NOOOOOOOOO PHILOSOPHY IS SUPPOSED TO BE ABOUT MUH FEELINGZ!!!!! WHAT DO YOU MEAN MATERIAL REALITY???!?!!?!?!?!

File: 72 KB, 1080x1020, soy wojak seethe.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Sun Jan 26 20:44:01 2020 No.14612713 [Reply] [Original]

NOOOOOOOOO PHILOSOPHY IS SUPPOSED TO BE ABOUT MUH FEELINGZ!!!!!

WHAT DO YOU MEAN MATERIAL REALITY???!?!!?!?!?!

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 20:46:20 2020 No.14612723 >>14612713 Yes. Science is for material reality. Philosophy is for ideas.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 20:46:47 2020 No.14612727 Read Whitehead and Deleuze incel stembug

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 20:48:12 2020 No.14612734 >>14612727 Deleuze was a materialist philosophylet

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 20:48:30 2020 No.14612736 >>14612723 Nope.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 20:48:31 2020 No.14612735 >>14612727 >read these two materialists to dispel your materialist inclination ?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 20:49:29 2020 No.14612738 >>14612736 Yes.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 20:52:45 2020 No.14612755 >>14612727 Yeah let's just ignore economics and archeology. Material reality is only for stem people. Muh feelingz guyz!

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 20:54:21 2020 No.14612761 >>14612713 cope

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 20:55:26 2020 No.14612764 Noooo if science turns philosophy obsolete then who will give people that were dumb enough to get a philosophy degree in the 21st century a job??

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 20:55:33 2020 No.14612765 >>14612755 >anything that isn't material is a feeling Go back to r/atheism.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 20:56:14 2020 No.14612769 >NOOOOOOOOO I ARGUE THAT EPISTEMOLOGY CAN EFFECTIVELY PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF GOD AND THAT WE MUST FOLLOW HIS COMMANDS WITHOUT QUESTION

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 20:57:34 2020 No.14612776 >>14612765 name one (1) thing that is neither material nor a feeling

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 20:58:48 2020 No.14612783 >>14612776 Easy. Numbers.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 20:58:51 2020 No.14612785 >>14612776 Language, borders, laws, ideas, concepts.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 21:00:06 2020 No.14612792 >>14612776 Algebra.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 21:02:05 2020 No.14612800 >>14612776 Feelings are chemistry and therefore material, you colossal bugman faggot.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 21:04:56 2020 No.14612812 >>14612776 conflict

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 21:05:31 2020 No.14612819 >>14612734 >>14612735 Yes but you don't understand the full implications of their materialism so read them incel

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 21:06:54 2020 No.14612823 File: 986 KB, 2730x2805, 1567335550155.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Reminder that the material world is an illusion

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 21:07:05 2020 No.14612824 >>14612819 I'll have you know I am both a Deleuzefag and a theorycel

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 21:07:35 2020 No.14612827 >>14612823 based

Anonymous Sun Jan 26 21:13:01 2020 No.14612850

>>14612713
Some (probably most) people just aren't capable of finding wonder and comfort in existence without fairytales. Not much we can do about it.

I'd focus your ire on the more mundane lies that are tangibly ruining things... Our 'growth at all costs' economic models, geopolitical shenanigans, the demographic war against Europeans, naive progressive liberalism and so on.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 21:14:36 2020 No.14612858 >>14612823 How do you know?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 21:15:32 2020 No.14612865 >>14612783 Well, obviously recorded numbers are physical. Do you have good reason to suppose that thoughts aren't physical?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 21:18:19 2020 No.14612875 >>14612865 do numbers not exist before recording them? we haven't counted every number in existence, would you claim that those numbers no one has counted don't exist?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 21:23:56 2020 No.14612898 >>14612865 >recorded numbers are physical >confusing the notation with the concept Dumbest thing I've read all weekend. I thought stemcels were supposed to be smart.

Anonymous Sun Jan 26 21:26:35 2020 No.14612911

>>14612875
Numbers are abstract... They are thoughts borne of our intuition of distinct events in our experience. Without a thinker to conceive of them (and construct the resulting language), they don't exist. So no, those numbers don't exist untill we process the relevant logical abstraction. All of this — so far as we can tell — occurs as a result of physical events.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 21:28:38 2020 No.14612918 >>14612911 >so far as we can tell who is this we? science has no proof either way on the concept of numbers, don't be a fool. imagine thinking the geometry of a triangle doesn't exist outside of someone drawing a triangle

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 21:32:06 2020 No.14612932 >>14612911 Naive entry level number theory. What physical event is e^j an abstraction from? There are infinite numbers that don't work quite the same way as counting oranges and "abstracting" the oranges do.

Anonymous Sun Jan 26 21:34:54 2020 No.14612947

>>14612918
The physical circumstances exist to produce many examples of what we would abstractly categorize as a triangle, but no two truly identical examples can be found such that we can proclaim the existence of a 'universal triangle form'. You're a naive Platonist.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 21:36:00 2020 No.14612953 File: 56 KB, 720x696, 1556425922692.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Why can't you stupid fucking philosofaggots fuck off from this board?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 21:38:31 2020 No.14612963 >>14612723 >Yes. Science is for material reality. True things > Philosophy is for ideas. Wrong ones

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 21:40:09 2020 No.14612970 >>14612932 They are extrapolations from the basic intuited logic. Complex systems emerge from simple ones... Examples of emergence are everywhere for you to see. The salient point is that without an abstracting agent, there can be no abstractions.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 21:40:15 2020 No.14612971 >>14612963 You're delusional if you don't think the ideal world shapes the material one.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 21:40:32 2020 No.14612972 >>14612713 >feelings >material >reality I used to be depressed over how retarded and 'wrong' the world is but now I think it's great how clearly the mouthbreathing slave caste is filtered. Makes it easy to know who to bother treating as human.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 21:41:08 2020 No.14612974 >>14612800 >bugman faggot Stop with the 2016 Twitter memes you sound like a retard

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 21:42:45 2020 No.14612983 >>14612974 We've been using them all the time in this board, you sound like a newfag.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 21:43:27 2020 No.14612987 >>14612971 Oh I do agree that wrong ideas influence reality. I just think it would be better if they didn't. Philosophy should be banned

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 21:44:08 2020 No.14612992 >>14612953 They don't like /his/, so they came here to spew their rhetoric while believing it has any credibility.

Anonymous Sun Jan 26 21:45:11 2020 No.14612998

>>14612947
>no two truly identical examples can be found such that we can proclaim the existence of a 'universal triangle form'
then why does the Pythagorean formula work? why is it that all proper triangles, regardless of size, position, chronological spacing, ect., will always have angles that add up to 180 degrees? How does math even work if triangles aren't universal, do you think one day we could draw a triangle and it happens to have angles that add up to 210 degrees?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 21:45:41 2020 No.14613002 >>14612987 Start by not using the Internet, then.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 21:46:25 2020 No.14613005 >>14612953 Sorry litfrog. If it's any consolation, at least we tend to write in a more sophisticated manner than most other denizens of this Mauritanese stamp-collecting forum.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 21:47:00 2020 No.14613009 File: 13 KB, 503x328, Taxonmy of all thing 2 ( Meta Physics).png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14612723 >what is metaphysics

Anonymous Sun Jan 26 21:47:25 2020 No.14613012

>>14612970
The physical universe is finite. Numbers are infinite. There are not only more numbers than physical objetcs, there are numbers that don't refer to physical objects at all. We can either do as you suggest, say that not all numbers are abstractions (in fact infinity times infinity aren't) BUT THE FIRST ONES ARE - therefore numbers are abstractions. Or we can do away with the theory all together as it fails spectacularly to explain our knowledge of mathematics.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 21:48:47 2020 No.14613017 >>14613009 what

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 21:49:49 2020 No.14613024 File: 15 KB, 248x189, 1535647209859.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14612970 >>14613012 these fucking autists lmao

Anonymous Sun Jan 26 22:00:25 2020 No.14613079

>>14613017
>cant read
Its a fact that idealism has to use schizophrenic thinking to work. All theology is a product of the schizo. spectrum and OCD. Idealism requires some form of unfalsifiable clam based on emotion. This is magical thinking and is a key treat of the schizo. spec. If idealism where true , that means some dumb ass idea like God has to be true because ether 1. There is no way there can be a thinking thing, unless it is of its self. In the case 2. One ought kill them self's for reality is a lie and suffering is there for needless. In the idea all idealism is just solipsism and in reality is just 1st or 2nd hand insanity.
So now that where Materialists we can ether follow primarily but not exclusively the Logos, which leads to Marxism. Or we can primarily but not exclusively, Pathos which leads to Fascism.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 22:02:12 2020 No.14613088 >>14613009 Is Fascism just about aesthetics? Kill la Kill vibes.

Anonymous Sun Jan 26 22:02:47 2020 No.14613093

>>14612998
It works because of the laws of physics and the scales (macro) we work with when applying such formulas. The approximation is good enough and the tolerances forgiving enough that we can find many practical applications for our idealized simplifications.

Math can be universal because we define its terms. In fact the only universals that can be confidently said to exist are abstractions that we have defined to be just that... The question of whether concrete universals exist in the universe is still an open question (I think it's doubtful). As to why math works pragmatically, again see above.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 22:04:15 2020 No.14613101 >>14613079 this is some weird cope

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 22:05:17 2020 No.14613109 >>14613093 >Math can be universal exactly, and math isn't physical, therefore.....

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 22:05:27 2020 No.14613110 >>14613079 The only schizophrenia is that graph and your reply.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 22:06:28 2020 No.14613117 >>14613109 ... it's abstract.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 22:07:20 2020 No.14613121 >>14613117 all universals are abstract, this doesn't mean anything

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 22:08:10 2020 No.14613126 >>14612953 /his/ is a shit board and philosophy fits /lit/.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 22:09:20 2020 No.14613132 >>14613121 It means a lot.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 22:10:21 2020 No.14613137 >>14613110 >>14613101 >everything I don't understand is Schizophrenia https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WwAQqWUkpI

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 22:10:59 2020 No.14613141 >>14613132 Hegel, the king of idealism, thought all universals are simple abstracts made concrete in the particular. You are still operating within idealist boundaries.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 22:11:32 2020 No.14613143 >>14613137 Yea thats what your graph says.

Anonymous Sun Jan 26 22:19:46 2020 No.14613196

>>14613012
Well, this universe is finite... Hard to speculate about whether reality on the whole is finite since we can't access it. Numbers aren't infinite, because as you say they haven't all been counted and they never will be. Even the potential of counting them all can't be said to be infinite, since we have no reason to suppose that true immortality for abstracting agents (counters) is achieveable.

Your idea of infinite numbers is just a concept... Like 'nothing'. There is no reason to think that a state of 'nothing' actually exists. Likewise, infinite numbers don't exist — just your concept of counting forever.

Again, emergence. The beginnings of math (and logic in general) comes from the very basic intuitions of our experience. From there, we are able to extrapolate and abstract more complex and self-referential systems. All numbers ARE abstractions, it's just that more complex ones are abstractions upon abstractions (extrapolation).

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 22:19:55 2020 No.14613199 >>14612776 Qualities.

Anonymous Sun Jan 26 22:28:39 2020 No.14613248

>>14613109
Abstractions (thoughts) ARE physical. The point to remember is that they are thoughts, and so are processed representations of the concrete (by a thinker). The abstract/concrete dichotomy is not a non-physical/physical one; both are physical and the abstract is a subset of the concrete distinguished by its representational nature.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 22:28:42 2020 No.14613249 >>14613196 >Numbers aren't infinite, because as you say they haven't all been counted >what is mathematical induction

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 22:30:54 2020 No.14613260 >>14613196 Question is what are they abstractions of. If physical objects as you said in the beginning, then just this sentence abstractions upon abstractions defeats your claim.

Anonymous Sun Jan 26 22:32:10 2020 No.14613267

>>14613248
>Abstractions (thoughts)
abstract thoughts and "abstraction" in a philosophical sense are not the same thing. also:
>thoughts are physical
you do know an idealist would reject this claim right? it needs substance, it isn't an argument on its own
>inb4 brain scans

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 22:32:30 2020 No.14613269 >>14613199 There is no evidence for the existence of qualia.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 22:33:29 2020 No.14613272 >>14613269 you yourself don't experience qualia? how is that even possible?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 22:35:00 2020 No.14613283 >>14613272 He's a homo, theh have no qualia, lad.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 22:36:40 2020 No.14613297 >>14613269 Qualia is primary evidence you inhuman freak.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 22:37:04 2020 No.14613300 >>14612776 Justice

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 22:38:00 2020 No.14613304 >>14613269 anon I don't think you realize this, but if this is true science itself is literally debunked

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 22:38:26 2020 No.14613307 >>14612911 So our brains produced numbers? Are you really proposing solipsism to counter idealism?

Anonymous Sun Jan 26 22:47:41 2020 No.14613373

>>14613249
It doesn't matter. Until an agent 'does the math' for any particular number, it doesn't exist. Numbers are abstractions, they proceed from abstracting agents (as opposed to preceding them).

>>14613260
How? Have you never experienced the ability to extrapolate from a more direct abstraction?

>>14613267
Well, you can throw shade on that claim all you want, but you have no alternate positive claim nor evidence for what thoughts would be. The brain scans (and accompanying experiments) may not satisfy you, but they're something (and quite compelling if you're at all intellectually honest). Dualistic and idealistic perspectives lack evidence and rely upon adding layers of assumption (which makes them less probable).

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 22:49:02 2020 No.14613381 >>14613143 >3rd grade level comeback No it says idealism is Schizophrenic

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 22:49:02 2020 No.14613382 >>14613304 I know you're all scientifically (and for the most part philosophically) illiterate, but try looking into trope theory.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 22:52:28 2020 No.14613399 >>14612776 The spirit of Christ.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 22:52:30 2020 No.14613400 >>14613382 kek, okay then, how are any emperical claims possible without qualia?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 22:52:47 2020 No.14613405 >>14613381 Thats exactly what I said, retard. You don't understand magic nor theology so you label it as "schizophrenic."

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 22:53:48 2020 No.14613412 >>14612783 >>14612785 >>14612792 >>14612812 >>14613199 >>14613300 True but all conceptualizations are of the brain. A material thing >some is going to argue seance dualism

Anonymous Sun Jan 26 22:58:11 2020 No.14613433
File: 42 KB, 500x322, 1482976723156.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14613399
stop

>>14613405
>You don't understand magic
please don't tell me you think magic is real, and its not me labeling it that, many academics and scientists have covered the connection between mental illness and theology.
>b-but my feels say its real
aesthetic enjoyment proves nothing

Anonymous Sun Jan 26 23:01:11 2020 No.14613446

>>14613412
These concepts exist regardless of your cognitive perception of them. And even if they didn't they don't exist in the form of your thought. If you divorce a concept from the medium by which it is communicated it doesn't cease to exist. It just stops being perceived.

Anonymous Sun Jan 26 23:01:12 2020 No.14613447

>>14613373
>Until an agent 'does the math' for any particular number, it doesn't exist.
Unproved assumption. Merely stating it is not enough to prove it.
>extrapolate from a more direct abstraction
In the minute you allow there to be "abstraction of an abstraction" you do away with the need for a physical basis for which to be abstractions from, thus turning the theory of abstraction entirely superfluous, except to dogmatically affirm a posited starting point, resting on an unproved materialistic worldview. This and the fact that it fails so astronomically to account for mathematics is enough to dismiss it.

Anonymous Sun Jan 26 23:03:42 2020 No.14613461

>>14613373
>Until an agent 'does the math' for any particular number, it doesn't exist. Numbers are abstractions, they proceed from abstracting agents (as opposed to preceding them).
Actually this is factually wrong. That the sums of the internal angles of a triangle equal a right angle in euclidean space is a true statement independent of any experience. Even if all sentient beings were to disappear tomorrow it would not be less true, it would only be no one around to express it.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 23:04:49 2020 No.14613465 >>14613412 Anon asked to what is something that is not material nor a feeling. A concept is neither.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 23:05:22 2020 No.14613470 >>14613446 >they don't exist in the form of your thought If no one ever had the idea of justice there would be no such think as justice. Ideas do not and cant exist with out, though ,and of a material anchor.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 23:05:54 2020 No.14613473 >>14613002 >Start by not using the Internet, then Hmm no how else would I warn others about the undue influence of philosophy?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 23:06:25 2020 No.14613474 >>14613465 >A concept is neither. I was pointing out that they are all concepts. So I guess you proved my point. Thanks

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 23:08:17 2020 No.14613487 >>14613473 The ol' fashioned material way: handing out flyers to people on the street.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 23:08:32 2020 No.14613491 >>14613474 So you don't dispute the fact that a concept is neither material nor a feeling? Ok then.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 23:09:43 2020 No.14613499 >>14612800 feelings are metaphysical

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 23:10:32 2020 No.14613501 >>14613499 How?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 23:10:54 2020 No.14613504 >>14613499 Nay

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 23:11:15 2020 No.14613507 File: 25 KB, 641x530, 1490116836938.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14613491 No I was just agreeing with the part about feelings, but I see my mistake there. Anyways i'm right regardless of my over sight.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 23:12:22 2020 No.14613512 File: 209 KB, 400x416, 1511420724846.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14613499 STOP! WHEN WILL YOU FUCKERS STOP THIS? JUST FUCKING STOP!

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 23:13:30 2020 No.14613517 >>14613507 >i'm right If you maintain that a concept is neither a material thing not a feeling, yes. If you maintained that is one of the two, then no, but that would be stupid.

Anonymous Sun Jan 26 23:14:38 2020 No.14613521

>>14613412
"The brain" is a concept of yours. Unless you want to assume the existence of a non-phenomenal brain that exists beyond your perception and produces all of your experience... Which would be just a metaphysical assertion as valid as the belief in God. Experience is primary with respect to matter. The physical is an abstraction of experience, but not all we experience can be properly called "physical"
>inb4 THEN IF NOT PHYSICAL WHAT IS IT
Experience is primary. Exactly like experience that is the substrate for the physical.

Anonymous Sun Jan 26 23:16:53 2020 No.14613530

>>14613470
So are you saying that if a thought is not represented in any medium or in anyone's mind then it necessarily does not exist? For instance, if I had a recipe for a meal and it could be followed to produce that meal, do those steps to be accurately followed only exist if I remember them?

What if I kill myself and never follow the recipe. Assuming all the steps are accurate, would it still exist? Would it still be a real recipe? And if not, wouldn't you at least agree that the steps, that no longer exist, followed in an order that no longer exists, would result in the meal it was devised for?

Is a concept destroyed and recreated every time it is lost and rediscovered?

Anonymous Sun Jan 26 23:17:16 2020 No.14613532

>>14613517
>If you maintained that is one of the two, then no, but that would be stupid.
At this point its just name calling. But i'll state my stain one more time.
Ideas are not material but are of matter. A concept does not require emotion unless its self is an emotion, but its still of matter regardless.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 23:17:41 2020 No.14613535 >>14613501 >>14613504 >>14613512 the brain isn't the seat of your mind, the soul is. brain is the recipient

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 23:17:56 2020 No.14613537 >>14613487 People on the street don't need to be warned. It's you people who need to be shaken awake. Do not get involved in philosoldry, it is soul poison

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 23:19:08 2020 No.14613544 >>14613521 This. Naive realism has been arch debunked centuries ago. What is this migration of philosophically illiterate stembugs to /lit/ all of a sudden? It's tiresome and not even that entertaining to toy with them.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 23:19:38 2020 No.14613547 >>14613532 >Ideas are not material but are of matter what does "of" mean here?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 23:20:10 2020 No.14613552 >>14613532 >Ideas are not material Enough said.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 23:20:33 2020 No.14613556 >>14613412 >the brain is the source of reality Perhaps the logical conclusion of naturalism, but is easily debunked by the evolutionary argument against naturalism >>14613470 How do you justify a justice system if justice isnt real?

Anonymous Sun Jan 26 23:21:54 2020 No.14613562

>>14613461
No ideal triangles with those perfect angles concretely exist, so it is you that is factually wrong.

>>14613447
It's a very logical conclusion. It's far more assumptive to suppose that unconceived of numbers somehow exist independently of abstracting agents (or that they aren't abstractions). At the very least I'm making a positive claim which is supported by experience. What is your alternative?

No, I don't do away with a need for a physical basis, since 1) the whole idea of non-physicality is a negative claim (you can't saying positive about what that actually means) and 2) the fact than an abstracting agent can extrapolate from an initial abstraction towards more complex and self-referential ones does not logically indicate that the initial abstraction can occur independent of the objects in our experience.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 23:22:54 2020 No.14613565 Chumpsky laying out painfully clearly how scientists abandoned materialism like two centuries ago; stem faggots don't even read their own books https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsLOVYTLt90

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 23:24:22 2020 No.14613571 >>14613562 Man... Your position has been argued AND debunked literally centuries ago... Why don't you stop being this arrogant and actually pick a book that discusses these problems?

Anonymous Sun Jan 26 23:24:57 2020 No.14613576

>>14613562
>No ideal triangles with those perfect angles concretely exist
by "exist" you mean "made material". you are starting from the position of materialism and then wondering why the ideal cannot be made material instead of asking how the concept of triangle both exists and works AND cannot be made material. you are one small dialectical step from arguing for idealism

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 23:28:50 2020 No.14613594 >>14613562 >>14613576 By the way, I should clarify, I'm a materialist. I just think you are an ignorant fuck who doesn't understand his own arguments

Anonymous Sun Jan 26 23:29:27 2020 No.14613596

>>14613562
>No ideal triangles with those perfect angles concretely exist, so it is you that is factually wrong.
What causes buildings to stand? Architecture would be impossible without geometry
>architecture stands on the basis of physical forces
Those physical forces conform to universal mathematical ideas. If you propose that mathamatics are a creation of brain chemicals, then you must follow through and say that structural integrity is not self existent, but a product of an experienced caused by brain chemicals. You are fundamentally proposing that material reality exists only as a projection of brain chemicals. However, brain chemicals themselves are a component piece of material reality, so your system is circular.

Anonymous Sun Jan 26 23:29:34 2020 No.14613597

>>14613521
>Which would be just a metaphysical assertion as valid as the belief in God.
No. To move past solipsism one does need an axiom, but idealism is the same as solipsism. So you can ether be solipsistic or a materialist. But then any clam made in the realm of materialism about idealism is there for false. One can't both reject matter and use it to make an argument. (God at this point has to be a idealist clam.)
>but not all we experience can be properly called "physical"
Not really, it all goes back to the brain which as fair as we can tell is physical

>>14613530
>What if I kill myself and never follow the recipe. Assuming all the steps are accurate, would it still exist?
Only if you write them down.
>followed in an order that no longer exists, would result in the meal it was devised for?
Yes if some how some knew your recipe and made it, then it would be real. But the process of them learning it would have to be material. So if you never wrote it down it would be impossible for them to ever know it. This is where schizo. spec. people come in and make supernatural clams like a ghost told them or some shit.
>Is a concept destroyed and recreated every time it is lost and rediscovered?
If I wright down an idea, forget about it and only 300 years latter some on else finds it, then yes. Most ideas are this way. Its a small handful be all pass back and forth.

Anonymous Sun Jan 26 23:29:43 2020 No.14613601

>>14613562
> so it is you that is factually wrong.
Ok I didn't want to go there but, the fact that you didn't know what mathematical induction and thought that we had to "count" infinite numbers was proves that you are an amateur on the subject, which is alright, but you might want to look it up before you post more embarassing and self defeating things.
The other thing that you wrote was a statement about your epistemological preference, which as I said fails to account for our knowledge of numbers.

Anonymous Sun Jan 26 23:30:46 2020 No.14613604
File: 14 KB, 175x184, 1481758188746.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14613535
>soul
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
I CANT TAKE THIS ANYMORE!!!!! MAKE IT STOP MAKE IT STOP!!!!!!!!!

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 23:31:04 2020 No.14613607 >>14613537 Says the faggot advocating for materialism.

Anonymous Sun Jan 26 23:32:56 2020 No.14613619

>>14613521
Experience is primary to observation. From there, assuming that it is primary in some more fundamental way — or that it precedes as opposed to proceeding from what is observed — are unfounded assumptions. What we have been able to explain and predict points to a continuity of events which is what we call the 'physical'. So far, nothing has indicated the existence of a non-physical realm, and the entire notion of 'metaphysicality' is an asssumption (it started as a neutral reference to abstraction, and has mutated into a monster fed by continentalfags).

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 23:33:37 2020 No.14613622 File: 86 KB, 636x900, D-195z4VAAAoT2I.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14613604 you know it's true

Anonymous Sun Jan 26 23:35:21 2020 No.14613629

>>14613547
They come from, but are no a higher level. Like the story of Zeus giving birth to Athena. Both are Gods but one comes from the other.

>>14613552
Yes

>>14613556
>debunked by the evolutionary argument against naturalism
Tell me more

>How do you justify a justice system if justice isnt real?
It is real, but its made by us. Its our concept of justice, there is no other form of what we would call justice.

Anonymous Sun Jan 26 23:36:20 2020 No.14613636

>>14613597
Lol. Who's rejecting matter? You seem to think rejecting materialism (a metaphysical stance) is rejecting matter. Of course you're wrong.
>the brain which as fair as we can tell is physical.
The brain is made of matter. Matter as an abstraction of experience. True, if your brain changes, your perceptions, even concepts, may change. Of course. There is correlation between different experiences. This doesn't make them all physical.
You really are fighting a long lost war

Anonymous Sun Jan 26 23:39:42 2020 No.14613651

>>14613619
>What we have been able to explain and predict points to a continuity of events which is what we call the 'physical'
False. Psychology can make predictions regarding non physical objects (there is no identity between mind and the brain, whatever their relation is)

Anonymous Sun Jan 26 23:43:27 2020 No.14613671

>>14613629
>It is real, but its made by us.
What gives it legitimacy?
What makes it "real"? You can say the brain chemicals are real, sure, but how does that indicate any ethical imperative?
>evolutionary argument against naturalism
Well, your position states that our thoughts and understandings are product of matter (brain chemicals).
If you suppose evolution to be true, then you must support the idea that our minds are also products of evolution. Evolution does not select for accurate thinking, but rather thinking that leads to reproduction. Therefore, you can assume all of our thoughts, if material, conform to the design of nature, which you cannot guarantee or even know to select for the ability to know true reality or think in such a way as to be conductive to true knowledge. Therefore, you must disregard all thoughts or ideas the brain produces because you cannot verify the truth value of anything, which also includes the truth value of both evolution and naturalism. This makes any position that couples naturalism and evolution as self refuting and invalid.

Anonymous Sun Jan 26 23:44:06 2020 No.14613675

>>14613636
>You seem to think rejecting materialism (a metaphysical stance) is rejecting matter.
Yes.
Let me put it this way. If some clams God is real, there calm can be ether ideal or materialist.
If there clam is materialist then they need proof. There never has been and most likely never will be proof of a physical God. So then they have to make a clam of an idealist God. Which cant be done AT ALL because we live in a material world. To prove an idealist clam using materialism is a contradiction.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 23:46:15 2020 No.14613688 >>14613675 >expecting three-dimensional proof of a fourth-dimensional being with the current technology Anon, I...

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 23:48:48 2020 No.14613700 >>14613675 Yeah, this is not funny anymore. You need to educate yourself. You keep implying that to reject materialism is to reject matter and you are factually wrong. Also, circular reasoning. Bye

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 23:48:56 2020 No.14613702 >>14613688 >if I appropriate quasi-scientific terminology for my nonsensical beliefs I’ll sound like less of a retard Brainlet, I...

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 23:51:18 2020 No.14613717 >>14613629 so could you just say the ideal realm is no higher of a level than the material one? why separate them at all if it is all the same substance?

Anonymous Sun Jan 26 23:51:45 2020 No.14613720
File: 86 KB, 600x706, 1490146895790.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14613671
>What gives it legitimacy?
Power. Power is everything. Power comes form (valuable*) property. Everything is a property. A state uses its power to justify its justice system. (Which is really a penal system.) *value is base on utility

>Evolution does not select for accurate thinking
>Therefore, you must disregard all thoughts or ideas the brain produces because you cannot verify the truth value of anything
It is reasonable for a being to assume there perceived realty is true. Its all they have. I dont shame a mad man for thinking the walls talk. We can only piety him.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 23:53:15 2020 No.14613727 >>14613702 Sounds like how they come up with dark matter.

Anonymous Sun Jan 26 23:57:13 2020 No.14613739

>>14613720
>It is reasonable for a being to assume there perceived realty is true.
>Its all they have.
Thats not a reasonable and addresses nothing I said.
>Power
Explain the imperative to Power and Utility using materialist arguments alone. Explain the existence of an imperative or an "ought" by appealing to matter alone.

Anonymous Sun Jan 26 23:57:36 2020 No.14613744

>>14613576
No, I mean they don't exist. Can you really say that you imagine infinite points when you think of a line or circle?

That a concept (thought) exists is not problematic for my argument, since I do not conflate thoughts with non-abstract objects. That the concept 'works' pragmatically is not that surprising once you think about it: Our space is configured in an apparently predictable way, and so by manipulating symbolic representations of the concrete (idealization makes things simpler) we can exploit that predictability. None of this is evidence that these idealizations are actually 'out there' in universal forms.

Anonymous Sun Jan 26 23:57:37 2020 No.14613745
File: 105 KB, 2378x1670, taxonomy of everything.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14613688
...

>>14613700
>giving up and acting better then it mean you win

>>14613717
>why separate them at all if it is all the same substance?
but there not the same substance, its a different Taxonomy class

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 23:57:55 2020 No.14613748 >>14613196 >unironically being a finitist ahahahaHAHA holy FUCK the absolute state of materialists

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 23:59:24 2020 No.14613755 >>14613745 do you know what the word substance means?

Anonymous Mon Jan 27 00:01:35 2020 No.14613761

>>14613739
>Explain the imperative to Power and Utility using materialist arguments alone
Didn't I do that?

>Explain the existence of an imperative or an "ought" by appealing to matter alone.
Cant be done. That's where Kant's 'Critique of Pure Reason', Nietzsche, and Marx come in, but I set them on a base of as much materialism and reason as I can.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 00:03:12 2020 No.14613768 >>14613755 quality of essence is what comes to mind. The most is-ness of a thing. (regarding its relations)

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 00:03:13 2020 No.14613770 >>14613727 >actually being mad about dark matter I’m sorry, sir. The brainletism is terminal

Anonymous Mon Jan 27 00:06:44 2020 No.14613787

>>14613761
>Didn't I do that?
No, you didnt.
>Cant be done.
Well thats the point isnt it? This reply chain was started by me proposing justice as a non material thing. Justice implies an "ought"
If a materialist cannot account for an "ought" then surely he must assume that none exists. If there is no "ougth" there can be no justice. If no justice, then there can be no argument for a justice system.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 00:06:55 2020 No.14613788 >>14613671 The EAAN has plenty of responses, if you think it has defeated naturalism you're for disappointment

Anonymous Mon Jan 27 00:07:22 2020 No.14613791

>>14613596
You're got it backwards. Math (and all logic) works because it is abstracted from our experience of consistent physical relations in our experience. I am not at all proposing that material reality is a projection of our brains (our brains emerged from that reality), rather I'm saying that you shouldn't conflate our idealized representations with the things they represent.

>>14613651
That isn't true, because there are no examples of non-physical objects. You're just talking out of your ass here.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 00:08:19 2020 No.14613798 >>14613788 Please direct me to the best arguments against the EAAN. I would like to read about it.

Anonymous Mon Jan 27 00:09:47 2020 No.14613803

>>14613744
>think
it doesn't matter because the math works you absolute retard. you are thinking some perfect geometric shape when all this stuff is expressed in equations.
>None of this is evidence that these idealizations are actually 'out there' in universal forms
>evidence
still waiting on that proper triangle with angles that don't add up to 180 degrees anon. or perhaps a square which doesn't have 90 degree angles? a circle which does not have infinite points?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 00:10:15 2020 No.14613806 >>14613791 >are abstracted from So there is some system in place according to which matter is conformed. Do the laws of that system have material form?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 00:10:16 2020 No.14613807 >>14613770 So you believe in dark matter but not ina fourth dimension?

Anonymous Mon Jan 27 00:10:34 2020 No.14613808

>>14613787
There is no objective ought, its true I must use an axiom to base my clams of will. There is no objective justice, only what I think is right. (Plato and Mill) But the point I was going for was that someone calming "cause God said so" is wrong.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 00:11:49 2020 No.14613814 >>14613768 okay lol that answer is all I needed

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 00:14:25 2020 No.14613828 >>14613814 amazing

Anonymous Mon Jan 27 00:16:12 2020 No.14613837

>>14613808
A proper theologian would not simply say "just cuz God said so"
I think the Euthyphro paradox efficiently refuted that claim. Although, I've personally been wondering about telology and have been considering that perhaps there is no good and evil, but just teleological imperatives. If anyone has a reccomendation for an author who deals with that, I'd be interested to pursue it.
Anyway, are you the original anon who asked for one (1) example of a non material thing? If not, then I suppose we're having two different conversations. If you are a materialist, I would be interested to hear how you characterize axioms. Surely an axiom itself is not matter, and must point to some kind of idealism.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 00:20:35 2020 No.14613857 >>14613798 Tell me, how much have you read about the EAAN in actual books and journals?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 00:24:07 2020 No.14613883 >>14613857 Very little desu.

Anonymous Mon Jan 27 00:28:30 2020 No.14613901

>>14613837
>are you the original anon who asked for one (1) example of a non material thing?
no

>If you are a materialist, I would be interested to hear how you characterize axioms
1. There is no way to prove God is real, or even a reason to do so. (So God is out of the picture)
2. I must expect the reality I province. (Not that I cant challenge it at times)
3. Science is a tool that explain HOW the material world works. The is
4. I can use aesthetics to get my ought
Thats it broken down I guess

>Surely an axiom itself is not matter, and must point to some kind of idealism.
Ideas come from matter. Its also a contradiction to make idealist clams using material thinking. Once you get to the point, maybe reality is ideal. Then you have to stop and can literally not go any further without contradiction. This is what I mean when I say its Schizophrenic. Its a warped logic.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 00:30:24 2020 No.14613914 >>14613883 Then start with the obvious, Naturalism Defeated?, and go from there

Anonymous Mon Jan 27 00:32:11 2020 No.14613923

>>14613901
>Once you get to the point, maybe reality is ideal. Then you have to stop and can literally not go any further without contradiction.
wat
you know materialism has several huge contradictions inherent to it right? idealism, in particular solipsism, is the position with the least contradictions. how new are you to philosophy? did you start with the Greeks?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 00:32:48 2020 No.14613927 >>14613901 >Ideas come from matter. But matter is an idea. So you're saying ideas come from ideas. I think that because knowledge of knowing precedes knowledge of the physical that ideas should precede matter.

Anonymous Mon Jan 27 00:38:03 2020 No.14613957

>>14613803
There's no universal triangle, circle or square outside of abstract systems defined by us (they are tropes). 'Degrees' and 'points' are abstractions of your brain. Again, math 'works' due to the apparently consistent relations of the concrete (from which all logic is abstracted); this isn't evidence of tapping into universal forms, only that the physics of our universe allows for this predictability (which we can powerfully exploit via symbolism). You think you're being clever, but you're really just stuck on your own naivete.

Anonymous Mon Jan 27 00:39:00 2020 No.14613963

>>14613923
>you know materialism has several huge contradictions inherent to it right
what are they?

>solipsism
The only rational thing to do once a person has accepted solipsism is kill them self's. I'm not trying to be edgy there. I mean it. Other wise literally ever other thing they did would be a contradiction. I think of solipsism as "pre-empirical". Its true everything comes after it, but its fucking useless. That where the axiom comes in. Where I say I must accept my perceived reality.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 00:40:09 2020 No.14613965 >>14613807 You do not even understand the question you’re asking

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 00:41:09 2020 No.14613967 >>14613963 >Where I say I must accept my perceived reality This gives me dystopian vibes desu. Wasnt the allegory of the cave formulated explicitly to oppose such a viewpoint?

Anonymous Mon Jan 27 00:41:15 2020 No.14613968

>>14613927
>But matter is an idea. So you're saying ideas come from ideas
Chinken and the egg?
No even if there where no people to think there would still be matter. Ideas are not greater then matter, matter can be ether greater than or equal to ideas.

Anonymous Mon Jan 27 00:43:36 2020 No.14613982

>>14613957
>There's no universal triangle, circle or square outside of abstract systems defined by us (they are tropes)
and yet math works only under the assumption that there is some universal definition of those things
>math 'works' due to the apparently consistent relations of the concrete (from which all logic is abstracted); this isn't evidence of tapping into universal forms, only that the physics of our universe allows for this predictability
>physics
physics are non-material though, so physics must be an abstraction too. how can out abstractions be accurate if they themselves are based on abstraction? you have argued yourself in a full circle here

Anonymous Mon Jan 27 00:44:59 2020 No.14613987

>>14613967
>This gives me dystopian vibes desu
I dont like the aesthic of something so there for its wrong.
>Wasnt the allegory of the cave formulated explicitly to oppose such a viewpoint?
You cant blame they who look at the wall, we can only celebrate they who have seen the sun.
But each of us might clam the other one is the one seeing shadows.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 00:47:09 2020 No.14614000 >>14613963 >what are they? d-do you not know what the hard problem of consciousness.is? have you literally ever read a book on this subject?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 00:47:47 2020 No.14614005 >>14613965 Answer, faggot. Do you believe in a dimension outside this one or not? A place that can't be proven by our current lame understanding of the Universe? Y/N.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 00:48:56 2020 No.14614010 >>14613963 >[solipsism means you must kill yourself] Other wise literally ever other thing they did would be a contradiction why is this true? you have made no arguments for it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 00:49:39 2020 No.14614013 >>14614000 I've read about consciousness before, but I've never heard of that.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 00:50:26 2020 No.14614015 >>14613806 I don't think we should assume a dichotomy between the matter and the system... They appear to be continuous. The nature of quanta causes them to behave in certain ways, and so yes the laws (behaviours) are physical.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 00:51:20 2020 No.14614021 >>14614005 >he thinks “the fourth dimension” is Narnia beyond hopeless

Anonymous Mon Jan 27 00:52:34 2020 No.14614029

>>14614010
solipsism
>Only my mind is real
So it would literally contradict its self to do anything but sit in the corner and die.
>The whole world is me
Then the idea is useless, your just doing materialism with extra steps. Because now you accept your perceived reality.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 00:53:11 2020 No.14614031 >>14614013 so you haven't read any philosophical work on consciousness then, or at least nothing written in the last few decades

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 00:53:36 2020 No.14614034 >>14614000 *also checked, I forgot to type that out

Anonymous Mon Jan 27 00:54:18 2020 No.14614037

>>14613968
That rests on the assumption that matter produces ideas. We have already agreed that our conception of matter is itself an idea. The ideas we formulate from observing matter is not arbitrary. We rightly recognize that matter has form. What is the cause for organizing matter? Surely it must be ideas. I can think of no valid system that does not indicate ideas as preceding matter. Even the notion of valid reasoning is itself an idealistic notion. How could we attribute the knowledge of matter to matter itself without first assuming matter? It seems to me that materialism is always circular
>>14614015
So matter gives form to itself? Why is form intrinsic to matter? Isnt the problem the pre socratics were trying to solve when they realized that motion cannot be intrinsic to the thing which moves?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 00:55:13 2020 No.14614041 >>14614031 How long are you going to go on with this? Do you have a point or a book I could read?

Anonymous Mon Jan 27 00:55:19 2020 No.14614042

>>14614029
>So it would literally contradict its self to do anything but sit in the corner and die.
why? make an argument anon, don't just say the claim again. why would this be the case?
>materialism with extra steps
nothing about solipsism suggests materialism. make arguments anon, you are just saying things you feel rather than demonstrating why they are true

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 00:56:05 2020 No.14614048 >>14614021 >can't genuinely answer >resorts to strawman and meme irony yea this bugman is beyond salvation. pack it up boys.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 00:56:49 2020 No.14614050 This whole thread looks like an argument between people who like philosophical science and people who think philosophy is asking "deep" questions on facebook like "Where are we going? why are we here? Lets talks about that instead of the kardashians"

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 00:58:00 2020 No.14614058 >>14613982 I was referring to the physical interactions of our universe, not the 'math of physics'. You're really limp-wristing it now.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 00:58:41 2020 No.14614061 >>14614048 >seriously entertain my retarded nonsensical questions right now!!!!!!!!!!!! “No.”

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 00:59:10 2020 No.14614063 >>14614050 >philosophical science

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 00:59:33 2020 No.14614064 >>14614041 yes, anything by the modern philosophers of mind: Dennett, Chalmers, Nagel, Searle, Parfit, ect. Read Nagel's essay What it's like to be a Bat, that's a good place to start.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 01:00:33 2020 No.14614068 >>14614061 Because you can't answer. Because you are as limited as the science you worship.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 01:00:36 2020 No.14614069 >>14614058 >I wasn't using the scientific definition of physics I just mean stuff out there brainlet

Anonymous Mon Jan 27 01:02:59 2020 No.14614080

>>14614037
>That rests on the assumption that matter produces ideas.
you saying brains aren't real?

>The ideas we formulate from observing matter is not arbitrary.
Can you prove that in any way? Seem like evolution would disagree, the one who's idea works the best wins out.

>What is the cause for organizing matter?
No cause or no knowable cause

>How could we attribute the knowledge of matter to matter itself without first assuming matter? It seems to me that materialism is always circular
As far as I can argue, Yes. But we have no reason to accept any form of idealism and all the reason to axiomatically accept materialism, for its all we can perceive.

Anonymous Mon Jan 27 01:03:34 2020 No.14614084

>>14614068
>muh limited science
Did you forget that the reason this exchange started is because you were desperately stealing and misapplying scientific terminology to lend credence to your inane fantasies?
>bro, god, like, lives in another dimension maaan, just like all those other earths in marvel

Anonymous Mon Jan 27 01:10:37 2020 No.14614110

>>14614080
I perceive my own existence and that perception is self justifying. Knowledge of self precedes knowledge of all other things, and thus all systems, including materialism, must refer back to self knowledge as justification. My knowledge of self is not contingent on any materialistic arguments, and all materialistic arguments are contingent on knowledge of self. The lesser cannot precede the greater, so its fair to assume that the self is of a rational substance
It would seem that your stance is one of faith based convenience towards external reality. Fair enough, but i'm just not satisfied with it. It provides no basis against radical skepticism

Anonymous Mon Jan 27 01:11:13 2020 No.14614112

>>14614042
That is the argument, it would be a contradiction.

>materialism with extra steps
nothing about solipsism suggests materialism. make arguments anon, you are just saying things you feel rather than demonstrating why they are true

I'm not use emotion at all. I know solipsism has nothing to do with materialism but if a solipsist where to say "The whole world is me, so its not a contradiction" then that would be wrong and would lead to materialism.

The whole point is , there has to be an axiom that say, "I must accept my perceived reality or else I can do nothing."
To take any action with out accepting that is a contradiction. Everything comes after axiomatically rejection solipsism. But I reject solipsism because its a useless idea. Which I already explained.

>>14614064
Thanks I'll look in to them

Anonymous Mon Jan 27 01:11:22 2020 No.14614114

>>14614084
The term "fourth dimension" was first used by the philosopher Henry More circa 1670. It's not a term exclusive to muh awsum science, you stupid faggot bugman. You are drinking the vomit of the vomit of the vomit. Kys now and spare yourself the shame.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 01:15:11 2020 No.14614125 >>14614063 yes

Anonymous Mon Jan 27 01:15:33 2020 No.14614126

>>14614112
anon if you don't know the difference between an argument and a statement idk how much farther this is going to go
>if a solipsist where to say "The whole world is me, so its not a contradiction" then that would be wrong and would lead to materialism
no argument supporting this claim lol. here, this is a helpful little method the Greeks came up with a couple millennia ago: start with premises that lead to your conclusion. this is an argument:
>p1 all things which move have limbs and muscles
>p2 the earth has no limbs and muscles
>c the earth does not move (p1, p2)
this is not an argument:
>the earth does not move

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 01:17:08 2020 No.14614135 >>14614125 not a thing

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 01:17:23 2020 No.14614137 >>14614126 Ur mom moves lmao

Anonymous Mon Jan 27 01:22:16 2020 No.14614153

>>14614110
>I perceive my own existence and that perception is self justifying.
Yes

>My knowledge of self is not contingent on any materialistic arguments.
Wrong (kind of). The use of langue and science. (Do you understand or want me to expound on this?)

>that your stance is one of faith based convenience towards external reality.
>It provides no basis against radical skepticism
Its like theirs two side of philosophy for me. The abstract one, and the everyday one. If i'm going to live in the world (which I do) I need to be able to make an 'ought' clam at some point. But I need an 'is' foundation. My foundation is perceived realty (which and be scrutinized of course). So let me ask you, what are the real world consequences for idealism? Whats the use? Anything political or religious? To me I just want a strong eunuch axiom so I can make a good ought clam. The final truth might be something else but at this point if you or anyone else doesn't have an answer then I just want to move do and get in to politics and such.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 01:23:59 2020 No.14614162 >>14614126 >p1 I perceive the world

Anonymous Mon Jan 27 01:25:55 2020 No.14614172

>>14614041
Why make a point yourself when you can just argue from authority and pretend that means something. Logical demonstration would take actual effort!

>>14614037
No, I think it's unlikely that there's a true dichotomy between 'matter' and 'form' in the first place. The interactions of matter are the form. Observed motion is relative, but everything is moving. Movement is not a 'form', it is in an intrinsic behaviour.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 01:26:49 2020 No.14614177 >>14614162 >p2 I assume until I have reason not to that its true (skepticism comes latter but ill note it now)

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 01:33:59 2020 No.14614222 >>14614172 >argue from authority kek yes the grand authority of having been educated on the topic, what an awful thing it mist be to read books https://www.iep.utm.edu/hard-con/

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 01:36:03 2020 No.14614231 >>14614222 Hasn't done you much good if you can't concisely present the arguments yourself.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 01:37:09 2020 No.14614235 >>14612713 I am a dumb idiot and I agree with you. My feelings are shit and I love to humiliate myself before women daily. Have you ever ran naked in disneyland?

Anonymous Mon Jan 27 01:37:18 2020 No.14614237

feelings are as concrete as any idea (numbers, math, direction). Love and hate, justice, are as well reasoned as algebra. Literally everyone realized this until around the modern times in some autistic corners. Drama art and literature are therefore much more practical than philosophy.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 01:40:31 2020 No.14614254 >>14614222 checked and based

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 01:42:58 2020 No.14614265 File: 24 KB, 657x527, 1482415254934.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14614237 >Drama art and literature are therefore much more practical than philosophy. Feel over facts?

Anonymous Mon Jan 27 01:44:51 2020 No.14614275

>>14614231
I am amazed anyone would feel confident talking about materialism/idealism without a prior understanding of this. It's like arguing about physics but not having read anything past Newton.
>The usual methods of science involve explanation of functional, dynamical, and structural properties—explanation of what a thing does, how it changes over time, and how it is put together. But even after we have explained the functional, dynamical, and structural properties of the conscious mind, we can still meaningfully ask the question, Why is it conscious? This suggests that an explanation of consciousness will have to go beyond the usual methods of science. Consciousness therefore presents a hard problem for science, or perhaps it marks the limits of what science can explain. Explaining why consciousness occurs at all can be contrasted with so-called “easy problems” of consciousness: the problems of explaining the function, dynamics, and structure of consciousness. These features can be explained using the usual methods of science. But that leaves the question of why there is something it is like for the subject when these functions, dynamics, and structures are present. This is the hard problem.
or rather, if mental states (thoughts) are strictly a product of material reality, and therefore have no causal effect on material reality, then why the illusion of consciousness in the first place? One of the corollaries to this raised by another anon itt: of strict materialism is true, there should be no evolutionary advantage to being conscious at all, a non-conscious actor could do everything the conscious one does, as all it requires is particular electrical signals in the brain to operate.

reminder if any of this is new to you, you are severely undereducated on this subject

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 01:50:25 2020 No.14614287 >>14614265 Feelings are facts. That is the point, bugman.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 01:52:37 2020 No.14614292 File: 78 KB, 1080x608, 1519862161375.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14614287 >Feelings are facts When did this bored get so over run with schizos? Are you trying to say its a fact that feeling are real?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 01:55:22 2020 No.14614302 >>14614292 I'm saying feelings are facts, bugman.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 01:57:47 2020 No.14614315 File: 60 KB, 500x500, vHedWVd.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14614302

Anonymous Mon Jan 27 01:57:49 2020 No.14614316

>>14614237
Except feelings are the impetus for all reasoning (including algebra), so that is no basis for determining relative praticality. I think if you really appreciated the extent to which math has improved your life (and is a component of art), you wouldn't be so certain of your assessment.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 01:59:46 2020 No.14614322 >>14614316 Au contrair, without art and language there would be no society for numbers to even be used in. math has benefitted far more from drama than the reverse.

Anonymous Mon Jan 27 02:28:21 2020 No.14614416

>>14614275
Thoughts do have an effect, as they are the precursors some kinds of actions of a thinking agents. You're mysticizing consciousness a great deal here... So called 'consciousness' is a sophisticated aggregation and processing of sensory capacities. The evolutionary advantage the system is obvious: it allows us to more accurately predict and react to our environment. Still, there are other life-strategies and it is fallacious to present evolution as being a homogenous path.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 02:35:08 2020 No.14614445 >>14614322 Well, math is language... Drama and literature are somewhat 'downstream'. Society is an inherited instinct for us, far more ancient than language of the type you have in mind.

Anonymous Mon Jan 27 02:43:54 2020 No.14614475

>>14614416
>Thoughts do have an effect, as they are the precursors some kinds of actions of a thinking agents
but if thoughts are reducible to their material element (i.e. electrical signals in the brain), then you could strip away conscious awareness of those signals and still be able to predict and react to our environment. It's one thing to say the brain signals a reaction which makes you take your hand away from a hot stove and the feeling of being burned. There is no evolutionary reason for the feeling of being burned, only the reaction to take your hand away.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 02:44:56 2020 No.14614478 >>14614475 >and another the feeling of being burned

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 02:50:11 2020 No.14614492 >>14612776 Thick description

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 02:51:43 2020 No.14614498 >>14612823 how tf do i find the room to pray in mane

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 02:53:48 2020 No.14614505 >>14614275 https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rstb.2017.0342

Anonymous Mon Jan 27 02:58:55 2020 No.14614517

>>14614505
I'm well read on Dennett, his position is full reductionist. He thinks thoughts literally have no influence over behavior, but rather are an illusion put together by our brain which makes it feel as if they did. This is called epiphenomenalism, and is still prone to the evolutionary critique, why does the brain fool us with this false images? What evolutionary benefit could this elaborate and totally epiphenomenal illusion have?

Anonymous Mon Jan 27 03:37:19 2020 No.14614608

>>14614475
You certainly couldn't predict your environment without experience. You could react to it, but within a far more limited scope of potential. 'Feeling the burn' and having a subsequent memory of that feeling provokes avoidance behaviours in the future. Seems like a rather obvious 'evolutionary reason' to me, especially for macro-organisms like us that don't rely upon massive redundant populations and fast generations.

Anonymous Mon Jan 27 03:50:38 2020 No.14614642

>>14614608
so you are telling me a non-physical phenomena like qualia is changing physical matter? how on earth can a non-physical thing change a physical thing, as they are of a different substance? you are almost up to the 16th c. rationalists here anon, at this pace you might hit the German enlightenment before bump limit.

Anonymous Mon Jan 27 04:06:19 2020 No.14614674

>>14613470
>If no one ever had the idea of justice there would be no such think as justice. Ideas do not and cant exist with out, though ,and of a material anchor.
We were talking about numbers, though. I would say that even if no one ever thought about them, they would still exist, otherwise they could not ever be potentially thought. It is also clear to me that numbers are essentially different from what can be counted and measured. You could change the structure of the entire universe, numbers would remain the same. Their truth value does not depend on the specific details of my empirical experience.
Material things are only the ratio cognoscendi of numbers (without an experience I would never think or know them), not their ratio essendi.

So there it is: a thing that exists, that is neither a feeling nor a material things, nor it can be derived from those two things. What do I win?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 04:18:33 2020 No.14614702 >>14614642 No, I'm telling you that qualia don't exist. Experience IS interactions of quanta. Maybe take another gander at Dennett, you don't seem that well read on him. Also, trope theory.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 04:22:20 2020 No.14614708 >>14614702 Dennett's position isn't that they don't exist, it's that they are illusory, they are epiphenonmenal. It literally doesn't make sense to say qualia doesn't exist, unless you are some sort of zombie or robot or insect or something

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 04:22:47 2020 No.14614709 >>14612953 based

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 05:11:07 2020 No.14614808 >>14613433 Get a load of this guy.

Anonymous Mon Jan 27 08:41:11 2020 No.14615450

>>14612850
>Some (probably most) people just aren't capable of finding wonder and comfort in existence without fairytales.
You'd have to be a literal sociopath or extremely deluded/ignorant to find comfort with the standard scientific worldview of meaningless, chaotic, and Darwinian existence. Which is to say you are just an average person, because there are only a handful of people out of a thousand that actually hold any religious or metaphysical conviction these days; society has replaced priest with the psuedo-clergy of popscientist figures and prayer with Xanax.

Anonymous Mon Jan 27 08:46:31 2020 No.14615468

>>14614702
>Experience IS interactions of quanta.
Quanta is an abstraction that resulted from experience, see Planck.
>You admit this but say experience arises from brain activity.
What is brain activity but your experience of something you call brain activity?
>Then you say that's the perception of the brain, not the real brain that is producing the experience.
Now you are in Religionland, because you can't prove this metaphysical brain, only an experience that you assume "of it" (something unknowable)

>>14614112
>There has to be an axiom that say "I must accept my perceived reality or else I can do nothing."
Cringey af. You think idealism or solipsism have normative implications, which is both wrong and stupid. You think things can be true or not depending on their usefulness. And what the fuck is this "axiom"?.
Matter isn't less real for being an abstraction of experience.

Cmon anon, you can get to the Enlightenment

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 10:04:39 2020 No.14615644 >>14614114 >this old guy used silly made-up words so I get to do it too even when they’ve been supplanted by modern definitions kek

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 12:16:56 2020 No.14616229 >>14612723 >forgetting that science is a philosophy

Anonymous Mon Jan 27 13:14:13 2020 No.14616522

>>14614708
Except that mystic-anons here are using qualia as an example of something 'non-physical', not just a neutral term referring to kinds of experiences. It's like the term 'metaphysical'...I would accept it if it was being used in the neutral sense of referring to a line of abstract inquiry, but rather it is used to smuggle in an unfounded assumption of the 'non-physical' existing. If you're referring to qualia as a subset of quanta, then I'd agree.

>>14615468
Sure, but the question is how accurately a given abstraction describes a corresponding thing-in-itself. That the concept of 'quanta' is an abstraction does not indicate that the abstracting agent precedes that which the abstraction is attempting to represent (or indeed is not entirely constituted of that thing).

Your skepticism is kind of silly... We aren't omniscient, so obviously our subjective experience is of things that exist objectively. Are those things really 'unknowable'? Perhaps if you demand 'perfect knowledge' of them, but it seems clear that simply having an experience of something must convey some degree of information about the thing itself (how else could an apperance be conveyed but via aspects of things themselves?).

>>14616229
Other way 'round — philosophy is a science (ideally). The logic employed by philosophy doesn't just pop out of nowhere, it is abstracted from the consistency of certain relations in our experience... In other words, it is empirically derived (a science).

Anonymous Mon Jan 27 13:56:13 2020 No.14616746

>>14616522
>Except that mystic-anons here are using qualia as an example of something 'non-physical'
>mystic-anons
you mean scientists, right? they are the ones who concluded there is no physical element to qualia; it is well accepted in neuroscience that the electrical signals in the brain create material effects and that there is nothing in those electrical signals which could be properly called "qualia". this is why the hard problem has been argued about for nearly 50 years, in that time neuroscience has not been able to prove qualia is a subset of quanta. unless there is a major development in neuroscience which explains this causal interaction between higher level qualia and lower level physical states in the brain, you are the one who believes in "mystics". reminder, I'm a materialist, I just think you have no idea what you are talking about and the philosophic implications of your position. ironically you are more or less a Cartesian dualist, he had to appeal to God to explain the interaction between physical and non-physical, you don't even have the intellectual cleanliness to do that. instead, you appeal to a non-scientific definition of qualia and hope that hand waves the interaction problem away. try looking into compatibilism, personally I think it is a shite position but at least it will sort out some of your crossed wires

Anonymous Mon Jan 27 14:04:44 2020 No.14616794

>>14616522
>it seems clear that simply having an experience of something must convey some degree of information about the thing itself (how else could an apperance be conveyed but via aspects of things themselves?).
Oh shit, I was right, you are making it to the German enlightenment. This is an incredible dialectical journey through the history of philosophy. So, you have read Kant, right anon?

Anonymous Mon Jan 27 14:19:54 2020 No.14616882

>>14616746
>no physical element to qualia
Let me explain how this works because this is obviously a source of confusion itt. physical states of the brain create higher level states (qualia) but those higher level states have NO interactive relationship going the other direction. Scientist have proved that physical states of the brain causes qualia, they have NEVER proven that qualia causes physical states of the brain. According to modern science, qualia is epiphenomenonal because it has NO causal influence on brain states. This is why people like Dennett, those who are what is called scientific reductionists, had to conclude that qualia are simply illusions, thoughts and feelings have no evolutionary value, and free will doesn't exist.

Anonymous Mon Jan 27 14:36:07 2020 No.14616954

>>14616746
You're ignoring emergence. The interaction of electrical signals and chemicals (transmitters, tissues, etc.) produce another physical event (or more accurately, aggregation of events) that are experience. Your attempts to misrepresent my argument are petulant and semantic. Indeed there is much more to discover about what is going on here, but the truth is the evidence we do have all points to the interactions of quanta, and you have no actionable alternative explanation (all you can do is appeal to a vague and aimless skepticism). Perhaps there is a clue here in your repeated self-identification as a 'materialist'. Materialism is a scientifically antiquated position — I am a physicalist.

>>14616794
I have. Why don't you just cut to the logical demonstration instead of pretending that you're clever.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 14:39:00 2020 No.14616966 >>14616954 >this position which has been discounted since the 18c. seems obvious to me so cut to the logical demonstration mystic-anon

Anonymous Mon Jan 27 14:43:21 2020 No.14616988
File: 103 KB, 1080x422, Screenshot_20200127-114145.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14616954
>The interaction of electrical signals and chemicals (transmitters, tissues, etc.) produce another physical event (or more accurately, aggregation of events) that are experience
Yes, and those experiences have NO CAUSAL INFLUENCE ON THE INTERACTION OF ELECTRICAL SIGNALS AND CHEMICALS. And physicalism is a subset of materialism, and is often used as a synonym, so this is just another out that you haven't read enough on this subject.

Anonymous Mon Jan 27 14:49:15 2020 No.14617008

>>14616882
What does 'higher level' even mean in this context? Again you resort to vagueness. Qualia are just emergent from simpler physical states (but are still physical states themselves). In other words, qualia ARE physical states of the brain. You're adding another layer of assumption without good reason for doing so (illusions do physically exist, they aren't 'unreal', what makes them illusions is that they convey an intuition which isn't accurate when critically examined (although such intuitions may still be useful). Thoughts and feelings obviously have evolutionary value, reductionists don't dispute that... Free will doesn't exist, it's an obvious spook (and unfortunately Dennett does not really call that one out, he resorts to lame compatibilism). Forgive me, but your understanding of these positions seems superficial at best.

Anonymous Mon Jan 27 14:53:34 2020 No.14617028

>>14617008
>What does 'higher level' even mean in this context?
Even Dennett uses the term higher level states, it is standard terminology, so it is your understanding which has been proven superficial over and over itt. Qualia being emergent is not what is at stake in the hard problem, it is if this emergent property has a CAUSAL influence on lower lever brain states (electrical signals and chemicals). Science disagrees with you here by saying there is NO causal influence. You are still thinking about the easy problems...

Anonymous Mon Jan 27 14:58:25 2020 No.14617048

>>14616988
See where it says 'but...'? There is contention over whether physicalism and materialism are really interchageable positions.

The experiences are the interactions of signals and chemicals. Your all-caps statement is assuming concrete dichotomy or discreteness which doesn't exist... Meaning your statement obviously wrong because a continuous field of interactions are the 'state' and any particular interactions will necessarily change that state. Try actually thinking about it for a moment.

>>14616966
>this position which I don't even understand is wrong because argument from authority
t.idiot-anon

Anonymous Mon Jan 27 15:08:49 2020 No.14617104

>>14617028
Well I think 'higher states' is too vague to be useful terminology... The context of the relation needs to be specified (e.g. emergence). Sorry Dennett. You keep regurgitating this 'causal' problem without realizing that it relies upon a pre-assumed discreteness between the interaction and the qualia, but they are the same thing. I'm pretty sure the science would agree that any physical event is bound to influence subsequent physical events, but if there's a specific experiment or evidence you're thinking of it, please do present it.

Anonymous Mon Jan 27 15:28:43 2020 No.14617176
File: 104 KB, 1080x2200, Untitled.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14617048
>There is contention over whether physicalism and materialism are really interchageable positions
lol I said that phyiscalism was a subset of materialism (i.e. they are not strictly the same position) so idk if you have given up reading my comments or if you are just grasping at anything you possibly can. Look, you disagree with modern neuroscience, that's okay anon. I don't think neuroscience understands everything. But I also don't larp like science somehow supports the casual relation from higher level to lower level brain states.
>there isn't a dichotomy or discreteness
Unscientific and unsupported, positions which are presented without evidence can be discounted without evidence. Here, I'll draw you a picture of where you step out of the scientific consensus.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 16:21:40 2020 No.14617433 >>14617176 You know "chemical reactions and electrical signals" are abstractions of qualia?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 16:24:26 2020 No.14617447 >>14617433 not according to neuroscience they aren't

Anonymous Mon Jan 27 16:48:04 2020 No.14617591

>>14617176
But physicalism isn't a subset of materialism if it contradicts some tenets of materialism, it's a replacement for it. Why don't you actually think about what you're saying instead of just regugitating what you learned in some intro course?

No, what is unsupported is the notion 'qualia' are distinct from the interaction itself. Doesn't your silly flowchart make it quite evident that you're 'baking-in' an assumption that qualia are something other than the interactions themselves? Have we observed something else at work? Do you have an alternate positive claim? Again, if you're thinking of a particular experiment or aspect of physics, it would be helpful if you'd refer to it specifically.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 17:10:48 2020 No.14617774 >>14612858 DPH machine elf spiders told me

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 17:16:27 2020 No.14617818 >>14612972 unironically this

Anonymous Mon Jan 27 17:25:43 2020 No.14617877

>>14617591
all physicalism is is materialism that assert that the laws of physics count too, even though they are immaterial, which 99% of materialist already do anyways, hence why most people use them interchangably. the only people left out are materialists who don't believe in physics, which is a pretty much non-existent position.
>Doesn't your silly flowchart make it quite evident that you're 'baking-in' an assumption that qualia are something other than the interactions themselves?
cute that you call this silly, when again, this is a very basic rundown of epiphenonmenalism. you just can't help but out yourself for not having read the relevant material here. You can solve this whole thing quite easily though anon, you seem to understand how qualia is both reducible to physical brain states and effect those brain states, so where is "redness" located in the vision center of the brain? which electrical signals equal "redness"? (to be painfully clear, not red, but "redness".) if you can figure this out there is quite literally a Nobel prize for you so you might as well publish your work.
>Have we observed something else at work?
No, we have never observed this interaction, which is why scientific reductionists have to admit that there is no causal link from qualia to brain states, it only operates in one direction (lower to higher).
>Do you have an alternate positive claim?
The only positive claim that can be made is the one you are rejecting, which is why you seem to have a problem with materialism (i.e. physicalism) but you still don't seem to realize that you do.

Anonymous Mon Jan 27 17:28:00 2020 No.14617892
File: 66 KB, 2000x438, 2000px-dualismcausationviews3-svg.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14617591
here's another "silly chart" which totally agrees with mine, notice how you fall into "non-reductive physicalism", non-reductive meaning SCIENCE CANNOT AND HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO EXPLAIN THIS INTERACTION

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 17:29:38 2020 No.14617900 >>14615644 >this old guy used silly made-up words so I get to do it too Yes. >even when they’ve been supplanted by modern definitions No.

Anonymous Mon Jan 27 19:21:47 2020 No.14618479

>>14617877
Materialism is a more antiquated and naive view of the physicality of our universe. I think you underestimate the amount of lay-materialists who (perhaps in combination with equally outdated philosophies) assume the existence of problems which they needn't. You conveniently demonstrate this when saying "laws of physics count too, even though they are immaterial..." The laws of physics are abstractions (which are physical events themselves) from the observed behaviours of quanta (physical events). There is no 'immateriality' present in the scenario... In fact, 'immateriality', 'non-physicality' etc. are nothing but negative claims since such states have never been observed and can't even be positively defined.

>>14617877
Yes, and the basic bitch flaw of epiphenomenalism is that it starts with an assumption that there is a 'mind' or 'quale' which is distinct from the brain! The mind IS the brain, the quale IS goings-on (interactions) of the brain — they are not discrete states, but rather continuous physical events in an overall state.

'Redness' is only a trope — there are no actually identical experiences of redness, it is the result of particular connections and events of the brain/eyes responding to stimuli. You are introducing an unecessary problem with your naive view of what 'redness' is.

Again, the problem of 'causal link' assumes that qualia are not brain states (or more accurately, events of a fluid state). In terms of physics, an event (in this case a quale) can't happen without affecting the state it is continuous with (being emergent doesn't make it non-continuous).

You have not made a positive claim. You refer to 'qualia' without positing what such things could be (you rely upon a highly self-referential set of terminology). You assume a discreteness which there is no evidence for... Without that unexamined separation, experiences are physical events which are emergent (but not isolated from) simpler events.

>>14617892
What science needs to discover is the particulars of the emergent phenomenon (not epiphenomenon) of experience. I think it will, and once again all we have evidence of is physical events, meaning that emergence is the probable and at least partially supported explanation. Meanwhile, you can't even posit an alternative explanation but continue to ignore this failure on your part.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 19:25:32 2020 No.14618496 >>14618479 This is getting stupid. Could you please define physical, abstraction and observation -all words you used- so we can all be in the same page here?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 21:03:19 2020 No.14619105 >>14612972 yikes. seek help

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 21:05:58 2020 No.14619117 >>14612713 everything is material, except the things that are not.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 21:10:46 2020 No.14619138 >>14618479 Give us a mechanistic explanation of qualia or you hand us your bullshit degree

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 21:26:47 2020 No.14619240 >>14618479 >The laws of physics are abstractions so you an idealist who thinks that gravity geometry, ect. only exist in the mind, cool to know

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 21:30:42 2020 No.14619259 >>14618479 >What science needs to discover is the particulars of the emergent phenomenon (not epiphenomenon) of experience. I think it will mystic-anon

Cis male Mon Jan 27 21:41:25 2020 No.14619315

>>14614674
>if no one ever thought about them, they would still exist,
numbers are not real retard
>otherwise they could not ever be potentially thought
That does not mean anything. Someone had to be the first person to think of numbers, and until that point there where no numbers.
>You could change the structure of the entire universe, numbers would remain the same
That only makes scene if you assume there would be something to observe numbers in that altered universe. Its like saying magic is real because it works in any possible time line. We don't have real magic only the idea of magic. We don't have true number only the idea of numbers. The idea is the tool.
>a thing that exists, that is neither a feeling nor a material things, nor it can be derived from those two things.
so then everything nothing? That doesn't make any seance. There would have to be at lest one thing, and it would need a material base.

Cis male Mon Jan 27 21:43:55 2020 No.14619331
File: 45 KB, 523x452, 1494442366654.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14614808
>idealists

>>14615468
>Cringey af. You think idealism or solipsism have normative implications, which is both wrong and stupid. You think things can be true or not depending on their usefulness. And what the fuck is this "axiom"?.
Matter isn't less real for being an abstraction of experience.
No. I don't believe that's true. Shut the fuck up and read the rest of what i wrote.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 21:48:59 2020 No.14619374 >>14618479 >>14617877 I enjoyed reading this conversation, I found it very insightful. My position is closer to the poster arguing that experience is material, but seeing people put views to words is therapeutic in a way.

Anonymous Mon Jan 27 21:49:43 2020 No.14619381

>>14619315
We use numbers in engineering and construction. Suppose we say that numbers are merely means to express a system according to which the physical universe operates. That still leaves in the place the actually existent system and the factual correspondence of numbers to the system. The system itself is not of a physical substance. What is the source of order in the universe and where from does it come?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 21:51:47 2020 No.14619391 >>14619240 I think he meant that our models of the physical laws are abstractions of material reality that are physically abstracted in the mind.

Anonymous Mon Jan 27 22:17:36 2020 No.14619527

>>14619381
Obviously it is meta-physical. Physicality is arranged, but the dimensions of this array are meta-physical in origin. Even in human terms, when we arrange physical things via construction / engineering, we arrange according to a ghostly vision of what is to what could be. Hierarchy is meta-physical. Why don't lions just eat each other? What is "kind"? What is "type"? Why is there category among the animal kingdoms? Etc. These things are self-evident; the fact that we can speculate doesn't help us reach our conclusions.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 22:20:39 2020 No.14619541 >>14619527 Would you concede at least that it indicates the existence of the non material?

>>	cunt Mon Jan 27 22:23:32 2020 No.14619565 >>14619381 >What is the source of order in the universe and where from does it come? Us, People.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 22:23:53 2020 No.14619571 >>14619391 he should figure out the terminology, because what he said was >The laws of physics are abstractions which is undeniably an idealist position

>>	cunt Mon Jan 27 22:28:17 2020 No.14619603 >>14619541 >the existence of the non material only as thoughts in the brain, so no I guess then

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 22:30:04 2020 No.14619612 >>14619541 I would. I would even go so far as to say that physical things are arranged according to meta-physical dictum for those very reasons. Then again, I'm not the person you were speaking to.

Anonymous Mon Jan 27 22:42:20 2020 No.14619687

I don't even understand all this stuff about evolutionary advantages of consciousness and whatnot, the problem is much more lower level than that. I.e. when you touch a table, does the table feel something? Why not, it is just atoms, same stuff as the brain.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 22:44:53 2020 No.14619705 >>14619565 >yeah dude the universe didn’t exist until humans existed lmao holy cringe

>>	cunt Mon Jan 27 22:47:06 2020 No.14619716 >>14619705 >yeah dude the universe didn’t exist until humans existed lmao not at all what I said faggot

Anonymous Mon Jan 27 22:57:19 2020 No.14619788

>>14619687
>I don't even understand all this stuff about evolutionary advantages of consciousness and whatnot, the problem is much more lower level than that. I.e. when you touch a table, does the table feel something? Why not, it is just atoms, same stuff as the brain.

Consciousness is the fixed point between meta-physical and physical. It's the nexus where the two meet.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 23:01:47 2020 No.14619816 >>14619716 not him but if you don't think the universe had any order or laws before consciousness arose you are basically saying the universe didn't exist until consciousness did

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 23:32:26 2020 No.14619981 NOOOOOOOO EVERYTHING IS JUST NUMBERS!!!!! I FUCKING LOVE SCIENCE!!!!!1!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlWSJHjhTJM

>>	cunt Tue Jan 28 00:25:59 2020 No.14620263 >>14619816 >not him but if you don't think the universe had any order or laws before consciousness when did I say that? Did I miss read something?

The Man !QkRJTXcpFI Tue Jan 28 00:30:55 2020 No.14620279

>>14612998
>why is it that all proper triangles, regardless of size, position, chronological spacing, ect., will always have angles that add up to 180 degrees? How does math even work if triangles aren't universal, do you think one day we could draw a triangle and it happens to have angles that add up to 210 degrees?
I am in utter awe... triangles don't exist. There has never been a triangle that has ever existed, it is just an abstraction we created. It would require perfectly straight lines that meet eachother at their exact ends. The interior angles of a triangle have never added up to 180 degrees.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 00:33:22 2020 No.14620292 >>14620263 >>14619565 did you not say the source of order in the universe is people?

The Man !QkRJTXcpFI Tue Jan 28 00:34:25 2020 No.14620301

>>14613093
>Math can be universal because we define its terms.
Math isn't universal. A fly, for instance, would have absolutely no conception of a "triangle". It would buzz right by and ignore it. Even if you give me a hypothetical abstraction of a perfect triangle, saying the interior angles need to add to 180 degrees, my interpretation and your interpretation of the number and the word would be radically different, since we are ultimately two different people with two divergent perspectives. Recourse to any other interpretation, of math as universal, is idealistic platonism.

Anonymous Tue Jan 28 00:37:24 2020 No.14620316

>>14620279
okay, why does the Pythagorean theorem work? how does any trigonometry make sense if triangles don't exist? why did abstract math (including trigonometry) get us to the moon if it has no relation to the real world? if you mean "no one has ever drawn a perfect triangle" well no fucking duh lmao, you need to take issue with math not human capabilities
>triangles don't exist
I can't even

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 00:38:26 2020 No.14620320 >>14620301 >Math isn't universal. A fly, for instance, would have absolutely no conception of a "triangle". It would buzz right by and ignore it >he thinks something isn't universal if a fly can't conceptualize it oh nononono

The Man !QkRJTXcpFI Tue Jan 28 00:39:41 2020 No.14620326

>>14613012
>The physical universe is finite. Numbers are infinite. There are not only more numbers than physical objetcs, there are numbers that don't refer to physical objects at all. We can either do as you suggest, say that not all numbers are abstractions (in fact infinity times infinity aren't) BUT THE FIRST ONES ARE - therefore numbers are abstractions. Or we can do away with the theory all together as it fails spectacularly to explain our knowledge of mathematics.
You seem uttely incapable of understanding an abstraction is something a brain creates, and therefore physical. If I shot you in the head, there would be no more abstraction.

>>	The Man !QkRJTXcpFI Tue Jan 28 00:42:24 2020 No.14620337 >>14613260 This is reverse causality... it is the abstraction that creates the percieved object in the first place. Our concepts are meaningless outside themselves.

Anonymous Tue Jan 28 00:51:40 2020 No.14620381

>>14620301
"Math" exists outside of the fly, and outside of man, but man can observe it. Try again.

>>14620316
>okay, why does the Pythagorean theorem work?

Meta-physical harmonics. Bluntly put.

>>14620326

Is that how far your own abstract reasoning goes? I expected more from trip users.

>me shoot you
>you die
>no more thinking hehe me right

COME ON! We're talking about the APPLICATION of abstraction, not how man can transceive it. It goes without saying, to any half-brain, that if you get shot in the head your brain stops functioning. Is that what happened to you?

The Man !QkRJTXcpFI Tue Jan 28 00:52:32 2020 No.14620386

>>14613461
>That the sums of the internal angles of a triangle equal a right angle in euclidean space is a true statement independent of any experience.
Wrong again, for these are all just arbitrary concepts you created that only exist in their pathetic little system that diverges from all others. What you said is not a fact, it is tautology: you have created the concept "triangle" (which never has existed and never will outside your brain, and diverges from everyone elses conception of it) to refer tautologically to it's small set of rules you have created for it (whch also diverge from everyone elses conceptions), that can also be destroyed (by either derridean deconstruction, or by way of godel creating a self-referential statement using the rules of primitive euclidean logic).

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 00:52:35 2020 No.14620387 >>14620381 based post

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 00:53:38 2020 No.14620392 >>14620316 We don't do anything exactly. We approximate.

cunt Tue Jan 28 00:55:48 2020 No.14620406

>>14620292
>did you not say the source of order in the universe is people?
No that's true, so whats the problem? People are apart of the universe not in the universe. Of course the universe was around before us but we are the mind of existence. We are the part of reality that is aware of its self.

Anonymous Tue Jan 28 00:57:20 2020 No.14620411

>>14619687
Emergence. The table is a very simple localization of matter/energy/fields relative to the brain (the most complex thing in the universe, as far as we know). Everywhere we look, we can see complex phenomenon emerging from simpler ones... It is not such a stretch then, to suppose that experience itself is such an emergent phenomenon, even if we can't model it yet (there is loads of circumstancial evidence though: prodding the brain of an awake patient during neurosurgery, transcranial magnetic stimulation, fMRI correlation of brain activity with reported experience and exposure to certain stimuli, symptoms of localized brain damage, and much more).
tl;dr the table has less varied atoms interacting in less varied and complex ways

>>14619816
Order is fairly relative concept. Does the universe have laws, or just a nature? For example, is the 'speed of light' really a thing itself, or is it just our description of the common behaviour of photons? I suppose you could say that the behaviour -is- the law, but in that case there is no need to treat 'matter' and 'form' as discrete aspects in the first place.

The Man !QkRJTXcpFI Tue Jan 28 00:58:39 2020 No.14620415

>>14620381
>"Math" exists outside of the fly, and outside of man, but man can observe it.
You have just assumed a concept your brain abstracted from experiences existed outside yourself. This is about as retarded as thinking that there exists an objective "blue" outside yourself. You have just propped up math on an idealistic platonistic temple that everything refers to. Fucking retard platonists.

The Man !QkRJTXcpFI Tue Jan 28 01:01:43 2020 No.14620425

>>14620381
>COME ON! We're talking about the APPLICATION of abstraction, not how man can transceive it. It goes without saying, to any half-brain, that if you get shot in the head your brain stops functioning. Is that what happened to you?
You are utterly incapable of realizing abstraction is a physical process that takes place differently inside each perspective in the flux. My conception of a triangle, your conception of a triangle, and pythagoras' conception of a triangle, are all RADICALLY DIFFERENT. IF YOU DENY THIS YOU WOULD BE SAYING WE HAVE THE SAME BRAIN.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 01:04:20 2020 No.14620437 >>14620406 okay but the universe was ordered before it was aware of itself, if anything awareness has made the universe far less ordered

The Man !QkRJTXcpFI Tue Jan 28 01:04:24 2020 No.14620438

>>14620316
>okay, why does the Pythagorean theorem work?
THE PYTHAGOREAN THEOREM HAS NEVER WORKED PERFECTLY, RETARD. A PERFECT TRIANGLE HAS NEVER AND WILL NEVER EXIST. EVEN IF YOU CREATE A HYPOTHETICAL PERFECT EUCLIDEAN TRIANGLE, YOUR "RULE" (WHICH YOU CREATED WITH THE CONCEPT TRIANGLE IN THE FIRST PLACE) WILL ONLY WORK TAUTOLOGICALLY, AND BECOME USELESS!

The Man !QkRJTXcpFI Tue Jan 28 01:07:46 2020 No.14620453

>>14619565
>>14620292
>>14620437
nothing can become more or less ordered. This is just a retarded anthropomorphization you have projected onto the whole universe. The concepts order and disorder only have meaning when you attach them to a purpose, but the universe itself is purposeless, for it is us who first created the concept "purpose".

cunt Tue Jan 28 01:10:07 2020 No.14620464

>>14620437
>okay but the universe was ordered before it was aware of itself
Yes.I don't think I ever denied that and if I did I didn't mean it to come off that way.
But the word "order" here is odd because its actually chaos. Chaos is the order.Check out James Gleick's Chaos.
The laws of nature seem to be random, and it happens to be that where in a stable universe capable of life.

The Man !QkRJTXcpFI Tue Jan 28 01:10:15 2020 No.14620465

>>14620320
If you are talking about universal truth (aka, a rule that all things in the universe follow), you should be able to abstract such a rule from even a fly, even a particle. Your "truth" is obsolete to a fly. It was me trying to help you realize that your little systems are meaningless outside yourself. Clearly I have failed...

Anonymous Tue Jan 28 01:10:35 2020 No.14620468

>>14620411
the laws of the universe are the rules which physical things obey. if you are suggesting that these might not be universal (e.g. laws may change based on location, somewhere outside of the observable universe or something) I can be sympathetic to your position, but as far as we can tell, based on our observation of the observable universe, all particles behave predictably.
>inb4 someone brings up QM without understanding it

>>	cunt Tue Jan 28 01:11:26 2020 No.14620472 >>14620453 >the universe itself is purposeless I agree, I dont know why everyone is acting like I dont >it is us who first created the concept "purpose". thats what im trying to say

Anonymous Tue Jan 28 01:12:30 2020 No.14620478

>>14620425
>My conception of a triangle, your conception of a triangle, and pythagoras' conception of a triangle, are all RADICALLY DIFFERENT. IF YOU DENY THIS YOU WOULD BE SAYING WE HAVE THE SAME BRAIN.
explain why you think this is an argument against the existence/universality of triangles, nothing about this p
topic hinges on everything (including flies) having the same conception

The Man !QkRJTXcpFI Tue Jan 28 01:13:31 2020 No.14620482

>>14620464
>The laws of nature seem to be random, and it happens to be that where in a stable universe capable of life.
a law of nature would be anything but random, since it would be a law. Don't you know what the word "law" means? Are you that uneducated?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 01:13:48 2020 No.14620483 >>14620453 >nothing can become more or less ordered >what is entropy do you just hate science or something? this is (almost) as bad as reddit scientism

The Man !QkRJTXcpFI Tue Jan 28 01:16:32 2020 No.14620497

>>14620478
The fact that I even have to explain it shows that you have not and most likely will never understand me. It is such an absurdly basic concept that philosophers have been using it regularly for 500 years. It is called the identity of indiscenables. You can educate yourself, I have had enough of educating retards like you who, from my perspective, seem like they have never set foot outside of their bedrooms or ever cracked open a book.

Anonymous Tue Jan 28 01:18:40 2020 No.14620505

>>14620465
a fly will never be able to move in a way which violates the laws of physics, so yes, it does apply to the fly, just as much as it does the particle. the l
fly is subject to every law, even if it has no ability to cognize those laws. you problem here is that you don't seem to understand what universality means

The Man !QkRJTXcpFI Tue Jan 28 01:19:49 2020 No.14620514

>>14620483
You have absolutely no conception of what entropy means. I am not going to speak to you, I will just drop a link a quote it a bit.
http://milesmathis.com/ent.html
>"Entropy" is one of those scientific words, along with "relativity", "infinity", and "field", that has acquired an extraordinary amount of baggage since its initial defining. So many non-scientific and pseudo-scientific concepts have been attached to it that it would be almost unrecognizable to the early pioneers of heat theory. In the beginning, entropy was just defined as a relation between heat and temperature, using the equation dE = dQ/T. That is, it was mainly a measurement of heat change. It is a fancy way of saying that heat always dissipates, or moves from a hot region to a cold region.
>Every time you hear a contemporary explanation of entropy you are treated to a lecture on order and disorder. You are always given several examples, one of which is likely to be a disordered room. A tidy room has more order, you are told, because it required energy to put everything in its place. Without that ordering energy, the room tends to revert to disorder. The room therefore moves against disorder and against the natural flow of entropy only by human intervention.
>But this whole analogy is faulty from top to bottom. It is completely anthropocentric. It assumes that the universe cares whether a room is tidy or not. But the universe does not define order by any human measure of neatness. For example, in a tidy room, the books are all in the bookshelf; in an untidy one, they are on the floor and on the bed and on the dresser. Can the universe differentiate between the two situations, based on a measure of heat? Of course not. Can the universe differentiate between the two situations based on any scientific concept at all? No. Like things being put with like things is not a measure of order to anyone but humans. And even with us it is mostly arbitrary. In a tidy room, the lamps may be on opposite sides of the bed. Would we say the room is more tidy or ordered if both lamps are stored side by side? What about the argument that lamps on opposite sides of the bed are more symmetrical? Most people believe that symmetry is a type of order. This would make the books in the bookshelf asymmetrical, since there are no books on the other side of the room to balance the composition. We already have several competing definitions of order, you see, and I have just touched the surface. And none of these definitions has anything at all to do with heat or molecular motion.

>>	The Man !QkRJTXcpFI Tue Jan 28 01:20:55 2020 No.14620518 >>14620505 You think the pythagorean theorem is a physical law. I can't even. Triangles do not exist in nature. There has never existed a triangle, nor a circle, nor a square, in nature.

>>	cunt Tue Jan 28 01:21:22 2020 No.14620520 >>14620482 >a law of nature would be anything but random If I roll a die and lock in the number that shows up then its still random. A law is just a set rule. If I play a game with RNG then the outcome of the RNG still matters. Please try again.

The Man !QkRJTXcpFI Tue Jan 28 01:22:52 2020 No.14620526

Fuck this thread. You guys are so absurdly retarded, that you can't grasp that the universe is not ordered nor disordered, that two brains cannot have the same idea, that circles exist in nature, that thoughts are universal. Keep on living in your religious delusions.

>>	The Man !QkRJTXcpFI Tue Jan 28 01:24:04 2020 No.14620534 >>14620520 You think the universe functions like a dungeons and dragons game. kill yourself.

cunt Tue Jan 28 01:26:09 2020 No.14620540

>>14620526
>that you can't grasp that the universe is not ordered nor disordered
> that circles exist in nature

>that two brains cannot have the same idea
>that thoughts are universal

>religious delusions
I've been arguing atheist materialism this whole time.

This trip fag is so fucking pathetic

>>	cunt Tue Jan 28 01:28:06 2020 No.14620548 >>14620534 >You think the universe functions like a dungeons and dragons game A metaphor is not the same as my understanding of metaphysical reality. How embarrassing that I have to explain what a metaphor is.

Anonymous Tue Jan 28 01:32:58 2020 No.14620573

>>14620497
>identity of indiscenables
all this suggests is there are no two triangles which would ever be identical, as even if they were the exact same shape, size, ect. there would still be a property which is not identical, (e.g. location in space and/or time)
>∀F(Fx Fy) x=y
this does not disprove the laws of math or physics, unless you think we are still operating under classical Newtonian interpretations of physics? either way you clearly haven't read Leibnez

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 01:33:36 2020 No.14620577 >>14620468 Are they though? Or are they just descriptions of what physical things do? What I'm getting that is that there isn't necessarily a separate thing (law) being obeyed — the law is just what those things do because of the way they are.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 01:34:52 2020 No.14620582 >>14620573 >∀F(Fx <-> Fy) -> x=y 4channel doesn't like my notation

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 01:36:26 2020 No.14620585 >>14620482 >mentally trapped in the early 19th century >calls other people “uneducated” tripfag pls

Anonymous Tue Jan 28 01:37:45 2020 No.14620591

>>14620577
and yet somehow, when we launched a probe to land on a fucking asteroid, we managed to do it. did the probe just accidentally happen to follow our conception of reality or is that our abstractions actually correspond in some sense to how reality functions?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 01:52:09 2020 No.14620637 >>14620591 Of course our abstractions correspond to some degree with objective reality (such a capacity wouldn't exist otherwise). What does that have to do with my objection re: notion of 'laws' preceding nature?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 01:56:42 2020 No.14620666 >>14620637 because it suggests that those "laws" are a part of nature and not simply an empty abstraction which only exists in the human mind

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 02:22:20 2020 No.14620788 >>14620666 >wooooshhh

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 02:25:01 2020 No.14620796 >>14620788 lol damn I didn't get the joke anon! I thought you were actually a retard. well meme'd

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 06:38:28 2020 No.14621461 >>14620411 But emergent phenomena aren't actually real. They are abstractions we use to make sense of the real thing, which is agglomerations of atoms and subatomic particles.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/lit/ - Literature