[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 161 KB, 549x400, keith-woods.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16464947 No.16464947[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

He did it again! When will Materialets ever learn?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUuQwnTzPQU

>> No.16464964

>>16464947
fucks sake just fuck off
/lit/ - literature
not youtube ranting

>> No.16464988
File: 36 KB, 800x450, 928d8a9a57515320068a2c339e88fd28.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16464988

>>16464964
Youtube is the new medium of philosophical discord. Get on with the times boomer!

>> No.16465030

I'm so much smarter than both of them it's not even funny.

>> No.16465051

>>16465030
and yet you're a noname who shitposts on 4chan

>> No.16465109

>>16465051
I do have a name. My name is Anonymous.

>> No.16465505

>>16464947
Stop posting this twink. He got BTFO:d by a prominent materialist already
https://youtu.be/tuWP9ILYkQY

>> No.16465524

>>16464947
Based. Materialism is peak midwit

>> No.16465557

>>16464947
You clearly can explain consciousness through material, since you just make it a limited property of materiality. If you make both a universal property then you are either 1. a dualist and therefore do not understand the nonfunctionality of pluralistic nature or 2. believe in a Spinoza-esque parallelism. Here is the interesting characteristic of the divide between materialists and idealists: the former need to incorporate consciousness, since it is so evident as to be undeniable that consciousness exists, whereas idealists can reject matter and the body all together without any clear contradiction.

>> No.16465567

Yes it can.

>> No.16465575

>>16464947
Yes, but can consciousness explain materialism?

>> No.16465649

>>16464947
Idealism can't explain object interaction. Materialism can't explain subject introspection. The latter is more useful since object interaction analysis allows for better predictive modelling.

>> No.16465766

>>16465649
So you're a pragmatist who understands the limits of science, I like that. Quite the fresh air from "I FUCKING LOVE SCIENCE" types

>> No.16465774

>>16465649
Yes, but why do you want to better predict things?

>> No.16465794

What bumbling fucking retard

>> No.16465796
File: 537 KB, 1125x1528, 1A228A24-7E2E-42A1-8D22-F51BC1482C91.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16465796

>Pop-Philosophy YouTuber

OK, let’s check him ou-

>Vaporwave intro

Dropped.

>> No.16465824

>>16465796
Keith is the foremost intellectual on the right, it's your lost buddy

>> No.16465843

>>16465824
I don’t care.

>> No.16465876

>>16465649
>Materialism can't explain subject introspection
I am not a Materialist by any means, but please clarify.

>> No.16465878
File: 1.97 MB, 400x250, 265FCA1F-2C47-477E-91B5-5871A0E168F4.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16465878

>>16464947
>another e-celeb thread
>another video of Keith talking about something so blindingly fucking obvious
>another video where he talks about something so fucking obvious but makes himself look smart by talking to some retarded e-celeb with less than two braincells

>> No.16465910

>>16465876
I believe he was referencing Qualia

>Examples of qualia include the perceived sensation of pain of a headache, the taste of wine, as well as the redness of an evening sky.

For example: a person can imagine the color red without having any direct material reference to it

>> No.16465960

>>16465910
Yeah, that’s why I anticipated what he was going to say. I also was thinking about the law of identity and how mental states would be equivalent to brain states in the materialistic schema.

I think that the color red example is a pretty bad one too. I could imagine red because I’ve seen red before, if I hadn’t seen red, then I would be missing something even if I knew everything else about the color—the specific wave lengths, ect. The Mary’s room thought experiment basically.

>> No.16465964

>>16465960
That’s what*

>> No.16465972

>>16465505

already refuted it

>> No.16466007

Keith is so set in his way to shit on anything even remotely technocratic in nature that sometimes it makes his arguments sound biased and naive.

>> No.16466093

>>16465878
thank you for your contribution, genius. Enlighten us, since this is so obvious, with your grand intellect.

>> No.16466111

Both sides are stupid.

>> No.16466135

>>16466111
>trips on this garbage
absolute state of 2020 lit