TOP Argument AGAINST Metaphysics

[Anonymous No.17455953]

>That, which can be asserted without evidence, can also be dismissed without evidence.
(Hitchens' razor)

This ultimately BTFOs all metaphysicians.

[Anonymous No.17456004]

>>17455953
What's your evidence for Hitchens' Razor?

[Anonymous No.17456035]

>>17455953
so you don't have evidence that each thing is what it is? that each thing exists, that you are and are perceiving these thigngs?

[Anonymous No.17456049]

>>17455953
You are literally doing metaphysics with that post retard.
Amd hitches razor is not a standard for anything.

[Anonymous No.17456086]

>>17455953
What constitutes evidence?

[Anonymous No.17456089]

>>17455953
Contrary to what christlarpers on this board think metaphysics doesn't mean god stuff but in Aristotle's understanding ontology and in a modern understanding the basic premises to interpret the world through.

[Anonymous No.17456097]

>>17455953
Do you have evidence for that assertion?

[Anonymous No.17456098]

>>17456004
>>17456035
>>17456049
>>17456086
If you provide proof for the existence of anything, that exists BEYOND our physical world, then we can hold a discussion about metaphysics. If you can't provide such proof, please kindly do fuck off. Mayhaps even kill yourself.

[Anonymous No.17456108]

>>17456098
>provide proof for the existence of anything, that exists BEYOND our physical world
the very intelligibility of this physical world and all its constituents. did you even read what i wrote, retard ?

[Anonymous No.17456118]

>>17456108
everything about our world can be explained physically.

[Anonymous No.17456125]

>>17456098
Metaphysics is also concerned with the nature of the physical world you absolute imbecile. I still haven't seen you prove your assertion either.

[Anonymous No.17456126]

>>17456098
>hitches razor
is not physical at all and you are appealing to it.
And here is some.
The Syllogistic Arguments:

1. AEE, Figure 2

A All physical things are particulars
E No universals are particulars
E No universals are physical things

2. Conversion of Conclusion: No physical things are universals

3. EIO, Figure 2

E No physical things are universals
I Some concepts are universals
O Some concepts are not physical things

4. OAO, Figure 3

O Some concepts are not physical things
A All concepts are in the mind
O Some (things) “in the mind” are not physical things

5. Translated Conclusion: Some things in the mind are not physical

6. OAO, Figure 3

O Some things in the mind are not physical things
A All things in the mind are part of the mind
O Some part of the mind is not physical

7. Translated Conclusion (Obversion): Some part of the mind is immaterial (where immaterial means the negation of what is material/physical)

8. Materialism/Physicalism Thesis: E No part of the mind is immaterial

9. Modern Square of Opposition: the contradiction of E (No S are P) propositions is an I proposition (Some S are P)

10. Therefore, the I proposition (Some part of the mind is immaterial) refutes materialism/physicalism by way of counter-example.

[Anonymous No.17456128]

>>17456098
google metaphysics fahm. it's not spiritual mumbo jumbo

[Anonymous No.17456137]

>>17456128
>>17456126
so metaphysics is more like "abstract philosophy" ??

t. retard

[Anonymous No.17456144]

>>17456126
>O Some things in the mind are not physical things
>A All things in the mind are part of the mind
>O Some part of the mind is not physical
Pure sophistry. The mind is the product of material conditions even if it thinks about immaterial things. You conflate mind and brain when it fits you.

[Anonymous No.17456166]

>>17456098
You haven’t explained what constitutes “proof”.

[Anonymous No.17456173]

>>17456118
Explain logic and mathematics physically.

[Anonymous No.17456177]

>>17456118
no, dogmatist, you need intelligibillity to perceive what you will explain. but you can't even understand what i'm talking about.

[Anonymous No.17456178]

>>17456118
No it can't, reading any philosophy would disabuse of you that notion, or even without that, I haven't seen a satisfying physicalist answer to the hard problem of consciousness.

[Anonymous No.17456181]

>>17456098
WHY DID YOU DIDGE MY QUESTION? MAYBE IF I WRITE IT IN CAPS LOCK YOU WONT IGNORE IT THIS TIME:

WHAT'S YOUR EVIDENCE FOR THE VALIDITY OF THE HITCHENS' RAZOR?

ARE WE SUPPOSED TO ACCEPT IT WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE?

[Anonymous No.17456188]

>>17456118
Resd on the Hard Problem of Consciousness

[Anonymous No.17456190]

>>17455953
Oh wow OP, you really outed yourself as a fucking brainlet.
Did you seriously think you would BTFO all of metaphysics, with your meme reddit argument?
I can dismiss your argument of the Hitchen's razor itself, its just a concept that became an object of knowledge to you.

[Anonymous No.17456200]

>>17456137
It's the examination of things such as existence, time, space, objects and their properties, cause and effect etc.

[Anonymous No.17456210]

>That, which can be asserted without evidence, can also be dismissed without evidence.
What the scientific skeptics and logical positivists don't say is that they expect an exception to be made for the foundational underpinnings of science and of empiricism in general -- and another exception to be made for pretty much everything that passes as moral philosophy.

[Anonymous No.17456215]

>>17455953
>>17456098
>>17456118
consciousness is capable of self-reversion, that is, it is self convertive, reflexive. no corporeal thing, no physical thing, no body at all, can convert into itself. there it is.

[Anonymous No.17456225]

>>17455953
Dismissed? Okay, I just assert it again. Then you dismiss it again, after which I assert it again.

[Anonymous No.17456241]

>>17456215
There is nothing immaterial about consciousness. It’s simply a physical, biological phenomenon that can be explained scientifically. You’re just a hack

[Anonymous No.17456256]

>>17456241
Read >>17456188
Physicalism is definetely refuted

[Anonymous No.17456261]

>>17456241
Any proof for that assertion?

[Anonymous No.17456262]

>>17456137
its when you ask meta level question bout the world, does logic exist does being exist, is causality real, and so on.

[Anonymous No.17456268]

>>17456241
To dismiss what I posted you need to: 1) prove consciousness is not self-convertive/reflexive and moves by itself; 2) prove that bodies can convert into themselves, revert into themselves.
Cease the dogmatism for once, let's see.

[Anonymous No.17456269]

>>17456126
>O Some concepts are not physical things
Wait, how do you know this?

[Anonymous No.17456272]

>>17456178
>even without that, I haven't seen a satisfying physicalist answer to the hard problem of consciousness.
Anon who drew up the theory behind Extremely Eliminative Materialism (or anti-emergentism, for short) here.

Here's my answer:
You have to approach this from the angle of EEM, that is, life does not exist, and the structures that we're made of are to be treated as inanimate matter simply performing chemical reactions. Life goes on as a sort of chain reaction.

Anyway, in this case, picture crystals. Crystals behave a lot like living matter. They reproduce, they respond to external stimuli, and have been shown to even undergo evolution of their own, via a natural selection-like system of their own

The brain could be thought of as a quasi-crystal like that. Or a system of quasi crystals rather. Or a system of systems. Or a system of systems of systems. Anyway, my point being - consciousness can be answered by physicalism thusly - it's a complex system of systems of inter-reactive (after all, the quasi crystals not only respond to external stimuli, but to stimuli from other crystals as well!) quasi-crystals that respond to external stimuli. Response to stimuli becomes more varied and complex the more levels there are to this system, and there is no reason why one wouldn't be able to assume a sort of natural selection process happening within this system as well - the best responses get promoted.

Such a structure can be easily imagined to evolve & scale up into a "conscious" and "self-aware" one. And the experience of consciousness itself? for the human?

It's essentially an averaging out of all the micro processes happening within this structure. Picture a crowd. Crowd behavior is an interesting field of study, and usually the concept of "collective consciousness" is thrown around. This is kind of the same thing. Your consciousness is, basically, a collective consciousness

[Anonymous No.17456274]

>>17456004
>>17456181

OP IS STILL DODGING THE QUESTION. HE ACTUALLY EXPECTS US TO ACCEPT HIS MAXIM EVEN THOUGH WE HAVE NOT BEEN PRESENTED ANY EVIDENCE

[Anonymous No.17456278]

>>17456274
Trips are off

[Anonymous No.17456300]

>>17456272
>dude you just have to take this premise that: nothing lives, there is no life at all, ok? now you can see how things that seem to live don't live and uh you and your consciousness seem to live right? but ha thats just like the things that seem to live but dont but uh in a much more complex way!!

[Anonymous No.17456319]

>>17456300
in my original post on EEM, i likened the alleged "life force" to the force that causes Kleenex, when partially submerged, to suck up water way above the level of it. That force is called osmosis, and it's a purely material physical, mechanical force. The way "life" - or rather crystals - reproduce themselves due to a chain reaction, is basically that. A banal, mechanical necessity

[Anonymous No.17456340]

>>17456241
>It’s simply a physical, biological phenomenon that can be explained scientifically.
who’s gonna tell him?

[Anonymous No.17456347]

>>17456268

[Anonymous No.17456351]

>>17456319
how does the link between life and kleenex's osmosis works? how do you explain the difference between things that move by themselves and things that dont?

[Anonymous No.17456390]

>>17456351
imagine 2 crystals. 1 crystal reproduces under certain external stimuli. another crystal seeks the specific external stimuli that facilitate reproduction. that's the only difference. that one crystal actively works toward prolonging reproduction.

how that happened?
natural selection. read about the beginning of "life," how the first "life" forms formed from the first amino acids. at the beginning life really was nothing more than just a bunch of compounds tied to each other. and these compounds began autonomous reproduction

[Anonymous No.17456399]

>>17456268
Consciousness is an evolutionary process, not a substance. It is an extension of the primordial process of organic life itself, which is a kind of physical process.

[Anonymous No.17456404]

>>17455953
nice metaphysical argument you gave there

[Anonymous No.17456410]

>>17456108
>the very intelligibility of this physical world and all its constituents
Why does this mean that there must be something beyond the physical?

[Anonymous No.17456427]

>>17456390
Crystals are amazing because it's "DNA" are its conditions of growth, and this DNA is dramatically shown from layered deposition. Inclusions of a crystal document the geochemical conditions under which the crystal grew.

Nature is filled with processes similar to life in some ways.

[Anonymous No.17456431]

>>17456410
What do you mean by "beyond?" Any notion of beyondness is situated from metaphysical assumptions.

[Anonymous No.17456452]

>>17456272
There's absolutely no reason there should be something it is like to be the average of a bunch of microprocesses. You can't even figure out which bunches of microprocesses have a phenomenology and which don't.

Do you think there is something it is like to be a crowd or ant hive? Heard of the China brain?

[Anonymous No.17456468]

>>17456390
>>17456427
again, all you are doing is saying that things that seem to be alive are not and that's it, without an aught of explanation.
for example, you not only dismiss the life-energy of movement and development in nature, but you dismiss intelligibility wholly. take for instance natural selection, the reproduction under certain external stimuli, all these things assume information and reception of that information. how can an information fit perfectly to what receives that, that is, absorb and follow the very information received?

[Anonymous No.17456480]

>>17456410
space is physical so there is nothing beyond the physical physically. the beyondness of intelligibility is ontological.

[Anonymous No.17456491]

>>17456269
because they are universal, you probably dont know hat that mean tho. Go look it up.

[Anonymous No.17456496]

>>17456468
>>17456427
>>17456390
oh also you didn't answer to my question about self-moving entities and alter-motive ones. your putting crystals as a paradigm is like putting an ice melting under the sun.

[Anonymous No.17456506]

>>17456491
>because they are universal
So you proved a claim with another claim?

[Anonymous No.17456512]

OP is still tangled in the objective vs. subjective kerfuffle that we left behind in the 1800s

[Anonymous No.17456523]

>>17456506
you things universals dont exist ? no wonder you are retarded

[Anonymous No.17456558]

>>17456506
>>17456506
not him but you just need to think a bit (yes i know it is difficult to you but we can help you, dont be ashamed and ask us!): no physical things is an universal because they are all particulars, that is, each physical thing is itself and not like another, otherwise there would be no difference and they would be one and the same thing. now all red things partake of the universal of redness, all the redness of red things are red but not the things that the red are in because they are particular, individual things.

[Anonymous No.17456612]

>>17456274
>>17456181
>>17456004
OP IS STILL DODGING

[Anonymous No.17456639]

I love arguments against Metaphysics because of how immature the very idea is.

Devising an argument against Metaphysics is like devising an argument against the Dewey Decimal OR Purely alphabetical categorization in libraries:

A) It doesn't make sense to mindlessly come up with a THIRD way for the categorization to exist, since no one would care, and it's perfectly fine either way

B) It's simply a way of ordering things to make sense of everything. If you have a better way, then make your case heard, however please be aware that what you are doing is creating your OWN metaphysical system in the first place.

Either way you're a loser, let people organize reality the way they want to, and recognize and understand that this method of categorization was utilized by the very founders of America: James Madison, as all the Federalists, was an excellent metaphysician.

[Anonymous No.17456643]

>>17456558
>(yes i know it is difficult to you but we can help you, dont be ashamed and ask us!)
Holy shit, could you be more condescending, while at the same time spouting pseudo deep gobbledygook that conveniently no one can check?

Why are pseudo philosophical theists always so dumb, yet at the same time so arrogant? Do you seriously think that makes you look good?

[Anonymous No.17456651]

>>17456639
>accuse others if immaturity
>while also namecalling

[Anonymous No.17456659]

>>17456643
well that was my attempt to provoke you in order to get a good response, but you are just repeating the same things again and again: ''no one can check this!!'', which was answered many times here. do you think none can check the fact that things red are red? that all cats share the same nature of cat?

[Anonymous No.17456660]

>>17456651
ad hominem is only for chads

[Anonymous No.17456673]

>>17456651
I never even actually namecalled.

I said 'loser' in the sense of losing an argument. Jesus Christ, I wasn't calling you a loser in the sense of life itself, what the fuck...

Also if you're talking about the fact I called you immature, I actually somewhat agree with you. Very often I see very immature people call others immature, however just take my retort for a gratification of the fact that I am not, and consider the argument presented.

Thank you.

[Anonymous No.17456684]

>>17456659
>do you think none can check the fact that things red are red?
And do you think colors, which, even if you’re colorblind, we can still show through a reflectometer, are in any way comparable to supernatural entities, which we conveniently can never measure of even detect in any reliable fashion?

[Anonymous No.17456689]

>>17456673
>I said 'loser' in the sense of losing an argument.

Yeah I bet you did

[Anonymous No.17456699]

>>17456689
It's how that phrase is typically used. I presented two arguments and gave you two options for you to go with theoretically and then said in 'either case you're a loser', as in you lost the argument.

I think this is obvious to anyone who has conversations in real life.

[Anonymous No.17456727]

>>17456699
And at no point did you explain why we can’t swap ‘metaphysical’ for ‘unknown’

[Anonymous No.17456732]

>>17456684
you are not getting the point of anything i'm saying, we were talking about universals, intelligibility, platonism, metaphysics, NON-PHYSICAL things on which the physical depends.

[Anonymous No.17456739]

>>17456660
Chads will refute your argument and then throw in an insult for good measure.

[Anonymous No.17456745]

>>17456727
Because it's a categorization system, what the fuck are you even talking about.

Metaphysics is simply a way to 'order' reality to make sense of it all. You don't 'order' things in an 'unknown' way. Jfc...

[Anonymous No.17456751]

>>17456643
>hahaha you believe in sky daddy you are so dumbbbb, hell yeah science rules you primitive neanderthal philosophies!! you must be so dumbbb

>uhh stop proving to me that all my worldview is false, you theists are so condescending stop it!!

[Anonymous No.17456778]

>>17456732
>NON-PHYSICAL things on which the physical depends.
And how does one assess accuracy when dealing with non-physical things?

[Anonymous No.17456782]

>>17456751
>more strawmen means more convincing

[Anonymous No.17456783]

>use microscope
>directly observe atom
>no red found
>impossible to measure red or find a cause of red
>red is immaterial
>red only exists inside mind
>therefore"redness"is immaterial
Refute me

[Anonymous No.17456794]

>>17456783
To
>>17456782

[Anonymous No.17456807]

>>17456778
accuracy in terms of what? if you want to understand better make better questions, what does it mean for being to be ''accurately''?

[Anonymous No.17456808]

>>17455953
there is evidence that logic exists, and you can logicly conclude certain metaphysical ideas.

[Anonymous No.17456817]

>>17456782
see how you flee from all people have posted and proved here. you are the worst kind of coward, intellectual coward.

[Anonymous No.17456825]

>>17456808
This guy gets it.

The proof is in thought itself.

[Anonymous No.17456860]

Has OP left this thread, after getting blasted over and over?

[Anonymous No.17456888]

>>17455953
What is the evidence that supports hitchens' razor?

[Anonymous No.17456894]

>>17455953
What is evidence?

[Anonymous No.17456902]

>>17456783
>find a cause of red
This is legit some alchemy shit. We know what the ‘cause’ of ‘red’ is, it’s a property of light, and if we didn’t know this, we wouldn’t be justified in constructing some metaworld where ‘primordial redness’ is, that gets beamed onto our world without any of us noticing.

Holy shit, is this modern platonism? Because this sounds like some neanderthal shit

[Anonymous No.17456918]

>>17456807
Accuracy is generally understood in terms of the amount of discrepancy between your description of reality and reality itself. Your description makes predictions, you test those, the description with the least amount of wrong ones is the current best one

[Anonymous No.17456923]

>>17456272
>Such a structure can be easily imagined to evolve & scale up into a "conscious" and "self-aware" one. And the experience of consciousness itself? for the human?

But it can't...?
I mean I hate Nagelfags like everyone with a right mind should, but you don't have to pretend either that the self-awareness of living beings is not problematic.
Saying our consciousness is just the synchronization of the multiple cognitive functions of the brain (and pretending at the same time that this isn't an emergentist position) is pure hogwash. It doesn't explain any part of the rise of phenomenal experience.
Hell some cognitive functions are pure trash if evaluated through the eyes of an engineer. The largest single function structure we know in the brain serves purely to calculate in real time the distance between your eyes.

[Anonymous No.17456941]

Holy fuck, everyone just got HITCHSLAPPED.

[Anonymous No.17457010]

>>17456902
>it’s a property of light
it’s how we subjectively interpret a specific wavelength of light but it’s not the wavelength itself. post discarded

[Anonymous No.17457039]

>>17457010
We can’t literally measure this. You have absolutely no clue what you’re talking about

[Anonymous No.17457043]

>>17456941
>Posters: 25

[Anonymous No.17457053]

>>17456918
is saying that reality is and is real and because of that intelligible accurate enough for you? there is no need for assessing accuracy in metaphysical claims because that is what metaphysics itself implies, nature of reality and of things

[Anonymous No.17457100]

Who gives a shit. As far as I'm concerned my computer is conscious just as I am. Wake we have our unique jerk off consciousness perk. Too bad it's not a thing that tells you anything. Your super special consciousness is some weird thing living on particles bouncing. There is no choice. We are lucky to be conscious and we are lucky to think we are lucky. If god is real his curse was consciousness. We are tv watchers who think they are part of the show. Such great tv. It has all the senses. Touch, sound, even emotions. Sneed. Today I am grateful, tommorow I am hateful. If my fate leads me to rope I will do it with all the dramatization, wallowing and pity needed, because I will believe and I will be right. If I will die happy in my bed content I will kiss my loving wife goodbye and believe it was good and be right. Sneed

[Anonymous No.17457103]

>>17457053
>there is no need for assessing accuracy in metaphysical claims
Why should anyone care about them then? You have no way of knowing whether they’re not just a complete fantasy

[Anonymous No.17457136]

And now I am feeling good, self content in posting another ramble online.
Only slight despair remains. I will post a slight ironic twist, be happy with expending the emotions, and go to bed. Tommorow will be a great day - it really will. I will wake up and find a narrative to ease me along. Or a narrative will find me. Worst case scenario it will be a re run of the depressive week episode.
After that I will be happy and content, till the next stop. Then as I stand motionless my brain will find a reason to be unhappy.

[Anonymous No.17457168]

>>17455953
What is evidence? There is lots of evidence of the metaphysical, you just don't accept it.

[Anonymous No.17457196]

>>17457100
Got btfo d so hard

[Anonymous No.17457215]

>>17456410
Because anytime you start discussing this you presume a bunch of things that you have no physical evidence for. Your self, logic, language, mathematics, time, space, induction. It is impossible to get intelligibility in the world in the materialist view without borrowing a whole bunch of things that only make sense in a metaphysical one. You could argue that these things aren't really real and go all the way but at that point you are on a path to hard solipsism, because if you can't justify these fundamental things you have no way to really know that the world is intelligible or that you can prove anything.

[Anonymous No.17457218]

>>17455953
Hitchens razor is the most branilet idea there is
Its self contradictory, there is no evidence for what it claims

Its a proof constructed for edgy teenage atheists which have no idea what epistemology is. Also its used just wrong, imagine requesting nontranscedental proof of something transcedental?

Also "argument against metaphysics", so you believe that things dont exist? Every brainlet knows about Descartes fundamental "i thing therefore i am"; res cogitans is determined as ens, you are proof for yourself, and you yourself are a thing, thus metaphysics which claims "things are" is correct

[Anonymous No.17457231]

>>17456004
Uhhhhhhhhhh I’m thinking based.
No one can escape Frege’s regression. Except Deleuze.

[Anonymous No.17457246]

>>17457039

Yes we can.
How the fuck do you think we have color correcting lenses on the market?

[Anonymous No.17457327]

>>17457168
>There is lots of evidence of the metaphysical, you just don't accept it.
>I’m a millionaire, I’m just not gonna show you my money because you wouldn’t believe me anyway
This is legit how a five year old argues

[Anonymous No.17457337]

>>17457246
I meant ‘we can’

[Anonymous No.17457385]

>>17457168
there is precisely none. if there were, you'd provide it.

[Anonymous No.17457386]

>>17457103
stop being dishonest, holy shit, just read the rest of my post you excised, accuracy in metaphysics is tautological. each response of yours is a ''gotcha'' response without substantial critique. there is absolutely no way to talk to you people

[Anonymous No.17457395]

>>17457337

Ok, but being able to measure the difference in light responses doesn't mean that the experience of the color is the experience of the wavelength. We normatively measure color experiences by a method of shading, i.e., you record the variation of responses not only to color tokens but to shading filters applied to those tokens too afterwards. The deviations can be used to create a normative curve to color perception.
It is more obvious with other senses. Yes what you smell depends on the analysis of the chemical signature of the air you breathe, but the phenomenal event of the odor isn't the experience of the chemical itself.
Honestly the best argument against Mary the color scientist is about two months of study of color ontology. We barely understand what the fuck is going on, so the idea of a perfect color scientist to start with is absolutely laughable.

[Anonymous No.17457398]

>>17457103
>You have no way of knowing whether they’re not just a complete fantasy
if you have no way of knowing how what is is, how what a cat is is what a cat is (the nature of a cat) then you have no way of knowing anything, that is, you rule out intelligibility, you rule out everything. but since this is not possible it makes evident how tautological it is to ''assess'' metaphysical claims. youre just dumb and have no idea what metaphysics is, go read a book.

[Anonymous No.17457411]

>>17457327
>>17457385
i recommend reading these posts:
>>17456035
>>17456108
>>17456126
>>17456215
>>17456268

you are welcome.

[Anonymous No.17457412]

>>17455953
TOP Argument AGAINST Consciousness

>That, which can be asserted without evidence, can also be dismissed without evidence.
(Hitchens' razor)

This ultimately BTFOs all conscious beings

[Anonymous No.17457426]

>>17456783
>>17456902
I thought this view was nominalism right? the belief that in the case of a ship being replaced one part at a time and the question of whether its still the general's ship is pointless because the "general's ship" is just an arbitrary idea.
Not really seeing the point of metaphysics. Redness is a name for our perception of a certain range of light. The objects exist, what is metaphysics trying to say, im confused

[Anonymous No.17457436]

>>17455953
>>That, which can be asserted without evidence, can also be dismissed without evidence.
>(Hitchens' razor)

Yikes sweaty, i'm gonna need evidence for that, do you have any peer-reviewed experiments?

Yikes, the absolute state of logical positivists

[Anonymous No.17457447]

>>17457398

Mate the natural attitude doesn't rely on metaphysical thoughts, its the other way around.
Both you and >>17457103 are wrong. Seek Husserl. Practice the Epoche.
You will see the light.

[Anonymous No.17457456]

>>17457246
But the only way of determining what colors the person sees is by asking them.

[Anonymous No.17457470]

>>17457426
Explain consciousness using the scientific method(material alone)

Pro tip: you can't

[Anonymous No.17457497]

You are a weeb.
Lets do a psyiogomy check.
Post face.

[Anonymous No.17457510]

>>17455953
>100 replies on this terrible bait
Nice job lit

[Anonymous No.17457525]

>>17457426
Why is red the way it is?

[Anonymous No.17457534]

>>17457231
Redpill me on this. I know a decent amount about Deleuze, but I haven't seriously studied Frege's regression. How did Deleuze "escape" it?

[Anonymous No.17457536]

>>17457447
i am not saying that each act of ours even reflexive ones are conscious of metaphysical assumptions, i'm just saying how metaphysics underlies reality, or goes to the gist of it. hence why the phenomenal world is phenomenal and not metaphysical.

[Anonymous No.17457551]

>>17456118
Ok? 3 examples, explain mathematics, consciousness, and the existence of something rather than nothing (Provide evidence that the Universe is a brute fact and in an infinite cycle and also that time is an illusion when that goes against all our current knowledge and intuition of how it works; Linking me to a current theory is not evidence, as theories require solid grounding rather than speculation to be anything resembling evidence)

Explain all of this in physical terms and then we can talk

>>17456241
> consciousness is physical
Internal, unobservable experiences are absolutely not physical, at most you can say consciousness supravenes on the physical

> biological phenomenon that can be explained scientifically
How?
If you're so confident in that, why not provide an explanation of how the brain generates consciousness using empirical evidence?
Which part of the brain generates consciousness? Which organ? How would you go about testing such?
What happens to the consciousness in a brain when you split it? Is it that each individual neuron/atom is conscious? That collapses into panpsychism which is even more untestable and unscientific.

[Anonymous No.17457552]

>>17457470
>you can't yet
We've been studying the brain for less than 80 years, and on the systematic scale almost all of it has been spent trying to figure out how to approach the object. Give it some fucking time.
>>17457456
Up to a point, I know there's a lot more to it than just the color card shading trick, they also record the electrical impulses on the retina and do genetic tests. I'm not nearly enough of a biologist to understand that side of things, but the results goes out of their way to prove color relativists wrong. Not only is color experience normative as well as relational, but we can actually figure out that someone experiences more colors than someone else (a non negligible part of the female population sees more shades of red than the rest).
Which is funny because my Intro to Epistemology teacher still says that is completely impossible.

[Anonymous No.17457557]

>>17457470
so what? i also dont know what the smallest possible mass of a black hole is but i know the largest neutron star found is 2.1 solar masses and the smallest black hole is 3.2 so its probably within that range. This is how science works. Your response to something science hasn't yet explained is to just make shit up like people used to make up wind and volcano gods? Are you trying to say consciousness can never be explained empirically or that your metaphysics knows it?

[Anonymous No.17457567]

>>17457557
>This is how science works. Your response to something science hasn't yet explained is to just make shit up like people used to make up wind and volcano gods?
Volcanos and black holes are just objects and so can be empirically observed, consciousness is a phenomenon which is only noticeable, and only tenable, from the inside, science can't even begin to conceive of a way to directly study it let alone actually lay out that method or use it.
Terrible comparison

[Anonymous No.17457588]

>>17457525
because we have decided to call those wavelengths by the word red? I think? naming patterns and structures is a handy way of referencing to something in the universe. What else could it be exactly?

[Anonymous No.17457594]

[Anonymous No.17457602]

>>17457588
imagine missing the point of his post this hard

[Anonymous No.17457603]

>>17457567
>consciousness is a phenomenon which is only noticeable, and only tenable, from the inside,

We are literally built to notice consciousness on the outside. Solipsism doesn't happen in nature.

[Anonymous No.17457614]

>>17457552
>We've been studying the brain for less than 80 years, and on the systematic scale almost all of it has been spent trying to figure out how to approach the object. Give it some fucking time.
how does a mechanical process give rise to a nonphysical quality? if the nation of China simulated the actions of neurons would a mind emerge from it?

[Anonymous No.17457621]

>>17457588

A camera is an object that reacts to those same light wavelengths.
The brain (and all the visual apparatus) is an object that reacts to those same light wavelengths.
The brain has an experience of red as a result. The camera does not. Even if the entirety of the process can be explained in physical terms (which is my belief), it is very fucking obvious that there is something else being done by the brain, over and above, that the camera cannot possibly do.

[Anonymous No.17457626]

>>17457588
so by our naming a thing becomes what it is? wow i wish i had as high an iq as yours

[Anonymous No.17457631]

>>17457552
>We've been studying the brain for less than 80 years, and on the systematic scale almost all of it has been spent trying to figure out how to approach the object. Give it some fucking time.
It's almost like we're stuck studying the physical makeup of the brain because consciousness is too vastly different from science's objects of study in terms of observability, tenability, and effability. There is quite literally nothing science has ever, or likely even will study, similar to consciousness.

>>17457588
>because we have decided to call those wavelengths by the word red? I think? naming patterns and structures is a handy way of referencing to something in the universe. What else could it be exactly?
Way to completely dodge the point of the question, "why is red the way it is" was absolutely not referring to the wavelength, but the experience of the color, never heard of Frank Jackson's Knowledge Argument?

>>17457603
>We are literally built to notice consciousness on the outside.
Because we have intuition and philosophy, not because we have evidence of other minds. It is unobservable empirically rather. (Except by the very host of the consciousness)

>Solipsism doesn't happen in nature.
Because as much as you shit on philosophical thought as a method of determining things, you also use it in subtler ways so your views don't collapse into absurdity.

[Anonymous No.17457671]

>>17455953
Occam's razor: almost all cultures in history have been spiritual, with the current west being a brief, fringe exception. Therefore the former is more likely true.

whoops looks like you can't solve this debate through rationality, it's just whatever side you're more emotionally invested in

[Anonymous No.17457676]

>>17457621
>>17457602
>>17457626
ya yall are right i dodged the question

[Anonymous No.17457683]

>>17456783
No one has ever directly observed an atom.

[Anonymous No.17457686]

>>17455953
Link me the logical proof for Hitchin's Razor and I'll btfo t. Logician

[Anonymous No.17457688]

>>17457614
>how does a mechanical process give rise to a nonphysical quality?
Imho, in a way similar to how seeing a written word gives rise to meaning. Colors constitute the alphabet of vision.
>>17457614
>if the nation of China simulated the actions of neurons would a mind emerge from it?
Logical processing isn't the only thing happening in the brain, so no group of humans could possibly accomplish the tasks necessary to the replication of a consciousness.

[Anonymous No.17457721]

>>17457631
I have not and reading it now changed my mind.

[Anonymous No.17457724]

>>17457631
>It's almost like we're stuck studying the physical makeup of the brain because consciousness is too vastly different from science's objects of study in terms of observability, tenability, and effability.
Yes, but not so that results are by principles out of reach. As expressed by the industrialization of color corrective lenses.
>>17457631
>Because we have intuition
Which is just a old fashioned way of saying "we have a cognitive function for that.
>and philosophy
lel. Again it is the other way around. You intuition and natural attitude feeds your metaphysical thoughts, and an imperceptible percentage of the population bothers with it anyways.
>Because as much as you shit on philosophical thought as a method of determining things
Random and retarded. Philosophy is absolutely necessary to the advancement of Cognitive Sciences.

[Anonymous No.17457730]

>>17456612
>>17456181
>>17456004
>>17456097
>>17456888
>>17456404
>>17456049
Let's say you, as a detractor of hitchens' razor make the assertion
"I am a gigantic fucking faggot".

I want to disagree and dismiss your claim by saying
"No, you are not a gigantic fucking faggot. you are instead a big black gorilla nigger".

i've successfully dismissed your insistence that you are a gigantic fucking faggot. How? Well, because you are a big black gorilla nigger. Why? because i said so. How can you convince me otherwise?

Now here you might enter the picture and say, "but no anon, look: I've sucked literally HUNDREDS of cocks. I have miles of big black dick going in and out of my ass. I have guzzled gallons of semen. Here are the hundreds of videos of me, a young white twink, taking miles and miles of throbbing cock."

At which point, i would say, "I used to think you were a big black gorilla nigger, but now that you've shown me the evidence, thinking that you are anything but one of the biggest fucking faggots to ever live would be incorrect."

[Anonymous No.17457763]

>>17457671
>Occam's razor: almost all cultures in history have been spiritual, with the current west being a brief, fringe exception. Therefore the former is more likely true.
Now replace ‘spiritual’ with ‘monarchist’, or ‘cultures with legal slavery’

[Anonymous No.17457791]

>>17457763
knowledge != political arrangements
a monarchy is not "true" or "false"
if you want to make a moral argument, the idea that atheism is morally superior to spirituality is completely false, see the Nazis, the Soviets, and modern day Americans

[Anonymous No.17457796]

>>17457724
>Random and retarded. Philosophy is absolutely necessary to the advancement of Cognitive Sciences.
Ok it seems i was mistaking you for the anon saying that metaphysics doesn't exist, so nevermind that, but

>As expressed by the industrialization of color corrective lenses.
We already knew of consciousness's relation to our physical makeup, don't see how changing a colorblind person's eyesight to that of a healthy eye is advancing our knowledge of consciousness, rather than our ability to create prosthetics

>Which is just a old fashioned way of saying "we have a cognitive function for that.
Missed the point, this was to point out an example of empirical evidence being insufficient to understand reality, as for one, we reject solipsism on logic and intuition rather than it, but regardless, you don't seem to be that same anon sooo

[Anonymous No.17457800]

>>17457791
>modern day Americans
Pretty sure they still wouldn't elect an avowed atheist President...

[Anonymous No.17457820]

>>17457791
>a monarchy is not "true" or "false"
That sounds very postmodern
>the idea that atheism is morally superior to spirituality is completely false,
>see the Nazis,
Hitler was inspired by Karl Lueger
>the Soviets,
Not all atheists are Marxists
>and modern day Americans
Who are mostly Christian

[Anonymous No.17457837]

>>17457796
>don't see how changing a colorblind person's eyesight to that of a healthy eye is advancing our knowledge of consciousness, rather than our ability to create prosthetics

It means that while color perception is a private act, it is normative and can be corrected by outside agents who technically never get access to your private experience of color. Which was considered something impossible to achieve by many philosophers on the basis of arguments tangential to those of Nagel and Broad.

[Anonymous No.17457840]

>>17457791
>if you want to make a moral argument, the idea that atheism is morally superior to spirituality is completely false, see the Nazis, the Soviets
Atheism is just the default position of one who does not actively believe in sky daddy, retard, look it up, Nazis and Soviets being morally abhorent has nothing to do with them being atheists, it has to do with them causing suffering.
Theists on the other hand have proven themselves barbaric and anti-science.

> and modern day Americans
Don't make me laugh, maybe to people stuck in the past we are morally inferior, our quality of life is now better than ever, partially BECAUSE of atheism.
You being a delusional mysticist who thinks the fact you aren't starving and have computers is outweighed by some abstract and unprovable "spiritual/philosophical" suffering/deprivation of modern life, denying all science and logic, does not mean you outweigh all the happy and intelligent people of generation Z, more enlightened than any other generation. This is only a mysticist's "dystopia".

[Anonymous No.17457850]

>>17457837
>It means that while color perception is a private act, it is normative and can be corrected by outside agents who technically never get access to your private experience of color. Which was considered something impossible to achieve by many philosophers on the basis of arguments tangential to those of Nagel and Broad.
Yes, but the view i posited is not that of the alignment that consciousness is unrelated to our physical makeup, which has been fairly easily refuted even before modern science

[Anonymous No.17457891]

>>17457850

Your view, if I followed the chain of responses correctly, is that you can't explain consciousness in terms of material alone. Is that correct?
If it is, it is premature. We have already agreed that we have figured out some thing which we thought were in principle impossible to figure out. I believe it will turn out to be the same with the other claims to principle impossibility of a physical explanation of the mind. And the alternatives does not seem to lead to any explanation either, or any that would seem to satisfy what an explanation should satisfy.

[Anonymous No.17457937]

>>17457891
>We have already agreed that we have figured out some thing which we thought were in principle impossible to figure out.
This is where the problem lies, "we" is far too broad of a term, the lens correction was never really a discovery or advancement leading anywhere knowledge wise, except to those who posited consciousness as entirely separate to physical makeup, a view easily refuted and disagreed upon even by most dualists, idealists, etc.
That we can affect consciousness by modifying the brain was never something i or most in this thread would reject to begin with, even in a more distant past one who knew about the brain's role could come to this conclusion by the existence of brain damage.

[Anonymous No.17457942]

>>17457840
>quality of life is better
Depression skyrocketed
+why is child mortality a "good"thing?
Is death "bad"?
Why is vaccination a good thing?
Why is basic education a good thing(russian factory school model, Originating in northern Germany, hence the name, this system was developed to a great extent as a reaction against Napoleon. Prussian elites believed their countries initially were defeated by Napoleon due to the soldiers being too independently-minded. So they created a school system to, in the words of one of their philosophers Johann Fichte, “aim destroying free will”, creating obedient workers and soldiers. There were also different education tracks for different social classes, rich and poor etc., similar to how many educational systems work today. The important features of this system was that it was compulsory, classes were based on age, and the system/experience was supposed to be rigid and authoritarian).

[Anonymous No.17457962]

>>17457840
>clearly more enlightened than any other generation

Don't make me laugh

[Anonymous No.17457977]

>>17455953
It is literally impossible to hold any opinion at all without first principles, fuck yourself hypocrite.

[Anonymous No.17457994]

>>17457977
And why the fuck should anyone hold first principles? Do you rely on first principles to tell you? LOL

[Anonymous No.17458119]

>>17455953
>metaphysics has no proof
shiggy diggy

[Anonymous No.17458139]

>>17456783
>be me
>get detector
>detector finds wavelenghts between 620 and 750 nm

[Anonymous No.17458173]

>>17458139
Wavelength is not equal to red itself( the way we perceive red)

[Anonymous No.17458175]

>>17457551
Mathematics is a construction of consciousness, so that's one

I'm too dumb to adress the existence of anything, so idk I guess

Consciousness is an emergent property of complex (physical) neuronal systems.

[Anonymous No.17458180]

>>17456894
a miserable pile of secrets

[Anonymous No.17458190]

>>17458173
What is it then?

[Anonymous No.17458218]

>>17458190
Someone explain to him. I'm too tired for this

[Anonymous No.17458238]

>>17458218
:(

[Anonymous No.17458239]

>>17458139
>>17458218
if the wavelengths were between 625 and 789 nm it would be different or would it be still the same colour of that wavelength?

[Anonymous No.17458282]

>>17458238
The color we experience as "red"is a construct of the mind. It is seperate from the wavelength as the wavelength is the information that our mind interpretes as the color red.

[Anonymous No.17458322]

>>17456004
>>17456035
>>17456049
>>17456086
>>17456089
>>17456097
>>17456108
>>17456125
>>17456126
>>17456128
>>17456166
>>17456173
>>17456177
>>17456178
>>17456181
>>17456188
>>17456190
>>17456210
>>17456215
>>17456225
>>17456256
>>17456261
>>17456268
>>17456274
>>17456300
>>17456340
>>17456351
>>17456404
>>17456431
>>17456452
>>17456468
>>17456480
>>17456491
>>17456496
>>17456506
>>17456512
>>17456523
>>17456558
>>17456612
>>17456639
>>17456659
>>17456732
>>17456745
>>17456751
>>17456778
>>17456783
>>17456794
>>17456807
>>17456808
>>17456817
>>17456825
>>17456888
>>17456923
>>17457010
>>17457039
>>17457053
>>17457168
>>17457215
>>17457218
>>17457231
ETERNALLY BTFO'ED BY A FUCKING TEAPOT

[Anonymous No.17458331]

>>17457730
Nobody is contesting the validity of evidential reasoning, what is being contested is the claim for which this is the only form of valid reasoning.
I've formulated it as a question, but mine was already an objection: Hitchens' Razor is not self-consistent, it is not capable of justifying its adoption, if some sort of evidence for its validity is not given. Of course giving evidence for a methodological axiom is pretty much impossible (what is required here is, instead, an a priori proof), which means that Hitchens' Razor is self-refuting.

[Anonymous No.17458339]

>>17458322
> tries to retort a claim about there being no empirical evidence that only empirical evidence is sufficient with a thought experiment about why we should not trust evidenceless AND logicless claims
Complete midwit, you have to go back

[Anonymous No.17458343]

>>17458239
We assign names to continuum things that have "fuzzy" boundaries, there is no clear cut between red and the next color, I get it. So?
>>17458282
And we both have a region in our brains that interpret what 'red' means to our neurons... and?

[Anonymous No.17458353]

>>17458339
DILATE

[Anonymous No.17458368]

Why are anti-metaphysicians always so angry?

[Anonymous No.17458388]

>>17458353
>DILATE
Amazing counterargument, you got there
>>17458368

[Anonymous No.17458393]

>>17458343
Explain consciousness using the scientific method(materialistic),

to "anti metaphysicians"

[Anonymous No.17458402]

>>17458393
To
>>17458388

[Anonymous No.17458407]

>>17455953
K I get to dismiss that then since it has no evidence

[Anonymous No.17458424]

>>17458368
they cant face reality

[Anonymous No.17458425]

>>17458407
/thread

[Anonymous No.17458437]

>>17458402
You got it mixed up, i was agreeing with you that they're always so mad

And that the russel's teapot anon using "dilate" in response to a valid criticism of his argument was a shitty retort

[Anonymous No.17458443]

>>17455953
That which can be asserted with a loaded gun in your face, cannot be dismissed without another loaded gun pointed right back at him.
(Based razor)

[Anonymous No.17458456]

>>17457510
>1 bait post
>ignored
SAD

[Anonymous No.17458491]

>>17458424
>people who disbelieve in metaworld where my worldview works in are the REAL copers

[Anonymous No.17458498]

>>17457840
>intelligent people of generation Z
>more enlightened than any other generation
https://www.tiktok.com/

[Anonymous No.17458509]

>>17458491
>>people who disbelieve in metaworld where my worldview works in are the REAL copers
> People who refute my 100% empirical world where my nihilistic hedonism works in are the REAL copers

[Anonymous No.17458531]

>>17458175
>Mathematics is a construction of consciousness

Really? pi, which appears in things as disparate as circles and the population growth trends of rabbits is just something in our heads?

The problem of whether mathematics is invented or discovered is whole can of worms.

[Anonymous No.17458557]

>>17458491
>basic bitch empiricist
>does not provide any argument or evidence for his believes
yea you are a joke my man

[Anonymous No.17458601]

>>17458393
Through evolution, some particular species evolved bigger brains, to the point they're smart enough to wonder things other than how to get food or how to fuck qt postmonke gf, namely they start thinking about their own existance
Another thing that suggests a tie between consciousness and a physical "cause" is the fact that you can see brain activity with a zoo of devices, while doing all sort of conscious stuff

[Anonymous No.17458617]

>>17458531
>The problem of whether mathematics is invented or discovered is whole can of worms.
Oh sorry, thought you were asking something on that issue.

Still, what's the problem with pi, or say, any mathematical concept, to "be" physical?

[Anonymous No.17458652]

>>17458282
so you are telling me that there is a specific mathematical information that instantiates things as red. there are some that instantiate things as soft, hard, fishy, doggy. etc.? wow almost as if there were actual paradigms behind everything, huh?

>>17458343
i mean yeah there is no real separation between anything, but things are still conditioned and determined.

[Anonymous No.17458661]

>>17458601
you are a brainlet, you can spout dogmatism all you want. explain to me how consciousness is self moving and self-convertive and bodies aren't.

[Anonymous No.17458683]

>>17458617
What would it mean for pi to be physical? That would it imply it somehow has a mass or is energy. How would one even go about showing that?

[Anonymous No.17458697]

>>17458617
its literally bigger then the universe

[Anonymous No.17458740]

>>17455953
I feel it therefore its real.

[Anonymous No.17458841]

>>17458557
>>does not provide any argument or evidence for his believes
Where are you right now? And is there a metaphysical internet you can turn to if the jucky materialist internet goes down?

[Anonymous No.17458855]

>>17458661
not op but ok, what was so dogmatic about what I said again?
What does it mean to be:
>self moving?
>self converting?
Physical objects "self move" for other reference systems, and "self converts" through, say, decay. But I'd assume that's not what you meant by both of these things, amirite?

>>17458652
>>17458683
I mean maths is (partly) intended to describe the physical in convenient terms. Sure it's a building of it's own too, but what makes it metaphysical? Is it that abstract --> metaphysical?

[Anonymous No.17458921]

>>17458322

[Anonymous No.17458936]

>>17456098
>until you prove the existence of the material world you aren't allowed to use metaphysics to make truth claims
are you even trying to be taken seriously?

[Anonymous No.17458952]

>>17457840
>democracy is up
is this supposed to be a good thing?

[Anonymous No.17458988]

I'll throw out your assertion that what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence because there's no evidence for this being true.

[Anonymous No.17459013]

>>17458322
>teapot
Please, id recommend you to actually read some metaphysics and dump r/atheism
But to help you understand ill just ask you, what is the cause behind the teapot? Is there a rational reason for a teapot to exist, not just a possibility, but a certain reason
what caused it to exist?

[Anonymous No.17459098]

>>17458855
> What makes it metaphysical?
Math is outside the physical, while the physical depends on math. Math does not stop existing upon the heat death of the universe. It's existence implies that the physical is not the whole story.

[Anonymous No.17459189]

Retard here want to throw in my two cents.

I don't know much about the nuances of metaphysics, but if we are discussing the possibility or evidence for something relative to our understanding of reality that is "transcendent" (be that what it may) which is non-material, then I think there is a case to be made for the possibility.

The best one I think is the hard problem of consciousness, as many people bring up here. Refuting this by saying "it's an emergent property of neuron activity" is just plain stupid. Evolution is an emergent property of self-replicating organisms and logic. Does that mean evolution has a consciousness?

The point is that conscious experience is known to exist on a first-person level individually, unless you're an NPC. We have not found a way to observe conscious experience with material methods. We might be able to map every neuron to a function of consciousness and make with complete accuracy a tv screen that shows the conscious experience, but it still does not account for the actual existence (unverifiable objectively and materially) of first-person lived experience/qualia/conscious experience. Who/what perceives the actual neuronal activity? Where does the first-person element come in? Until materialism can find an answer for this, it seems that the hard problem has found a weak point (this does not invalidate science, but rather paints a picture of its limits).

Another question I have for materialists is the existence of physical constants. If we cannot explain why the speed of light/causality is what it is, then we do not understand our reality. We can go as small or as big as we want, but there is no way to peer outside the veil and understand why these laws are in place.

I explained that poorly, so take a thought experiment. Conway's Game of Life is a popular cellular automata simulation, and one can reasonably imagine the rise of structures that are analogous to life and have thinking capability (ignoring first-person consciousness for this). This level of structure would likely take an unimaginable number of time steps on an unimaginably large grid, but the idea of small rules creating large structure is the basis of life regardless.

So imagine these "beings" come to have an understanding of their world (the discrete grid spatiality and the 4 rules), but they cannot understand /why/ that is. They cannot ever know with certainty (though they may conjecture) that they are just electric bits on a supercomputer's program in a 3d world with 3d beings that made them. Their science fails them here. Even if we were to act as god and reach in the program and manipulate it to provide said information, they would still have to take this with complete faith, as we could easily feed them false information.

This can be easily taken out of the automata and applied to our understanding of reality. From this perspective, empiricism and materialism seems to have limits. I hope this made sense and was not just schizo

[Anonymous No.17459262]

>>17459098
I'd think of it as a language, therefore it'd be invented, not discovered. Sorry for coming back to that invented vs discovered dilemma, but if it's invented then there's no need for it to be outside the physical realm. Thoughts?

[Anonymous No.17459413]

>>17459262
The symbols we use to represent and communicate it are invented. But what is it that they represent?

[Anonymous No.17459454]

>>17458601
How do you know whether brain activity causes thoughts (materialism) or thoughts cause a representation of brain activity (idealism)?

[Anonymous No.17459541]

>>17456215
It’s just your brain bro. If I hit you on the head hard enough it will affect your level of “consciousness.”

[Anonymous No.17459569]

>>17456783
These are the absolute morons who argue against science on /lit/. Bravo.

[Anonymous No.17459592]

>>17457994
Once again, if you believe that literally anything is true then you have first principles. If you believe anything then you rely on first principles. Check out the Munchausen Trilemma and the problem of induction.

[Anonymous No.17459594]

Threads like this suck because OP is always using a retard level definition of what metaphysics is (ghost stuff) and then the Hard Problem retards show up and start defending ghost stuff.

But metaphysics properly means basic questions of ontology and method that precede the physical/non-physical split.

80% of responses to this thread are therefore retarded.

[Anonymous No.17459641]

>>17457551
>> consciousness is physical
>Internal, unobservable experiences are absolutely not physical, at most you can say consciousness supravenes on the physical
The most you can say is that consciousness cannot be observed directly except by introspection. That's different from saying it's DEFINITELY non physical.

[Anonymous No.17459698]

>>17458331
Empirical evidence is involved in all reasoning, period. This is apriori the case, but is always demonstated aposteriori. All demonstrations of any claim are aposteriori, or, somewhere down the line, evidence enters the picture. Presenting this evidence is what justifies a claim, it is what separates claims from an indiscernable mess of statements. To make a claim without evidence is akin to just not presenting the evidence you have. Hitchens' razor makes this last point its focus. If you make a statement without showing your evidence, it can neither be confirmed, nor denied, and can be dismissed precisely because there is no evidence to confirm or deny

[Anonymous No.17460385]

>>17457551
>explain mathematics
It's just a language people invented to describe the reality around them. Inb4 "but muh physical laws" - i seriously recommend watching VSauce's video on Laws in Physics, seriously. Good vid. Basically, physical laws are a spook
>consciousness
explained above
>why there is something rather than nothing
If there is nothing, there are no laws of physics or logic. Which means that something - with logic and physical laws - is more probable. Basically, nothing can turn into something because it's nothing. No laws. But something cannot revert into nothing

[Anonymous No.17460501]

>>17459641
Being observable is quite literally the definition of physical though.

[Anonymous No.17460510]

>>17455953

[Anonymous No.17460519]

>>17455953
be ignorant if you wish, your opinion will not change the truth

[Anonymous No.17460551]

>>17459189
>Who/what perceives the actual neuronal activity? Where does the first-person element come in? Until materialism can find an answer for this, it seems th
Answered above. Don't know why everyone seems to ignore these posts:
>>17456272
>>17456319
>>17456390
Basically, neurons work in groups, and these groups also work in groups. And it's within this mesh of inter-activity that consciousness arises, as an ILLUSION. Individual neurons get overloaded, because they have to deal not only with external stimuli, but also with stimuli from within the neuronal structure. Consciousness is an illusion caused by the sum of all these responses to external stimuli.

Basically, the system (of neurons) that was meant to respond to external stimuli began producing its own stimuli, and responding to them.

[Anonymous No.17460594]

>>17460551
>Consciousness is an illusion caused by the sum of all these responses to external stimuli.
and internal stimuli, sorry

[Anonymous No.17460595]

>>17460501
Hard to observe therefore ghost stuff. Not buying it.

[Anonymous No.17460615]

>>17460551
>>17460594
So why don’t robots and advanced AI develop self-awareness and experience as a sum of their simulated sensory perception and response?

[Anonymous No.17460761]

>>17455953
>That, which can be asserted without evidence, can also be dismissed without evidence
you can't go further than cogito with that framework

[Anonymous No.17460773]

>>17460615
They're too simple systems and maybe not the right kind of systems. Turning your question around, if consciousness is a ghost, why don't those ghosts incarnate in beings besides humans (on earth)?

[Anonymous No.17460822]

>>17459262
you can do that but it implies that the things outside of yourself (including your brain) aren't in any way as orderly and particular as the appearances you think about with mathematics and you shouldn't like that as a physicalist.

[Anonymous No.17460836]

>>17460773
way to strawman... just give it up and read some Kant

[Anonymous No.17460889]

>>17460836
I have read Kant. I fail to see what he has to do with the naive Cartesian dualism peddled by the Hard Problem faction.

[Anonymous No.17462059]

>>17460594
And where is your proof for these claims? I would like to see the empirical research paper that says that consciousness is nothing more than an illusion caused by a complicated system. These ideas you're spouting about first-person consciousness being an illusion is just you bullshitting out the ass.

Even so, this explains only the behavioral aspect of consciousness, not the qualitative/experiential aspect. Nobody is claiming complex consciousness did not arise as a result of evolution, which is an idea older than Jung (who similarly bullshitted his way through explaining the mind- albeit not materialistically).

But let's assume consciousness IS an illusion resulting from physical material. Who witnesses the illusion? The universe? Am I just the universe witnessing a small portion of itself? You're veering into panpsychism if you go that route. There is still a first-person perspective, there is still a first-person qualitative experience attached to the consciousness (which as we have established is most likely an information (i.e. immaterial) based emergent property of neuron activity) that cannot be explained away by the neuron activity. The activity and structure within the brain explains the behavior, not the experience. The experience, so far as we can tell, and only in a solipsistic sense, does not seem material and does not seem empirically observable.

We can imagine observing the electrical signals in a brain and predicting behavior, just like we can examine the electrical signals of a CPU... but this does not describe or solve the issue of qualia, the arising experience, which we know exists at least for our own selves.

I am not saying the concept of the self, the behavioral/thought side of consciousness cannot be explained away physically, I am talking about the literal experience. If it is an illusion (I think the more apt term is emergent property), then there still has to be someone experiencing the illusion. This does not appear explainable physically.

You are fundamentally misinterpreting the hard problem of consciousness. If we get to the advanced point to understand exactly what is happening in the brain and mind through examination of the physical structure and signals of the brain, the hard problem of consciousness would yet remain unsolved. There is no way to empirically observe something that is subjective, as the qualitative first-person experience OF CONSCIOUSNESS (not consciousness itself) appears to be.

[Anonymous No.17462159]

>>17460551
>is an illusion
Who is the self or "observer"then.

[Anonymous No.17462290]

>>17456004
Cope

>>17456035
Cope

>>17456049
Cope

>>17456086
Cope

>>17456097
Cope

[Anonymous No.17462337]

>>17462290
Cope button. Intellectual coward. Pathetic. No actual argument. The lowest form of argument.

[Anonymous No.17462356]

>>17462290

>That, which can be asserted without evidence, can also be dismissed without evidence.

>doesn't provide any evidence for his argument
Self contradictory argument

Refute me

[Anonymous No.17462382]

>>17455953
Based on opinion, not an actual argument. People like Dawkins, Hitchens, are a joke.

[Anonymous No.17462400]

>>17455953
>change exists
>all change requires a cause of said change
How is this without evidence? Can Hitchens' razor really dismiss these facts?

[Anonymous No.17462681]

>>17455953
itt: All the "anti metaphysicians"Btfo'd

[Anonymous No.17462993]

>>17459594
True and that is why you don't see OP respond to any posts about epistemology. And instead goes on about bullshit claims about consciousness.