and India, this idea is non-existent.

>>4473284
Where did you get all those reaction images?

>>4473284
Just joined the conversation, but with someone with an IQ of only ~163, you don't seem very wise and surely are lacking compassion for the less fortunate.

You seem interested in gloating though, ironically you don't appear to be very good at it:
> IQ > 170

>>4473284
>personal attacks
>complete lack of substance
>megalomania
>repetitious use of fallacies, sidetracking, and empty claims
>avoiding the burden of proof
You sure know how to argue like an adult.

>>4473333
/sci/

>>4473340
I was officially tested in school.

>>4473368
Sure I do. Maybe you didn't notice, but I'm the only one ITT using actual arguments. But you're right about the style. My superior intellect allows me to accomodate my replies to the level of my conversational opponents. I am designing my posts to be slightly above their (very immature and uneducated) level, but not too far (because then they wouldn't understand them anymore).

not smarter than me though

>>4473398
Everyone is smarter than you.

Nope

>>4473442
>denial

Thanks, I am the best.

>>4467424
Are these two concepts even in the same category?
Just as a little ad-hoc definition, I'd say that emotions are moods or frames of mind, whereas logic is the language of mind. A depressed person will when using the same premises come to the same conclusions as a happy person. The only thing that separates those two persons is their assessment of the circumstances, if they have to evaluate them.

>>4473332
I only know of the rhetorical use of pathos and logos. But when the orator used pathos it was usually to "convince the feelings" of his audience after he talked about the legal or political aspect of the case. So it might be an appeal to emotion, but the aim of pathos is as much calculated as is the aim of reasonable arguments in those speeches.


Dear God, those fucking captcha codes again.

>>4473453
pathetic

I am the best

>>4472465
>And so I will consider them.
THE QUESTION IS HERE >>4472366 "SO WHAT ARE THE EPISTEMIC FACULTIES THAT YOU COME TO BELIEVE IN THE "PHYSICAL" WITH?"

>That's not a red herring, because identity theory is relevant to the discussion we're having, which includes qualia.
I WAS ASSERTING THAT IT WAS A RED HERRING TO THE QUESTION, NOT THE WHOLE DISCUSSION.

>>4473284
PLATO: PRAY GORGIAS, TELL ME WHAT YOU MEAN BY THE WORDS "SCIENCE", "FACTS" AND "LOGIC", WORDS WHICH I WAS NEVER ABLE TO UNDERSTAND MYSELF.

GORGIAS: PLATO IF YOU WENT THROUGH MORE TAN A DECADE OF EDUCATION WITHOUT HAVING LEARNED THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD, THEN THERE'S NO HOPE FOR YOU. BUT EVEN WORSE, YOU'RE APPARENTLY TO STUPID TO USE THE STONE WALL OF DEFINITIONS UP THE RIVER.

AND TO ANSWER THE OP'S QUESTION "DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED" CAN FURTHERMORE ONLY BE ANSWERED IN ITS RELATION OF BRAIN STATES. THE BRAIN STATES ARE NOT DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED, THEY ARE MERELY DIFFERENT. ANY SPEAK OF THE ABSTRACTS OF EMOTION AND LOGIC BEING DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED WILL MERELY BE EMOTIVIST GOBBLEDEGOOK.

>>4473480
>"SO WHAT ARE THE EPISTEMIC FACULTIES THAT YOU COME TO BELIEVE IN THE "PHYSICAL" WITH?"
Eyes, nose, tongue, hands, etc. I don't think it is as simple as this but I am willing to reserve any further elaboration for the sake of this furthering discussion. You've had your nap, let's hear your point already.

>>4473468
Be creative!

>>4473491
>Eyes, nose, tongue, hands, etc.
NO, THESE ARE IN THE CATEGORY OF "PHYSICAL".
I REPEAT.
WHAT ARE THE EPISTEMIC FACULTIES THAT YOU COME TO BELIEVE IN THE "PHYSICAL" WITH?

>You've had your nap, let's hear your point already.
WHY ARE YOU CONFUSING ME SLIPPING INTO SUBCONSCIOUS FOR 8 HOURS AS AN ADEQUATE REASON FOR HASTING THE DISCUSSION?

>>4473326
"Post a convincing argument why I should get a trip."

Because you act like one, duh. You have a very predictable persona, it's wasted as anonymous, since you obviously seek attention to be unique.

>>4473388

if you're the analytical machine you purport yourself to be, it might be wise to realize you're wasting your time here trying to make up for an obvious inferiority complex.

unless of course, you don't actually know what to do with all that (purported) intelligence

>>4473501
What do you understand by epistemic faculties?

>>4473501

>>4472466

>>4473516
Faculties that generate 'knowledge'.

>>4473516
BY EPISTEMIC I MEAN THE ABILITY TO FORM PROPOSITIONAL ATTITUDES TOWARDS THE WORLD. THIS CAN BE CONTRASTED WITH ROCKS AND TREES. ROCKS AND TREES CANNOT FORM PROPOSITIONAL ATTITUDES TOWARDS THE WORLD. IF YOU CONCEDE THAT IT IS THE "BRAIN", THEN I ASK YOU IF THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SLEEP AND WAKE, BETWEEN CONSUMING PSYCHADELIC DRUGS, BETWEEN DAMAGING PHOTORECEPTORS IN THE RETINA; AND THE CONTRARY.

BY "FACULTIES" I MEAN THAT BY WHICH THE PROPOSITIONAL ATTITUDES ARE UNDERTAKEN. THIS IS EASILY CONTRASTED BETWEEN A SLEEPING AND WAKE BRAIN. THE FORMER DOESNT FORM PROPOSITIONAL ATTITUDES.

>>4473517
>there is no hard problem of consciousness anymore than there is a hard problem for anything that can be said to be known
I AGREE.

>epistemology and metaphysics are synergistic but epistemology is king because we are the proving ground
INSTRUMENTALISM IS NOT TANTAMOUNT TO PROOF.

>the idea of qualia is an attempt to reconcile our belief that we need to be able to ascertain objective answers
COULD YOU ELABORATE WHAT YOU ARE ASSERTING?

>>4473524
> IF YOU CONCEDE THAT IT IS THE "BRAIN"
No, I don't. Brains do not play tennis, nor do they form propositional attitudes (nor do minds, for that matter). That's a category mistake and a misunderstanding of language. People form propositional attitudes.

>>4473524

my assertion is that qualia's bold declaration isn't that there are those experiences that are wholly subjective but that there are those experiences that can be objectively ascertained.

in simpler terms, it's a way of saying let's draw the line -here- because this is the part that calls us out on our bullshit.

the idea of qualia does nothing for us as it is a way of avoiding one's insurmountable epistemic boundaries

it's also nothing new except reappropriation.

>>4473548
> IF YOU CONCEDE THAT IT IS THE "PERSON", THEN I ASK YOU IF THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SLEEP AND WAKE, BETWEEN CONSUMING PSYCHADELIC DRUGS, BETWEEN DAMAGING PHOTORECEPTORS IN THE RETINA; AND THE CONTRARY.

THANKS FOR THE REPLY, GILBERT RYE.

>>4473549
>in simpler terms, it's a way of saying let's draw the line -here- because this is the part that calls us out on our bullshit.
ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE.

>the idea of qualia does nothing for us as it is a way of avoiding one's insurmountable epistemic boundaries
OH RIGHT. SATISFYING HISTORICAL CURIOSITY DOESN'T DO ANYTHING.

SEE THIS POST >>4471044

>>4473559
>A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SLEEP AND WAKE, BETWEEN CONSUMING PSYCHADELIC DRUGS, BETWEEN DAMAGING PHOTORECEPTORS IN THE RETINA; AND THE CONTRARY
A difference concerning what?

>>4473559
> as it is a way of avoiding one's insurmountable epistemic boundaries
ALSO, IT IS NOT AN 'INSURMOUNTABLE BOUNDARY', I ALREADY TOLD YOU IT IS SOLVED. THE MIND IS THE BRAIN.

>>4473569
WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN YOUR WAKING AND SLEEPING BODY? ANY DIFFERENCES AT ALL.

i'd like it to be a sunny day and maybe we could all go outside and play ball in the park ;-;

>>4473573
A difference in the neurons firing in the brain, I guess.

>>4473590
HOW CAN YOU KNOW THE DIFFERENCE OF THE NEURONS FIRING IN YOUR BRAIN? I AM ASKING WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN YOUR WAKING AND SLEEPING BODY IN A ROOM WHERE YOU ARE BY YOURSELF WITHOUT COMMUNICATION TO OTHERS.

>>4473559

>ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE.

Straw man.

>OH RIGHT. SATISFYING HISTORICAL CURIOSITY DOESN'T DO ANYTHING.

Straw man.

You're misrepresenting my argument, probably because some part of you is flustered, so I'll rephrase both of those in one.


THE IDEA OF NEEDING TO ASCERTAIN OBJECTIVE ANSWERS IS A COPING MECHANISM AND WE HAVE BEEN DOING WELL WITH RETROSPECTIVELY ACKNOWLEDGED SUBJECTIVE DEVELOPMENTS FROM FAIR INQUIRY FOR YEARS WHICH ARE EASIER TO RECOGNIZE LOOKING AT THE PAST, BUT NEVER DO WE ADMIT TO THEM IN THE PRESENT. THIS LEADS TO BULLSHIT DISCUSSIONS LIKE THESE BETWEEN PEOPLE WHO COULD DO BETTER. WE CAN DO BETTER BECAUSE QUALIA IS A PLACEHOLDER MODEL WAITING TO BE REFUTED FOR SOMETHING WE CANNOT UNDERSTAND BECAUSE WE DO NOT ACTUALLY DEFINITIVELY UNDERSTAND THE WAY THOSE MATERIAL PROCESSES BEHIND SAID AS OF YET RETROSPECTIVELY ACKNOWLEDGED SUBJECTIVE PLACEHOLDER MODEL QUALIA, BUT ARE IN THE PROCESS OF MAKING SENSE OF. THIS WOULD NOT BE A PROBLEM IF THAT PLACEHOLDER MODEL DID ANYTHING FOR US IN THE MEANTIME EXCEPT ASSUAGE OUR NEED TO BE SECURE WITH OUR ABILITY TO OBJECTIVELY UNDERSTAND THE WORLD AND TELL OFF OTHER PEOPLE THROUGH ARGUMENTS LIKE THESE. HOWEVER, BECAUSE IT CLAIMS THESE SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCES ARE WITHOUT OUR UNDERSTANDING, WHICH IS A CATEGORIZATION WE AS HUMANS USE FOR ANYTHING THAT WE CANNOT YET UNDERSTAND THROUGH OUR CAUSALLY INSURMOUNTABLE EPISTEMIC BOUNDARIES, IT IS USELESS TO OUR INCREASINGLY SELF-AWARE WORLD BECAUSE WE ARE REALLY GOOD AT SEEING THROUGH BULLSHIT. ESPECIALLY INTUITIVELY.

>>4473597
>HOW CAN YOU KNOW THE DIFFERENCE OF THE NEURONS FIRING IN YOUR BRAIN?
Scientists could record it for-
>IN A ROOM WHERE YOU ARE BY YOURSELF WITHOUT COMMUNICATION TO OTHERS
lol this got awfully specific awfully quick

> I AM ASKING WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN YOUR WAKING AND SLEEPING BODY IN A ROOM WHERE YOU ARE BY YOURSELF WITHOUT COMMUNICATION TO OTHERS.
There would be no means of discerning between differences in your waking and sleeping body in isolation because you would not "know" whether you were still sleeping or waking. What does this thinly-veiled thought-experiment in solipsism have to do with qualia?

>>4473621
>THE IDEA OF NEEDING TO ASCERTAIN OBJECTIVE ANSWERS
AS I SAID, IT'S NOT A NEED, IT'S OF HISTORICAL CURIOSITY.

> AND WE HAVE BEEN DOING WELL WITH RETROSPECTIVELY ACKNOWLEDGED SUBJECTIVE DEVELOPMENTS
PRAGMATIC BULLSHIT WHICH I LINKED IN THE PREVIOUS POST.

> WE CAN DO BETTER BECAUSE QUALIA IS A PLACEHOLDER MODEL WAITING TO BE REFUTED FOR SOMETHING WE CANNOT UNDERSTAND BECAUSE WE DO NOT ACTUALLY DEFINITIVELY UNDERSTAND THE WAY THOSE MATERIAL PROCESSES BEHIND SAID AS OF YET RETROSPECTIVELY ACKNOWLEDGED SUBJECTIVE PLACEHOLDER MODEL QUALIA, BUT ARE IN THE PROCESS OF MAKING SENSE OF.
WE DONT HAVE TO MAP QUALITATIVE SPACES TO ASSERT THAT THE MIND AND THE BRAIN ARE ONE AND THE SAME. GOOD JOB STRAWMANNING ME.

>THIS WOULD NOT BE A PROBLEM IF THAT PLACEHOLDER MODEL DID ANYTHING FOR US IN THE MEANTIME
IT DOES EVERYTHING FOR YOU. EVERYTHING YOU'RE DOING WHICH IS VOLUNTARY IS MEDIATED BY MENTAL CAUSATION.

>HOWEVER, BECAUSE IT CLAIMS THESE SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCES ARE WITHOUT OUR UNDERSTANDING, WHICH IS A CATEGORIZATION WE AS HUMANS USE FOR ANYTHING
YOU ARE BEGGING THE QUESTION BY ASSERTING THAT WE DONT UNDERSTAND IT, BUT WE DO, AS I SAID. IT'S A MERE METAPHYSICAL PROBLEM SOLVED BY SCRUTINY OF ARGUMENT AS DONE HERE >>4470675.

>THAT WE CANNOT YET UNDERSTAND THROUGH OUR CAUSALLY INSURMOUNTABLE EPISTEMIC BOUNDARIES,
ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE, RED HERRING. OH, AND IF YOU REPLY AGAIN THAT THESE WERENT WHAT I AM PORTRAYING, THEN YOU ARE RED HERRENING AGAIN. SAVE YOURSELF THE EFFORT.

> IT IS USELESS TO OUR INCREASINGLY SELF-AWARE WORLD BECAUSE WE ARE REALLY GOOD AT SEEING THROUGH BULLSHIT. ESPECIALLY INTUITIVELY.
ANOTHER BULLSHIT PRAGMATIC ARGUMENT WHICH IS BASELESS BECAUSE AS I HAVE STATED IT IS ALREADY FACT THAT THE MIND AND THE BRAIN ARE ONE AND THE SAME.

>>4473636
>lol this got awfully specific awfully quick
THATS BECAUSE I ASKED HOW -YOU- KNEW YOU THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SLEEPING AND WAKE, NOT HOW SCIENTISTS DO. NOT MY FAULT YOU HAVE THE READING COMPREHENSION OF AN 8 YEAR OLD THAT GOT DYSLEXIA SLAPPED INTO HIM.

>There would be no means of discerning between differences in your waking and sleeping body in isolation because you would not "know" whether you were still sleeping or waking. What does this thinly-veiled thought-experiment in solipsism have to do with qualia?
LOL

PREMISE 1. SLEEPING AND WAKING CONCERNS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN QUALITATIVE STATES
PREMISE 2. IF SLEEPING AND WAKING CONCERN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN QUALITATIVE STATES, THEN ONE IS ABLE TO COMPREHEND THE SUBJECTIVE DIFFERENCE OF A SLEEPING AND WAKING STATE
PREMISE 3. THE ELIMINATIVE MATERIALIST BELIEVES THE ONLY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SLEEP AND WAKING STATES ARE THE NEURAL STATES FIRING
PREMISE 4. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN NEURAL STATES FIRING IS ONLY UNDERSTAND BY SOCIAL RELATIONS TO THE ELIMINATIVE MATERIALIST
CONCLUSION: IF ELIMINATIVE MATERIALISM IS TRUE, THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SLEEPING AND WAKING STATES WHEN YOU ARE ALONE

LOL

REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM'D, GAYLORD

>>4473663
>THATS BECAUSE I ASKED HOW -YOU- KNEW YOU THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SLEEPING AND WAKE, NOT HOW SCIENTISTS DO
You had asked me that already, prior to when you included the additional stipulation that it be in isolation.

>PREMISE 1. SLEEPING AND WAKING CONCERNS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN QUALITATIVE STATES
Begging the question. The whole point of this discussion is that qualitative states are in question, you have to demonstrate their existence.

Anyway, we could even assume your conclusion. How is it absurd? This similarly represents a number of skeptical or solipsistic positions, none of whom would consider such a conclusion to be absurd. You should know from your reading of Hume that skeptical conclusions are entirely tenable, if not particularly palatable. Can you establish how it is an actual absurdity and not simply a conclusion you refuse to accept?

>>4473677
>THATS BECAUSE I ASKED HOW -YOU- KNEW YOU THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SLEEPING AND WAKE, NOT HOW SCIENTISTS DO
also this implies that I am somehow not allowed to know something if I get help from scientists, which would be ridiculous. That's the reason why you became so specific so suddenly

>>4473677
>Begging the question. The whole point of this discussion is that qualitative states are in question, you have to demonstrate their existence.
LOL ARE YOU SO RETARDED THAT I HAVE TO REPHRASE IT FOR YOU?

PREMISE 1. IF SLEEPING AND WAKE EXIST, THEY CONCERN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN QUALITATIVE STATES [THIS IS THE COMMONSENSICAL DEFINITION OF CONSCIOUS VS UNCONSCIOUS, ALSO THE DENOTATIVE DEFINITION]
PREMISE 2. IF SLEEPING AND WAKING CONCERN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN QUALITATIVE STATES, THEN ONE IS ABLE TO COMPREHEND THE SUBJECTIVE DIFFERENCE OF A SLEEPING AND WAKING STATE
PREMISE 3. THE ELIMINATIVE MATERIALIST BELIEVES THE ONLY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SLEEP AND WAKING STATES ARE THE NEURAL STATES FIRING
PREMISE 4. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN NEURAL STATES FIRING IS ONLY UNDERSTAND BY SOCIAL RELATIONS TO THE ELIMINATIVE MATERIALIST
CONCLUSION: IF ELIMINATIVE MATERIALISM IS TRUE, THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SLEEPING AND WAKING STATES WHEN YOU ARE ALONE

>This similarly represents a number of skeptical or solipsistic positions, none of whom would consider such a conclusion to be absurd.
ARE YOU A SKEPTIC OR SOLIPSIST? STOP RED HERRENING, GAYLORD. I AM ADDRESSING YOU, NOT SOME HYPOTHETICAL BEING.

> Can you establish how it is an actual absurdity and not simply a conclusion you refuse to accept?
ABSURD N. "wildly unreasonable, illogical, or inappropriate."
IT IS ALL THREE OF THESE THINGS TO CLAIM THAT THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SLEEPING OR WAKING IN THE ABSENCE OF OTHER PEOPLE. THIS IS TANTAMOUNT TO ASSERTING THAT YOU ARE NON-EXISTENT WHEN YOU ARE ALONE, OR THAT IF YOU WERE THE ONLY PERSON ON EARTH THEN NOTHING ELSE WOULD EXIST BECAUSE YOU DONT. THIS WOULD FOLLOW BECAUSE YOU ASSERTED THAT THE ONLY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WAKING OR SLEEPING IS NEURAL STATES FIRING, WHICH IS ONLY ABLE TO BE VERIFIED BY SOCIAL RELATIONS, IN WHICH THE ABSENCE OF WOULD NOT VERIFY THE NEURAL STATES FIRING AND THUS RENDER NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WAKING AND SLEEPING.

>TRYING TO JUSTIFY WHY THIS ISN'T UNREASONABLE. ILLOGICAL, INAPPROPRIATE
GOOD JOB WITHDRAWING INTO ABSURDITY.

IDENTITY THEORISTS 1
ELIMINATIVE MATERIALISTS -9999999999999999999999999999999999999999

>>4473663

>AS I SAID, IT'S NOT A NEED, IT'S OF HISTORICAL CURIOSITY.

you contradict yourself, you speak of a causally closed physical universe but you're referring to historical curiosity as a form that has no cause. what is curiosity?

>PRAGMATIC BULLSHIT WHICH I LINKED IN THE PREVIOUS POST.

you said metaphysics concerns the actuality of things not how we perceive them but seem to have trouble wrapping your mind around the idea that they are one in the same, meaning the actuality of things according to our perceptions which are an epistemic boundary. logic isn't touching the absolute, it's contorting inherent frameworks of the mind to the world around us. we shape logic around the world, that does not mean it's a perception of actuality, but a model of actuality. models are models are models are models.

inb4 argument from ignorance, you'd be implying i'm stating a positive claim and you are not.

>WE DONT HAVE TO MAP QUALITATIVE SPACES TO ASSERT THAT THE MIND AND THE BRAIN ARE ONE AND THE SAME. GOOD JOB STRAWMANNING ME.

the mind and the brain being one in the same is not what qualia is, even then i'd argue against that.

you're mistaking premises for implications.

>IT DOES EVERYTHING FOR YOU. EVERYTHING YOU'RE DOING WHICH IS VOLUNTARY IS MEDIATED BY MENTAL CAUSATION.

you seem to continue having trouble distinguishing between the actuality of things outside of our perception and our perception of them in the interim. qualia is a model that suggests there are things that cannot be ascertained besides those things that can be ascertained. either we abandoned all knowledge based on this assertion or we simply realize we have our biases and say, that which we define as consciousness is currently out of reach. which it really isn't, but which is definitely suggested by the idea of qualia.

>YOU ARE BEGGING THE QUESTION BY ASSERTING THAT WE DONT UNDERSTAND IT, BUT WE DO, AS I SAID. IT'S A MERE METAPHYSICAL PROBLEM SOLVED BY SCRUTINY OF ARGUMENT AS DONE HERE

you lack imagination if you truly believe we definitively understand it. then again, my thought was that you were arguing for qualia. do you know what you're arguing for or do you mean to say qualia is simply the implication that mental processes come from physical causation and that's all?

>ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE, RED HERRING. OH, AND IF YOU REPLY AGAIN THAT THESE WERENT WHAT I AM PORTRAYING, THEN YOU ARE RED HERRENING AGAIN. SAVE YOURSELF THE EFFORT.

I won't say that, because it seems you're stuck on the idea that our minds can ascertain anything outside of a pragmatist domain. I suppose it's a useful way to see things, as it could bring about results that being considerate of our utter fallibility and distinct biases could not, but I doubt it.

>ANOTHER BULLSHIT PRAGMATIC ARGUMENT WHICH IS BASELESS BECAUSE AS I HAVE STATED IT IS ALREADY FACT THAT THE MIND AND THE BRAIN ARE ONE AND THE SAME.

define baseless.

>>4472980
Anon we are 70 percent water.

>>4473699
>PREMISE 1. IF SLEEPING AND WAKE EXIST, THEY CONCERN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN QUALITATIVE STATES
Why would I grant you this when the whole basis of our discussion hangs on whether there are qualitative states in the first place? The very states the onus is on you to demonstrate the existence of

>IT IS ALL THREE OF THESE THINGS TO CLAIM THAT THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SLEEPING OR WAKING IN THE ABSENCE OF OTHER PEOPLE.
How so? Also you switched from talking about sleeping and waking states to the act of sleeping and waking, please specify which you are actually talking about.

>THIS IS TANTAMOUNT TO ASSERTING THAT YOU ARE NON-EXISTENT WHEN YOU ARE ALONE
It is not, for if you did not exist you would not be capable of sleeping or waking in the first place.

> YOU ASSERTED THAT THE ONLY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WAKING OR SLEEPING IS NEURAL STATES FIRING, WHICH IS ONLY ABLE TO BE VERIFIED BY SOCIAL RELATIONS, IN WHICH THE ABSENCE OF WOULD NOT VERIFY THE NEURAL STATES FIRING AND THUS RENDER NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WAKING AND SLEEPING.
For all intents and purposes within this context then there would effectively be no metaphysical difference between waking and sleeping states. Within a different context those differences could be established within a socially constructed coherentist epistemology.
Again, you haven't demonstrated the existence of qualia, you have simply demonstrated that knowledge or lack of knowledge of certain propositions is dependent on certain contexts, and that you disagree with the lack of knowledge in one context. You have yet to demonstrate how this is not logically absurd or impossible, or incoherent.

>GOOD JOB WITHDRAWING INTO ABSURDITY
See above, you seem to think absurdity is equal to "it sounds stupid to me, I don't like it." That's not the case

>>4473720
>what is curiosity?
A DESIRE TO LEARN SOMETHING.

>you said metaphysics concerns the actuality of things not how we perceive them but seem to have trouble wrapping your mind around the idea that they are one in the same
YEAH NO. WE CAN NEVER KNOW THINGS IN AND OF THEMSELF. HOW WE COME TO BELIEVE IN THINGS IN AND OF THEMSELF IS DICHOTOMISED FROM THEIR EXISTENCE IN ACTUALITY. WHICH "RETROSPECTIVELY ACKNOWLEDGED SUBJECTIVE DEVELOPMENTS" ARE YOU REFERRING TO?

>the mind and the brain being one in the same is not what qualia is, even then i'd argue against that.
NO SHIT YOU IDIOT. YOU WERE ATTEMPTING TO ARGUE AGAINST IDENTITY THEORY, THAT IS WHAT THAT WAS DEDUCING YOUR REPLY FROM. ARE YOU ARGUING AGAINST THE EXISTENCE OF QUALIA NOW OR AGAINST THE IDENTITY THEORY WHICH ASSERTS THAT THE MIND AND THE BRAIN ARE IDENTICAL?

>either we abandoned all knowledge based on this assertion
WHY ARE YOU PRESUPPOSING FOUNDATIONALISM? I AM NOT A FOUNDATIONALIST.

>or we simply realize we have our biases and say, that which we define as consciousness is currently out of reach.
>but which is definitely suggested by the idea of qualia.
ITS NOT OUT OF OUR REACH. IVE STATED NUMEROUS TIMES WHY IT'S NOT. COULD YOU EXPLAIN WHY YOU DO THINK ITS OUT OF OUR REACH? THIS IS AN UNJUSTIFIED IMPLICATION.-

>:you lack imagination if you truly believe we definitively understand it.
PLEASE EXPLAIN TO ME WHY YOU THINK I AM LACKING 'IMAGINATION' IF I BELIEVE THAT ITS DEFINITELY UNDERSTOOD. I DO BELIEVE ITS DEFINITELY UNDERSTOOD.

>then again, my thought was that you were arguing for qualia.
I WAS ORIGINALLY ARGUING FOR IDENTITY THEORY WHICH DIVERGED INTO DEFENDING THE EXISTENCE OF QUALIA AGAINST THE DEEP AND EDGY ELIMINATIVE MATERIALIST.

> do you know what you're arguing for or do you mean to say qualia is simply the implication that mental processes come from physical causation and that's all?
PLEASE READ THE THREAD. YOUR ELEMENTARY QUINE ARGUMENT HAS ALREADY BEEN ADDRESSED.

>I won't say that, because it seems you're stuck on the idea that our minds can ascertain anything outside of a pragmatist domain.
WHERE DID I SAY THAT OUR MINDS CAN ATTAIN NOUMENA? NICE FALSE DICHOTOMY, GAYLORD.

>define baseless.
THE FOUNDATIONS OF YOUR CLAIM IS PRESUPPOSING A DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE MIND AND THE BRAIN WHICH I HAVE ALREADY PROVEN FALSE AND THUS RENDERING YOUR FOUNDATIONS NON-EXISTENT.

d&e are you going to allow yourself to get this told by a newtrip?

you are getting bitched the fuck out right now

i get so lonely

>>4473744
>Why would I grant you this when the whole basis of our discussion hangs on whether there are qualitative states in the first place?
YOU DON'T HAVE TO GRANT IT IDIOT. DID YOU READ THE "IF"? THIS IS CALLED A CONDITIONAL. PLEASE INTO LOGIC. THE REST OF THE PREMISES FOLLOW FROM THE CONDITIONAL TO YOUR CONCRETE.

>How so? Also you switched from talking about sleeping and waking states to the act of sleeping and waking,
WHAT'S THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE ACT AND THE STATE OF SLEEPING/WAKING?

>It is not, for if you did not exist you would not be capable of sleeping or waking in the first place.
WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY 'EXIST'?

>For all intents and purposes
SMH

> within this context then there would effectively be no metaphysical difference between waking and sleeping states.
GOOD JOB WITHDRAWING INTO ABSURDITY.

IDENTITY THEORISTS 2
ELIMINATIVE MATERIALISTS -9999999999999999999999999999999999999999

>Within a different context those differences could be established within a socially constructed coherentist epistemology.
BEGGING THE QUESTION. I ALREADY STATED THE LIMITS OF THE INTUITION PUMP WHEREBY YOU ARE IN THE ABSENCE OF SOCIAL RELATIONS.

>you have simply demonstrated that knowledge or lack of knowledge of certain propositions is dependent on certain contexts,
PROPOSITIONAL ATTITUDES ARE QUALITATIVE

>Again, you haven't demonstrated the existence of qualia,
YEAH I HAVE. YOU'RE JUST BEING A SNOTTY-NOSED CHILD THAT CANNOT ACCEPT ADMITTING THAT YOU WASTED 1.5DAYS ARGUING FOR AN ABSURD CONCLUSION. ENJOY YOUR SUNKEN COST FALLACY

>See above, you seem to think absurdity is equal to "it sounds stupid to me, I don't like it." That's not the case
MORE LIKE, "IT SOUNDS STUPID TO EVERY SINGLE PERSON BESIDES YOU"

i'm so tired of arguing on the internet

i just want a girlfriend

>LOGIC IS THE EXPRESSION OF THE LAWS OF THOUGHT.

and now this
>INTUITION PUMP
lmao

why are you people drawn to his sophomoric babble?

>>4473767
RED HERRING.

i feel so dead inside

all i do is argue semantics on the internet

is this my lot in life?

why is OP copying rei

>>4473776
"REI" DOES NOT EXIST AS A CONCRETE ENTITY. "REI" IS AN ATTITUDE, A WAY OF LIFE. THE REASON THAT YOU ARE TRIBULATED BY MY POSTS IS BECAUSE YOU HELD THE UNWARRANTED PRESUPPOSITION THAT "REI" IS A SINGULAR, CONCRETE ENTITY. "REI" IS AN ABSTRACTION, ONE WHICH IS ABLE TO VICARIOUSLY LIVE THROUGH THE BODY OF AS MANY MORTALS AS IT AFFECTS.

>>4473771
>RED HERRING.
except that it isn't

>>4473774
>argue semantics
holy fuck please end your life and while you're wrapping that wire around your neck, wrap it around that buzzword too.

>>4473784
to you.

>>4473782
RED HERRING.

>>4473786
ITS ONLY TO ME TO YOU.

>>4473781
I miss rei

>>4473782

>buzzword

semantics

>>4473767
why is it sophomoric?

>>4473763
>HIS IS CALLED A CONDITIONAL.
Yes, and it therefore has a t/f value. It is your responsibility to demonstrate that t is actually the case, which as I have already said is the whole crux of this discussion that you cannot simply assume, in order for the rest of your premises to hang together.

>WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY 'EXIST'?
To be in the world

>GOOD JOB WITHDRAWING INTO ABSURDITY.
So you don't have an argument for why the skeptical recognition of there not being a metaphysical difference between waking and sleeping states relative to an epistemological context of isolation is absurd?

>BEGGING THE QUESTION
You are free to demonstrate how that would not be the case if those conditions were available, although it is not directly relevant.

>YEAH I HAVE.
Where so?

>YOU'RE JUST BEING A SNOTTY-NOSED CHILD THAT CANNOT ACCEPT ADMITTING THAT YOU WASTED 1.5DAYS ARGUING FOR AN ABSURD CONCLUSION
Numerous skeptics would disagree with you. Again, this a searlian type thought experiment (re: chinese room) where an objective view is presupposed in order to come to a misleading conclusion about epistemology. The man in the chinese room is said to not know chinese because we know that all he is capable of doing is using a machine translation for chinese words. This contrasts with our everyday understanding of knowing chinese (which is available to us because we implicitly infer as part of the experiment a wider context than the box in order to use a wider everyday understanding of chinese) and therefore we know he does not know chinese. This is a good analogy for your own thought experiment as put forward here, the reason you consider the skeptical conclusion absurd here is because you are inferring from an outside perspective in order to demonstrate that the isolated perspective is misguided. But again, if the outside perspective was not available to you (either in this thought experiment or the chinese room) you would not be able to denounce that conclusion because it would be the only effective conclusion you could come to within that context. Inserting the outsider viewpoint in both the chinese room experiment and the thought experiment you have provided here simply demonstrates that we have general sense, which is socially constructed, of either understanding chinese or discerning the difference between waking and sleeping. The fact is that there is no "outside" or objective perspective, so neither experiments are particularly revealing. All that's being said in either experiment is that argued-against conclusion is false because it contrasts with a pre-existing understanding of the concept under dispute.

>MORE LIKE, "IT SOUNDS STUPID TO EVERY SINGLE PERSON BESIDES YOU"
argumentum ad populum

>>4473758
that's not happening mate. the guy has dug himself into so much of a hole he has almost dug himself out of the universe. He has gone from not being able to defend the identity theory to not being able to defend qualia to not being able to defend why a logically consistent conclusion should be absurd. at this rate it should be another month before we get back to the original issue.

>>4473801
>To be in the world
SELF REFERENTIAL DEFINITION. "EXISTENCE" AND "BEING" ARE SYNONYMOUS. WHAT IS IT TO "BE" IN THE 'WORLD'?

>Numerous skeptics would disagree with you.
"STOP RED HERRENING, GAYLORD. I AM ADDRESSING YOU, NOT SOME HYPOTHETICAL BEING."

>It is your responsibility to demonstrate that t is actually the case,
>So you don't have an argument for why the skeptical recognition of there not being a metaphysical difference between waking and sleeping states relative to an epistemological context of isolation is absurd?
I DIDN'T ASSERT IT WAS THE ACTUALLY THE CASE. YOUR CONCLUSION FOLLOWED FROM THE CONDITIONAL THOUGH. THE CONDITIONAL IS WIDELY AGREED UPON BY EVERYONE BUT YOU. THEREFORE IT'S AN ABSURD CONCLUSION TO EVERYBODY BUT YOU. I BELIEVE ITS AN EQUALLY ABSURD CONCLUSION TO YOU BUT YOU ARE HAVING DIFFICULTIES GRASPING WITH YOUR SHORTCOMINGS AS I STATED EARLIER.

IF YOU CANNOT GRASP THE CARTESIAN DISTINCTION BETWEEN THINKING AND NOT-THINKING WITHOUT APPEALING TO SOCIAL RELATIONS, THEN YOU LOOK LIKE A RETARD. IT'S AS SIMPLE AS THAT.

"PROVE ME WRONG THAT THOUGHTS EXIST"
THIS IS THE MOST SELF EVIDENT AXIOM IN THE HISTORY OF LANGUAGE AND WHICH THE EXISTENCE OF IS DEPENDANT FOR THE REST OF EVERYTHING ELSE SAID AND DONE TO BE MEDIATED THROUGH. DENYING IT'S EXISTENCE IS SIMPLY UNREASONABLE, ILLOGICAL, ABSURD.
ASKING ME WHY IT'S ABSURD IS EVEN MORE ABSURD.
WE CAN SPIN AROUND LANGUAGE GAMES ALL DAY, BUT YOU ARE AN IDIOT, AND WHETHER OR NOT I CAN GIVE AN END-IN-ITSELF DEFINITION OF "ABSURD" IS IRRELEVANT, BECAUSE YOU WOULD PICK APART THE WORDS AND GRASP FOR STRAWS WITHOUT REALISING THAT THE LANGUAGE YOU ARE USING IS DEPENDANT UPON THE THING YOU ARE ARGUING AGAINST THE EXISTENCE OF (QUALIA). YOU ARE UNDERMINING YOUR OWN POSITION.

I'VE PROVEN YOU WRONG. YOU ARE INDEED WRONG. YOU ARE BEING CONTRARIAN FOR THE SAKE OF BEING CONTRARIAN. THERE'S NOTHING MORE TO SAY THAN TO ACCEPT YOUR DEFEAT AND CHANGE YOUR TRIP.

>>4473818
>SELF REFERENTIAL DEFINITION. "EXISTENCE" AND "BEING" ARE SYNONYMOUS. WHAT IS IT TO "BE" IN THE 'WORLD'?
To be part of what is the case.

>I AM ADDRESSING YOU
And I represent a skeptical position that is shared by many.

> THE CONDITIONAL IS WIDELY AGREED UPON BY EVERYONE BUT YOU
I wasn't aware I was the only one recognises that qualia are a misunderstanding of language


>IF YOU CANNOT GRASP THE CARTESIAN DISTINCTION BETWEEN THINKING AND NOT-THINKING WITHOUT APPEALING TO SOCIAL RELATIONS
>"PROVE ME WRONG THAT THOUGHTS EXIST"
What does any of this have to do with qualia

>THE LANGUAGE YOU ARE USING IS DEPENDANT UPON THE THING YOU ARE ARGUING AGAINST THE EXISTENCE OF (QUALIA)
How so?

>I'VE PROVEN YOU WRONG. YOU ARE INDEED WRONG
Where di d that happen? All we've conclusively established between us is that you think the proposition that we cannot distinguish between waking and sleeping states in isolation is absurd (which itself is based on a linguistic sleight of hand, as stated above), and you have as of yet been unable to demonstrate to me how it is absurd in any way other than the fact that you don't agree with it, which is not logical absurdity but merely a poetical use of the word "absurd".

>I'VE PROVEN YOU WRONG
You have not. You did not have a single rebuttal for any of the points I made concerning identity theory, such as the fact that reducing certain concepts to physical identity is overly reductive, you have led me on a wild goose chase concerning qualia, all of which has amounted to establishing only that in one context an epistemological claim does not function. All of this would have been unneccessary if you actually had any decent arguments to back up your claims. I am only mildly frustrated that after all this idiotic obnoxious hoop-jump.ing you have made me do, trying manouevre me into a position where I have already assented to half your bullshit premises by answering your equally bullshit questions, instead of simply stating your argument clearly and concisely, I am only mildly frustrated that after all this stupid shit it has built up to nothing but a logically consistent conclusion from a ridiculously manufactured and conditional argument. I am perfectly entitled and perfectly within reason to think that a guy stuck in his room can't ultimately tell when he's sleeping or awake, and that is the only sincere answer because all other answers smuggle in the objective-view premise that defeats the whole point of the experiment by essentially stating that because we already have a different, socially constructed understanding of the difference between waking and sleeping states the isolated person is therefore mislead. But if there was in fact no outside view and you never had this socially constructed sense of the criteria for waking and sleeping states then you would be perfectly within reason not to be able to tell the difference. Hence Descartes, etc.

>>4473862
>To be part of what is the case.
'WHAT IS', 'BEING' AND 'EXISTENCE' ARE ALL SYNONYMS. IM ASKING WHAT THE CONCEPTUAL DEFINITION IS. WHAT ARE YOU REFERRING TO?

>And I represent a skeptical position that is shared by many.
AND MANY SKEPTICS DIFFER IN THEIR VIEWS. WHAT IS YOUR SKEPTICAL POSITION?

>What does any of this have to do with qualia
LMAO ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING. THOUGHTS ARE QUALIA

>How so?
BECAUSE THOUGHT IS QUALIA AND LANGUAGE EXPRESSION IS AN EXPRESSION OF THOUGHT

>and you have as of yet been unable to demonstrate to me how it is absurd in any way other than the fact that you don't agree with it,
"PROVE ME WRONG THAT THOUGHTS EXIST"
THIS IS THE MOST SELF EVIDENT AXIOM IN THE HISTORY OF LANGUAGE AND WHICH THE EXISTENCE OF IS DEPENDANT FOR THE REST OF EVERYTHING ELSE SAID AND DONE TO BE MEDIATED THROUGH. DENYING IT'S EXISTENCE IS SIMPLY UNREASONABLE, ILLOGICAL, ABSURD.
ASKING ME WHY IT'S ABSURD IS EVEN MORE ABSURD.
WE CAN SPIN AROUND LANGUAGE GAMES ALL DAY, BUT YOU ARE AN IDIOT, AND WHETHER OR NOT I CAN GIVE AN END-IN-ITSELF DEFINITION OF "ABSURD" IS IRRELEVANT, BECAUSE YOU WOULD PICK APART THE WORDS AND GRASP FOR STRAWS WITHOUT REALISING THAT THE LANGUAGE YOU ARE USING IS DEPENDANT UPON THE THING YOU ARE ARGUING AGAINST THE EXISTENCE OF (QUALIA). YOU ARE UNDERMINING YOUR OWN POSITION.

>You did not have a single rebuttal for any of the points I made concerning identity theory,
THATS BECAUSE I'M ESTABLISHING THE EXISTENCE OF QUALIA BEFORE I RECONCILE THEM WITH THE BRAIN. IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN QUALIA, THEN THERE'S NO REASON TO TRY TO RECONCILE THE ABSENCE OF IT WITH THE BRAIN. THIS IS WHAT'S APPEALING TO YOU AND BEHAVIOURISTS. YOU'RE UNDER THE ILLUSION THAT INEFFABILITY AND THAT YOU CANNOT PERCEIVE OTHERS QUALIA IS VALID GROUNDS FOR DISMISSAL EVEN THOUGHT ITS THE PINNACLE OF COUNTER-INTUITIVE.
ONCE YOU CONCEDE THAT QUALIA EXIST, BECAUSE THEY DO, THEN WE CAN DISCUSS IDENTITY THEORY AGAIN, SWEETHEART.

>QUALIA EXIST, BECAUSE THEY DO

>>4473881
QUALIA EXIST BECAUSE IT MEDIATES EVERY EXPERIENCE*
YOU'D SEE THAT THIS WAS THE PREMISE WHICH WAS BEING DEDUCED BY THAT CONTEXTUALISED EXCERPT IF YOU'D ACTUALLY BEEN ABLE TO FOLLOW A CHAIN OF REASONING BEYOND "CANT NO NUTTIN"

>>4473871
rusty trombone

>>4473888
SOMETIMES U HAVE TO SQUEEK THE SAME SONG TO PIERCE THE EARDRUMS OF HEARING PATIENTS

>>4473871
> IM ASKING WHAT THE CONCEPTUAL DEFINITION IS
And I'm not interested in giving it to you, because it has no relevance to my argument.

>AND MANY SKEPTICS DIFFER IN THEIR VIEWS. WHAT IS YOUR SKEPTICAL POSITION?
My skeptical position is that there are no such things as qualia, that they are a misunderstanding of language.

>THOUGHTS ARE QUALIA
In what way?

>BECAUSE THOUGHT IS QUALIA
Both concepts add nothing to an explanation that the physical one does not and can therefore be disposed of as far as philosophy is concerned. I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I believed there were such things as thoughts in anything other than a poetical sense earlier in our discussion =]:^)
Language expression is an expression of language, unsurprisingly. Someone can give me the middle finger, which is an expression of language, but I cannot thereby conclusively infer that he is an expressing a thought, if there even was such a thing. He may, for example, be a cyborg. Animals communicate between themselves with language and yet none of them are expressing what we would deem to be thoughts.

>THIS IS THE MOST SELF EVIDENT AXIOM IN THE HISTORY OF LANGUAGE
There are numerous philosophers who disagree with that statement, even people who are not philosophers have called it into question. Turing, for example although I cannot find the exact quote right now, likened thought simply to a noise. Wittgstein casts considerable doubt on the philosophical concept of thought. So no, it is entirely debatable as a philosophical concept, or at least the use of the term "existence" in relation to it. I have yet to see you demonstrate how a physical description of neurons firing captures anything that the concept of thought doesn't within the context of philosophy, or what it adds to the account that the physical description does not. How is any of this illogical in the hard sense or even absurd?
>ASKING ME WHY IT'S ABSURD IS EVEN MORE ABSURD.
That borders on circularity.

>YOU'RE UNDER THE ILLUSION THAT INEFFABILITY AND THAT YOU CANNOT PERCEIVE OTHERS QUALIA IS VALID GROUNDS FOR DISMISSAL EVEN THOUGHT ITS THE PINNACLE OF COUNTER-INTUITIVE.
It's not that I can't perceive qualia, it's that the whole idea is nothing but a poetical use of emotive terms that adds nothing to a description.

>ONCE YOU CONCEDE THAT QUALIA EXIST, BECAUSE THEY DO
Whoah hold your horses there, before we get to qualia you have to demonstrate to me how thoughts exist <]:^), then we'll talk about whether you can demonstrate to me that qualia exist. hop to it bud

>>4473747

you really should mind your biases sweetheart. not only do you consistently contradict yourself, but it seems you have a very rudimentary knowledge of language based on some cursory examinations or experimentation in debate techniques/logic.


>A DESIRE TO LEARN SOMETHING.
good job, you've given me another description, now trace it back further.

>YEAH NO. WE CAN NEVER KNOW THINGS IN AND OF THEMSELF. HOW WE COME TO BELIEVE IN THINGS IN AND OF THEMSELF IS DICHOTOMISED FROM THEIR EXISTENCE IN ACTUALITY. WHICH "RETROSPECTIVELY ACKNOWLEDGED SUBJECTIVE DEVELOPMENTS" ARE YOU REFERRING TO?

so metaphysics isn't concerned w/ the actuality of things? or are you saying it's better to pretend it does for the sake of answers? why can't we be aware of our biases and get efficacious answers anyway? oh, right, muhpragmatist, its about historical truth curiosity.

>NO SHIT YOU IDIOT. YOU WERE ATTEMPTING TO ARGUE AGAINST IDENTITY THEORY, THAT IS WHAT THAT WAS DEDUCING YOUR REPLY FROM. ARE YOU ARGUING AGAINST THE EXISTENCE OF QUALIA NOW OR AGAINST THE IDENTITY THEORY WHICH ASSERTS THAT THE MIND AND THE BRAIN ARE IDENTICAL?

i was arguing against qualia. if i was arguing against identity theory i'd point out its unnuanced appeal to vague correlatives.

>WHY ARE YOU PRESUPPOSING FOUNDATIONALISM? I AM NOT A FOUNDATIONALIST.

honestly, you might not be one, but you sure argue like one. i'm somewhat of a foundationalist myself though, so don't take that as a racial slur.

>ITS NOT OUT OF OUR REACH. IVE STATED NUMEROUS TIMES WHY IT'S NOT. COULD YOU EXPLAIN WHY YOU DO THINK ITS OUT OF OUR REACH? THIS IS AN UNJUSTIFIED IMPLICATION.-

why are you saying we can never know things in and of themselves now then. you're really confusing me. either you're onto something beyond me or you're being wholly inconsistent.

>PLEASE EXPLAIN TO ME WHY YOU THINK I AM LACKING 'IMAGINATION' IF I BELIEVE THAT ITS DEFINITELY UNDERSTOOD. I DO BELIEVE ITS DEFINITELY UNDERSTOOD.

because you can't refute your own stance. that's always the mark of a lack of imagination in an epistemologically nihilistic world like this one.

>WHERE DID I SAY THAT OUR MINDS CAN ATTAIN NOUMENA? NICE FALSE DICHOTOMY, GAYLORD.

you seem to love implying it without committing to it. do you have girlfriend issues too?

>THE FOUNDATIONS OF YOUR CLAIM IS PRESUPPOSING A DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE MIND AND THE BRAIN WHICH I HAVE ALREADY PROVEN FALSE AND THUS RENDERING YOUR FOUNDATIONS NON-EXISTENT.

i like how your "own" "proofs" are the standard for your argument but you'd prefer to refer back to them than realize they didn't work in the first place and might need adjustment.

>>4473899
>And I'm not interested in giving it to you, because it has no relevance to my argument.
LOL IT HAS NO RELEVANCE TO YOUR ARGUMENT TO DEFINE THE FOUNDATION OF YOUR ARGUMENT: "IF QUALIA DID NOT -EXIST-". WITHOUT EXPLAINING THE TERM? ON MY ACCOUNT EXISTENCE IS EXPRESSED THROUGH QUALIA, I'D LIKE TO KNOW HOW THAT PROPOSITION IS INTELLIGIBLE ON YOUR ACCOUNT. IT IS THE FOUNDATION OF YOUR ARGUMENT AGAINST QUALIA.

>In what way?
IN THE WAY THAT DIFFERENTIATES A NEURON-FIRING LOOKING BRAIN FROM AN ACTUAL BRAIN. THOUGHTS AND QUALIA ARE SYNONYMOUS ON MY ACCOUNT. WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY THOUGHT?

>Both concepts add nothing to an explanation that the physical one does not and can therefore be disposed of as far as philosophy is concerned.
WE'VE BEEN OVER THIS SHERLOCK
IT ADDS EVERYTHING
STOP REPEATING YOURSELF AND ADDRESS THE FOUNDATIONS THAT YOUR ARGUMENT DEPEND UPON FOR THESE CLAIMS TO EVEN BE INTELLIGIBLE TO YOU, BECAUSE WITHOUT QUALIA THEY AREN'T

>I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I believed there were such things as thoughts in anything other than a poetical sense earlier in our discussion =]:^)
LOL SO NOW THOUGHTS DON'T EXIST?

ABSURDITY COUNT:
IDENTITY THEORISTS 3
ELIMINATIVE MATERIALISTS -9999999999999999999999999999999999999999

ABSURDITY IS DEFINED AS ILLOGICAL. IT IS ILLOGICAL BY THE LAWS OF THOUGHT, NAMELY THE LAW OF NONCONTRADICTION.

>Language expression is an expression of language, unsurprisingly.
TAUTOLOGY.

>Someone can give me the middle finger, which is an expression of language,
YEAH, NO IT'S NOT. COMMUNICATION DOESN'T MEAN LANGUAGE.
N. the method of human communication, either spoken or written, consisting of the use of words in a structured and conventional way.

> I cannot find the exact quote right now,
> Wittgstein casts considerable doubt on the philosophical concept of thought.
YEAH OK ILL BE WAITING IN THE MEANTIME WHILE YOU PERSIST THESE RED HERRINGS

> have yet to see you demonstrate how a physical description of neurons firing captures anything that the concept of thought doesn't within the context of philosophy,
THIS IS IRRELEVANT TO THE EXISTENCE OF QUALIA


>That borders on circularity.
YEAH, NO IT DOESNT SHITHEAD. CIRCULARITY WOULD BE IT'S ABSURD BECAUSE IT'S ABSURD. I SAID ASKING X IS EVEN MORE ABSURD THAN Y.

>It's not that I can't perceive qualia,
OHHHHHHHH, SO QUALIA EXISTS NOW?

>before we get to qualia you have to demonstrate to me how thoughts exist <]:^)
NO I DONT. YOU DON'T HAVE TO KNOW HOW OR WHY SOMETHING EXISTS TO KNOW IT EXISTS. THIS CAN BE REGRESSED INTO THE FIRST CAUSE PROBLEM.

>>4473747

you really should mind your biases sweetheart. not only do you consistently contradict yourself, but it seems you have a very rudimentary knowledge of language based on some cursory examinations or experimentation in debate techniques/logic.


>A DESIRE TO LEARN SOMETHING.
good job, you've given me another description, now trace it back further.

>YEAH NO. WE CAN NEVER KNOW THINGS IN AND OF THEMSELF. HOW WE COME TO BELIEVE IN THINGS IN AND OF THEMSELF IS DICHOTOMISED FROM THEIR EXISTENCE IN ACTUALITY. WHICH "RETROSPECTIVELY ACKNOWLEDGED SUBJECTIVE DEVELOPMENTS" ARE YOU REFERRING TO?

so metaphysics isn't concerned w/ the actuality of things? or are you saying it's better to pretend it does for the sake of answers? why can't we be aware of our biases and get efficacious answers anyway? oh, right, muhpragmatist, its about historical truth curiosity.

>NO SHIT YOU IDIOT. YOU WERE ATTEMPTING TO ARGUE AGAINST IDENTITY THEORY, THAT IS WHAT THAT WAS DEDUCING YOUR REPLY FROM. ARE YOU ARGUING AGAINST THE EXISTENCE OF QUALIA NOW OR AGAINST THE IDENTITY THEORY WHICH ASSERTS THAT THE MIND AND THE BRAIN ARE IDENTICAL?

i was arguing against qualia. if i was arguing against identity theory i'd point out its unnuanced appeal to vague correlatives.

>WHY ARE YOU PRESUPPOSING FOUNDATIONALISM? I AM NOT A FOUNDATIONALIST.

honestly, you might not be one, but you sure argue like one. i'm somewhat of a foundationalist myself though, so don't take that as a racial slur.

>ITS NOT OUT OF OUR REACH. IVE STATED NUMEROUS TIMES WHY IT'S NOT. COULD YOU EXPLAIN WHY YOU DO THINK ITS OUT OF OUR REACH? THIS IS AN UNJUSTIFIED IMPLICATION.-

why are you saying we can never know things in and of themselves now then. you're really confusing me. either you're onto something beyond me or you're being wholly inconsistent.

>PLEASE EXPLAIN TO ME WHY YOU THINK I AM LACKING 'IMAGINATION' IF I BELIEVE THAT ITS DEFINITELY UNDERSTOOD. I DO BELIEVE ITS DEFINITELY UNDERSTOOD.

because you can't refute your own stance. that's always the mark of a lack of imagination in an epistemologically nihilistic world like this one.

>WHERE DID I SAY THAT OUR MINDS CAN ATTAIN NOUMENA? NICE FALSE DICHOTOMY, GAYLORD.

you seem to love implying it without committing to it. do you have girlfriend issues too?

>THE FOUNDATIONS OF YOUR CLAIM IS PRESUPPOSING A DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE MIND AND THE BRAIN WHICH I HAVE ALREADY PROVEN FALSE AND THUS RENDERING YOUR FOUNDATIONS NON-EXISTENT.

i like how your "own" "proofs" are the standard for your argument but you'd prefer to constantly refer back to them as a means of refutation than realize they didn't work in the first place and might need adjustment.

>>4473923
All things are equally absurd.

>>4467424
Her stupid fucking face...

>>4473918
>not only do you consistently contradict yourself,
CITATION NEEDED

> but it seems you have a very rudimentary knowledge of language based on some cursory examinations or experimentation in debate techniques/logic.
AD HOM STRAWMAN RED HERRING CITATION NEEDED

>good job, you've given me another description, now trace it back further.
LOL YOU'RE A FUCKING RETARD IF YOU THINK YOU'VE BEDAZZLED ME BY WAY OF QUESTIONING THE FOUNDATIONS OF LANGUAGE

>so metaphysics isn't concerned w/ the actuality of things?
YES

>why can't we be aware of our biases and get efficacious answers anyway?
BE MORE SPECIFIC

>i was arguing against qualia.
YOU ARE YET AGAINST IT

>honestly, you might not be one, but you sure argue like one.
LOL WHAT A GREAT ARGUMENT

>racial slur.
UM

>why are you saying we can never know things in and of themselves now then.
BASICALLY EVERY PHILOSOPHER AGREES WITH THIS AND I CANNOT FATHOM WHAT YOUR OBJECTION IS.

>because you can't refute your own stance.
SURE YOU CAN, I'VE EXPLAINED THIS FOUR TIMES, MOST NOTABLE HERE >>4472363

> epistemologically nihilistic
I'M NOT AN EPISTEMOLOGICAL NIHILIST, BUT THIS IS BESIDES THE POINT AND AN AD HOM RED HERRING STRAWMAN

>you seem to love implying it without committing to it. do you have girlfriend issues too?
YES. AD HOMINEM

>i like how your "own" "proofs" are the standard for your argument but you'd prefer to refer back to them than realize they didn't work in the first place and might need adjustment.
BUT THEY DID WORK BECAUSE THEY ARE FACT

>>4473953
>YOU ARE YET AGAINST IT
YOU ARE YET TO ARGUE AGAINST IT*

>>4473953

>AD HOM STRAWMAN RED HERRING CITATION NEEDED

Just fucking stop already. This is pathetic.

>>4473960

>>4473899

overtly loud keks.

same vapid cunts rethrowup dickstroker of a point being projectile shat directly into his own throat in a perfectly contained closed loop of why-the-fuck-am-i-still-aliveness

terminate existence, le ctrl le alt und le delete

kill yirsel you die-in-a-fire-tier semi congealed waste of anal flesh. fuck you and that hoor mother that gave birth to you. i'd burn down your cunt hame were i to know its location you warbling vaginal wart

Reason is a slave to the passions.

>>4473923
>"IF QUALIA DID NOT -EXIST-"
Qualia are not a part of what is the case. This is a red herring for if we do not intuitively agree on what existence means then neither of us can claim qualia "exists" or not. Existence is a necessarily circular term whose meaning lies it its contextual use, which varies according to context. Except that I will also be able to say that it adds nothing to our understanding of "mental" phenomena, while you will have nothing left to say.

>WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY THOUGHT?
I mean the concept referred to in philosophy of mind, another term whose meaning varies according to context and use.

What do you mean by both "thought" and "qualia"?

>WE'VE BEEN OVER THIS SHERLOCK
IT ADDS EVERYTHING
You have yet to demonstrate that anywhere

>THE FOUNDATIONS THAT YOUR ARGUMENT DEPEND UPON FOR THESE CLAIMS TO EVEN BE INTELLIGIBLE TO YOU
I do not have an argment, you are the one who has been presenting arguments, I have simply been providing rebbutals to the points you have made.

>COMMUNICATION DOESN'T MEAN LANGUAGE.
All communication is language, (in fact, everything is language), but not all language is communication.

>YEAH OK ILL BE WAITING IN THE MEANTIME WHILE YOU PERSIST THESE RED HERRINGS
They're not red herrings, I simply providing you with further cases that I am not the only person to endorse ideas like this.

>THIS IS IRRELEVANT TO THE EXISTENCE OF QUALIA
What do you mean by "existence" and "qualia"?

> CIRCULARITY WOULD BE IT'S ABSURD BECAUSE IT'S ABSURD
I said it borders on circularity.
>I SAID ASKING X IS EVEN MORE ABSURD THAN Y.
Which borders on circularity because it implies the former is absurd. If it were actually absurd, which you have yet to demonstrate, then the latter would equally be absurd, hence why it would be circular.

> YOU DON'T HAVE TO KNOW HOW OR WHY SOMETHING EXISTS TO KNOW IT EXISTS
That begs the question of whether it exists in the first place, which is what's in question. What do you mean by "exists" here?

Also, nap time.

>>4473964
>Also, nap time.
WHO'S IN YOUR ROOM WITH YOU? WHY DO YOU BELIEVE THAT YOU'RE ABOUT TO HAVE A "NAP" AND WHAT IS A "NAP"?

>>4473962

that and this cunt riddled board of shit-eating cunts tbh. would that i could will a massive conflagration to sweep up these cunts into a deadly fucking inferno, i'd piss on their smoldering bones and fuck holes in their boiling flesh.
this is the final orgy of sathanas.mpeg

>>4473962
>>4473973

Whats that?

>a wild stan christ re-appears

#rare

>>4473964
Qualia are unobservable in others and unquantifiable in us. We cannot possibly be sure, when discussing individual qualia, that we are even discussing the same phenomena.

>>4473982
LMAO WOW SO INVERTED SPECTRUM MUCH ZOMBIES

>>4473962
>>4473973
>>4473973

Stan, umm. Can you please stick around this time and not disappear for months on end? Ive missed you terribly. I did.
These new tripfags are just awful and D&E has lost all its edge and depth. It's awfully depressing around here and I can't take it anymore.

Thanks for understanding.

>>4473990

stanford where u been m8?

more importantly hows supercuts?

>>4473999
who?

>>4474001
you know what i mean kike

Logic translates emotion

>>4473994
>>4473994

goats! now there's a sound cunt..was wondering if you were around.

i've been busy. re-spooked myself during a new years resolution and i'm back on the path towards becoming the venomous capitalist douchebag i was meant to be. had a dangerous bout of "the nihilisms" this christmass. reverted to taking 60 mg of oxy per day + an eight ball of blow every 3-4 days, twas bad, almost stabbed some cunt in south beach but im all better now

lots of stock market success. retook LSAT, scored 171. going to a top law school now, probably Columbia or NYU. starting this fall.

whats good with you?

>>4473999
i dumped the cunt after she tried to get me to impregnate her. she saw me as her like fucking liberator or something im just like bitch you need to shut the fuck up and go back to ur husband and cunt kid, i gotta go to work

is this board as shit as it looks these days?

>>4474002

how about you, my bisexual son, all well on your end?

>>4473953

actually most of those were intentional ad homs, particularly because you're arguing against any arguments against identity theory, not actually for it, and that's pretty fucking boring since you don't actually have an opinion except that you think you're a capable debater for being able to misrepresent arguments in ways where you can consistently refer back to previous points like you're saying anything meaningful through negation.

>good job, you've given me another description, now trace it back further.

this was my only sincere question there, i actually meant that, can you trace it back further, or are you stuck at muh curiosity?

>YES

Yes it is or yes it isn't. what about the secocnd question attached to that?

>YOU ARE YET AGAINST IT

i stated my case against qualia already, you didnt bring any points against it, you just tried to negate my argument. fuck your perceived powerwords, they're useless except for dick stroking.

>BASICALLY EVERY PHILOSOPHER AGREES WITH THIS AND I CANNOT FATHOM WHAT YOUR OBJECTION IS.

my objection is that you conventionally state you can (know things in an of themselves) when it suits your purpose you fucking japfuck, otherwise you use the opposite as a crutch that implies you're considering things in a wider light and unbiased

>SURE YOU CAN, I'VE EXPLAINED THIS FOUR TIMES, MOST NOTABLE HERE

so the only refutation of your own point is one that involves one of three absurd situation being reconciled. let's not mind the fact that you've married into taking vague correlatives into account. after all, if you shoot my brother in the head while he's driving me to work, i'll be affected too right? so that means we are one and the same.

>I'M NOT AN EPISTEMOLOGICAL NIHILIST, BUT THIS IS BESIDES THE POINT AND AN AD HOM RED HERRING STRAWMAN

i didn't say you were, i meant specifically that you operate within a very narrow epistemological border aimed at stroking your balls.

what i said was that this universe is epistemologically nihilistic

it's only beside the point if you're trying to argue within a very narrow framework

>BUT THEY DID WORK BECAUSE THEY ARE FACT

kek

>>4474039
> particularly because you're arguing against any arguments against identity theory, not actually for it,
MY FIRST ARGUMENT WAS SUFFICIENT PROOF FOR THE TRUTH OF IDENTITY THEORY

>this was my only sincere question there, i actually meant that, can you trace it back further, or are you stuck at muh curiosity?
DEFINE "TRACE IT BACK"

>Yes it is or yes it isn't. what about the secocnd question attached to that?
YES IT IS. THE SECOND QUESTION WAS RENDERED IRRELEVANT BY MY APPROVAL OF THE FIRST.

>i stated my case against qualia already, you didnt bring any points against it
SHOW ME

>my objection is that you conventionally state you can (know things in an of themselves) when it suits your purpose you fucking japfuck,
I ARGUED THE OPPOSITE YOU DIPSHIT GO TRAIN YOUR READING COMPREHENSION

>so the only refutation of your own point is one that involves one of three absurd situation being reconciled. let's not mind the fact that you've married into taking vague correlatives into account. after all, if you shoot my brother in the head while he's driving me to work, i'll be affected too right? so that means we are one and the same.
LOL WHAT A TERRIBLE ANALOGY WHICH ADDRESSES ONE OF THREE POINTS, IF YOU WOULD LIKE ME TO EXTRAPOLATE ON THE PROOFS OF IDENTITY THEORY, I WILL

>i didn't say you were, i meant specifically that you operate within a very narrow epistemological border aimed at stroking your balls.
SHOW ME

where the fuck did you go

i know you're not just gonna leave stan christ hanging.

thank fuck for lesbian janitors, if you banned my bisexual son again i'm going to ritually slaughter your minge

>>4474030
things are real good. last semester where im living with my parents ive fixed myself up with aristippus to a near mystical level and this is the most fun ive ever had (and ive all but stopped coming here completely) - things are up and up - sorry im so late

>>4474058

alright ace, happy for you

u looking for work/ how are you making money?

remember: un-funded hedonism is just homelessness

>>4474070
looking for work right now, that part of my life is like, not real good. but i'll figure something out

>>4474084
wanna suck my dick for cash faggot? my cum in your throat will increase your hedonic calculation

>>4474094
ive got $93 in my bank account bud i think im okay for now

>>4474084

keep your chin up ace, things will turn around. don't be too proud to start off with something humble.

i suggest you also start to read up on stock trading. it would only take you about 2-3 months to learn solid Technical analysis and set up with a nice trading system. Or you can just go the fundamnetal investing route and research your way into undervalued small caps. Lots of free info on the internet.
if you need some pointers i'd be willing to help. i've made a killing in the biotech space these last 3-4 months. the field is exponentially expanding at the rate of a fucking 13 year old mexican girl's uterus...

>>4474094

ease up you dick juggling try hard faggot. that kind of language is unbecoming of a middle class suburban young lady

>>4474120
how did you deduce lady from dick
what sort of mother were u raised by?

>>4474109
ill read up on it & send you an email. i was hoping you'd mention it and yeah i would be majorly down for some kind of mini-apprenticeship at multiple stroke victim

>>4474127

the kind with a dick obviously though i took your post to be some kind of manly lesbian posturing.

>>4474133
whatever u want me to be ;)

>>4474132

i got you ace, no problem. i'm out for the night though, later dude

>>4474144
alright man talk to you soon

>>4474022
Sounds good stanley. how's the inheritance?

I'm still on that welfare bathrobe tall can lumpen leech life, but the gods of irony may have me in some real estate type of stuff this year.

>>4472980
Typical "read it, didn't think about it" attitude.

>>4472980
Except the new one does make sense.

Based Descartes was right all along. About parts of it.

>>4473781
>"REI" IS AN ATTITUDE, A WAY OF LIFE.
this guy "is" the smartest individual in this thread