So is there actually any good refutation to materialism? And I mean actual refutation, not a religious text with baseless dogma. Give me legitimate books from real philosophers.

File: 876 KB, 1280x799, 1598505631306.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Sun Mar 7 10:46:48 2021 No.17720267 [Reply] [Original]

So is there actually any good refutation to materialism?
And I mean actual refutation, not a religious text with baseless dogma. Give me legitimate books from real philosophers.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 11:01:36 2021 No.17720382 None then?

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 11:16:23 2021 No.17720481 >>17720267 No, everything else is cope

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 11:21:44 2021 No.17720518 >>17720481 That's what I think but I'm looking for opposing arguments

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 11:48:08 2021 No.17720666 >>17720267 Kinda unrelated but someone explain to me what's the difference between materialism and physicalism pls

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 12:05:16 2021 No.17720754 >>17720666 It's pretty much the same thing, materialism is usually used to contrast with idealism but nowadays the term physicalism is more popular because it's less ambiguous

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 12:08:28 2021 No.17720782 The hard problem of consciousness

Anonymous Sun Mar 7 12:17:50 2021 No.17720850

>>17720666
Materialism is more restricted to newtonian physics, and so in wake of quantum mechanics and new breakthroughs in physics its more appropriate to use physicalism, which doesn't necessarily make any assumptions concerning physical existence of the substance

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 12:22:43 2021 No.17720880 >>17720267 Hard problem of consciousness is the biggest stumbling block for materialism.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 12:24:05 2021 No.17720884 >>17720880 No such problem exists.

Anonymous Sun Mar 7 12:27:32 2021 No.17720900

what is red? not what creates the experience of red but the red itself. you can open up a brain and show what process leads to the experience but the red experience isnt there as a thing. its only experienced. its not material. it may be created by material, but it itself isnt. the gap between experience and material (how they relate, why experience as a substance exists at all, how can material give rise to something non material?) is the hard problem of consciousness. this is the base for all non material arguments. not free will, not intelligence, not "soul" but experience.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 12:29:33 2021 No.17720908 >>17720900 Why can't experience be an emergent property of brain activity

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 12:29:48 2021 No.17720909 >>17720884 You haven't thought about it enough.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 12:30:48 2021 No.17720917 >>17720267 You can't have a "refutation" but you can just reject the notion that the world has to reduce to some kind of substance.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 12:31:23 2021 No.17720921 >>17720900 >What is red? Are you unfamiliar with how light waves and its frequencies function? Red is a light wave at a certain frequency, existing materially.

Anonymous Sun Mar 7 12:32:27 2021 No.17720924

>>17720382
>>17720481
>>17720518
matter is a totally vacuous and empty concept. if we could see spirits and god we would say they are made of matter. things aren’t made of fucking “matter”, they are made of the senses, which are objects in a mind. we just came up with a term to blanket all these sense objects into one category

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 12:32:38 2021 No.17720926 >>17720908 The consciousness is a unity, whereas a material body is a collection of parts. Thoughts are 'owned' by a particular unity, not by a combination of matter. Consciousness has purposes, matter does not have purposes.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 12:33:40 2021 No.17720929 >>17720924 utterly based post

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 12:34:31 2021 No.17720933 >>17720926 Consciousness could arise from the brain, I don't see the problem there. If you modify the brain, you modify consciousness.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 12:35:09 2021 No.17720935 >>17720924 >Things are made of senses This claim is the very disproof of that as it has no sense in it.

Anonymous Sun Mar 7 12:36:10 2021 No.17720936

>>17720908
the whole concept of small particulars giving rise to a quality that is not already contained in them is nonsense. you do not put a jigsaw puzzle together and expect a fire to rise out of it, you expect a picture to arise, because the quality of an image was contained within the pieces in the first place. see panpsychism

Anonymous Sun Mar 7 12:36:50 2021 No.17720943

>>17720908
thats called property dualism. that still acknowledges experience as being something like energy (not material itself but a property of it). its not an eliminative materialist position. the problem with it is, while something like energy is a neccesary property of matter, the potential for experience to arise out of it isnt neccesary and still begs the hard problem.
>>17720921
red doesnt exist outside of our brains. only the lightwave that leads to red once it enters our brain and creates the experience of red does.

Anonymous Sun Mar 7 12:37:49 2021 No.17720950

>>17720933
How could consciousness arise from the brain? It seems obvious that they are qualitatively different things from what I have outlined. And don't just say that there is a correlation between brain states and mental states, that is begging the question.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 12:38:20 2021 No.17720955 >>17720935 unironic brainlet

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 12:38:54 2021 No.17720959 >>17720936 Experience comes down to memory and sense perception. Both of these function via electrical impulses. Get real

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 12:41:02 2021 No.17720978 File: 10 KB, 321x500, iu.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>17720267 Materialism isn't sufficient to explain stuff like pure mathematics, which is true even if there is not matter to enact it.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 12:41:02 2021 No.17720979 >>17720943 It does exist outside of our brain. Its existence is that lighwave. Technically speaking, "red" would be an electric impulse in our neurons, so in a way you are right, but in a way which proves you wrong also.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 12:43:02 2021 No.17720991 >>17720267 >using a picture of Nietzsche for a materialism thread good bait

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 12:43:55 2021 No.17720995 >>17720979 youre not thinking fundementally enough. those electrical impulses arent "red". the lightwave isnt "red". red is what we call the experience. the experience is red. it is a seperate thing from all that creates it

Anonymous Sun Mar 7 12:44:35 2021 No.17721002

>>17720267
materialism is denial of inner experience as an object of consideration. you can't refute it, because anything you would use to do so is part of the thing it denies exists. it's obviously wrong, of course, but it can't be disproven on its own terms

Anonymous Sun Mar 7 12:45:30 2021 No.17721009

>>17720959
That doesn’t even come close to explaining it you fucking idiot. Everytime a physicalist is asked to answer the hard problem they just end up restating their original position thinking they answered.

Experience is not based off memory, for one, experience and consciousness for that matter is better defined as the capacity to experience anything at all. The brain being wired to accommodate the reception and processing of senses doesn’t explain how an “inner world” arises. You don’t expect an androids with a computer that replicates the senses of a human to be actually experiencing anything and be aware of it, no?
>Both of these function via electrical impulses.
Then it follows the possibility that all matter can be conscious, so long as they have electrons acting in them.

Get fucked.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 12:46:40 2021 No.17721014 >>17720991 What was he really? I know he's a prominent anti-realist, but he doesn't strike me as any sort of idealist. What was Nietzsche's actual metaphysical stance?

Anonymous Sun Mar 7 12:48:04 2021 No.17721026

>>17720995
You're making a baseless distinction. It simply doesn't exist. That is what experience is, and you just seem to be grasping at straws to somehow justify the distinction between "experience" and scientific materialistic description of it. As a human, you cannot experience experience as an electric pulse because evolution-wise that makes absolutely zero sense, we are animals (if that is the objection youre thinking of pulling up).

Anonymous Sun Mar 7 12:48:35 2021 No.17721031

>>17720979
>Its existence is that lighwave.
No, its existence is derived from the lightwave, not the lightwave itself
>red would be an electric impulse in our neurons
not even close, for the same reasons as above. a correlation to a certain part of the brain doesn’t mean that red is “that”, just like how the taste of a burger isn’t the burger itself but something derived from it

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 12:48:47 2021 No.17721033 >>17720267 Why do you need a refutation of the idea that our senses are irrefutable? We already know sense experience is fallible. Materialism refutes itself.

Anonymous Sun Mar 7 12:50:52 2021 No.17721049

>>17721026
Anon, experience definitely exists and whether or not it is reduced to a material process or not it is still distinct from what gives rise to it because a lump of organic matter =/= a thought no matter how hard you try and put them together. One can give rise to the other but they are definitely not the same

Anonymous Sun Mar 7 12:53:08 2021 No.17721058

>>17721009
>Experience is defined as the capacity to experience
I should stop right here.

>Inner world
The so called inner world arises out of inner replicas of the five senses. That is how yiu remember things, by sending the contents of your memory storage through those inner senses, or more simply, how you subvocalize.

>All matter can be conscious??
No, consciousness requires a central nervous system. It isnt the fact that electrons flow that makes you conscious, moron, its just the means by which your brain functions.

Get fucked.

Anonymous Sun Mar 7 12:53:14 2021 No.17721061

>>17720926
>The consciousness is a unity, whereas a material body is a collection of parts.
Lol are you serious ? How can your subjetive experience hold any truth about its own state?
Furthermore the alternatives like substance dualism or monistic idealism are even more implausible.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 13:00:33 2021 No.17721105 >>17720782 This. Also the question of the prime mover/creation of the universe.

Anonymous Sun Mar 7 13:09:55 2021 No.17721169

>>17721061
>How can your subjetive experience hold any truth about its own state?
then why do you accept that a mind can possibly understand itself or properly ground itself in an object residing in its senses? there’s an ontological problem regarding all explanations for consciousness
>Furthermore the alternatives like substance dualism or monistic idealism are even more implausible.
Why? I’ll give you substance dualism because of the causality problem but there’s nothing that can falsify monistic idealism because our whole concept and working understanding of the world is entirely dependent on how our minds make sense of it

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 13:11:23 2021 No.17721181 >>17720267 >>And I mean actual refutation, not a religious text with baseless dogma. Give me legitimate books from real philosophers. This is your brain on atheism. liberalism and mass literacy was a huge mistake.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 13:12:05 2021 No.17721185 >>17721105 If scientist discover a force beyond what we think currently possible that created the universe, wouldn't that still be materialim?

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 13:15:19 2021 No.17721208 >>17720950 >How could consciousness arise from the brain? It's the most obvious explanation considering that modifying the brain modifies your state of consciousness. >don't say I just did.

Anonymous Sun Mar 7 13:15:52 2021 No.17721213

>>17721014
Nietzsche can't be called a materialist because he sees materialism as another type of idealism, or in other words as stemming from idealism (if we take away X, we have to take away -X too). I lack the vocabulary to give him a better label without boxing him into something else that he isn't though; a panpsychic nondualist maybe, but even that feels wrong.

Anonymous Sun Mar 7 13:15:57 2021 No.17721214

>>17721185
Yes and that’s exactly why matter is an empty concept. If something can be observed with the 5 senses then it can be considered to be made of “matter”. So the whole concept of matter relies on the senses, so it’s more accurate to say that everything is made of the senses, or the sensible. What materialists and idealists really disagree on is whether subjectivity can be grounded in sense-objects or whether subjectivity stands independent and in fact, gives rise to the sense-objects themselves. It’s impossible to prove one or the other position because subject and object rely on each other so it becomes a chicken-egg scenario

Anonymous Sun Mar 7 13:16:23 2021 No.17721216

I see this cherry, I feel it, I taste it: and I am sure NOTHING cannot be seen, or felt, or tasted: it is therefore red. Take away the sensations of softness, moisture, redness, tartness, and you take away the cherry, since it is not a being distinct from sensations. A cherry, I say, is nothing but a congeries of sensible impressions, or ideas perceived by various senses: which ideas are united into one thing (or have one name given them) by the mind, because they are observed to attend each other. Thus, when the palate is affected with such a particular taste, the sight is affected with a red colour, the touch with roundness, softness, &c. Hence, when I see, and feel, and taste, in such sundry certain manners, I am sure the cherry exists, or is real; its reality being in my opinion nothing abstracted from those sensations. But if by the word CHERRY you, mean an unknown nature, distinct from all those sensible qualities, and by its EXISTENCE something distinct from its being perceived; then, indeed, I own, neither you nor I, nor any one else, can be sure it exists.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 13:16:33 2021 No.17721218 Mary's Room, Nagel's Bat, etc. Not really "refutations," but strong critiques.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 13:16:44 2021 No.17721219 >>17721181 Seethe harder christcuck, your beliefs are so ridiculous they aren't even worth taking into account. Stay in your containment threads.

Anonymous Sun Mar 7 13:17:43 2021 No.17721228

>>17721208
>It's the most obvious explanation considering that modifying the brain modifies your state of consciousness.
consciousness isn’t altered, sensations and objects existing within consciousness are altered. You don’t think the glass screen of a TV is changing along with the image, right?

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 13:18:24 2021 No.17721235 >>17720666 No difference, except for time. What started as materialism, slowly evolved with time (well, throughout the 20th century) and subsequent advancements in science/technology to became what is today called physicalism.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 13:19:18 2021 No.17721240 >>17721228 >consciousness isn’t altered When you sleep or are in a coma, your consciousness is altered becaus it momentarily ceases to be.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 13:20:07 2021 No.17721244 >>17721049 Thought is not real, or rather not one "thing". Experience certain does exist, but only as a broad description of brain processes.

Anonymous Sun Mar 7 13:20:26 2021 No.17721247

>>17721169
with these 'arguments' you could defend solipsism too.
Neither can substance dualists explain without resorting to some supernatural substance. Same goes for idealism which cannot even account for shared experience except everything exists because it is being observed by 'god'

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 13:22:37 2021 No.17721265 >>17721169 Idealistic monism, even if taken to not be falsifiable, is superfluous, and clearly exists only as a poor excuse.

Anonymous Sun Mar 7 13:29:23 2021 No.17721317

>>17720900
>What is red?
Red doesnt exist outside of our perception of it, it delineates a specific set of experiences. The specific wavelength of light exists, but not red.

>>17720936
But it does make sense, or at least occur regularily in real life. Thats how an neural network functions, you input a set of data points in and you get a single tag out.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 13:35:13 2021 No.17721386 >>17721009 >You don’t expect an androids with a computer that replicates the senses of a human to be actually experiencing anything and be aware of it, no? If sufficiently complex and analog, yes.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 14:12:32 2021 No.17721666 read Plato

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 14:12:50 2021 No.17721668 >>17721666 >t. hasn't read plato

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 14:13:42 2021 No.17721676 >>17721668 read Plato (again)

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 14:14:00 2021 No.17721681 >>17721676 >>17721668

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 14:14:11 2021 No.17721682 >>17721666 Fuck off Satan

Anonymous Sun Mar 7 14:16:03 2021 No.17721704

>>17721681
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_forms

The theory of Forms or theory of Ideas[1][2][3] is a philosophical theory, concept, or world-view, attributed to Plato, that the physical world is not as real or true as timeless, absolute, unchangeable ideas.[4] According to this theory, ideas in this sense, often capitalized and translated as "Ideas" or "Forms",[5] are the non-physical essences of all things, of which objects and matter in the physical world are merely imitations.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 14:16:26 2021 No.17721709 >>17721704 Doesn't refute nihilism.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 14:19:06 2021 No.17721742 >>17721709 you didn´t asked about nihilism, you asked about philosophers who refuted materialism, so read Plato

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 14:21:07 2021 No.17721765 >>17721742 My bad that's what I meant. The forms don't refute materialism, the theory of forms is just that, a theory, an assertion. It can be reasonably dismissed.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 14:24:29 2021 No.17721804 >>17721765 think again before making a thread then, dumb fool

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 14:25:00 2021 No.17721809 >>17721804 Not OP, retard

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 14:25:59 2021 No.17721821 File: 507 KB, 554x603, 5776575.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>17721809

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 14:27:08 2021 No.17721837 >>17721821 I accept your concession

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 14:35:28 2021 No.17721915 >>17721208 Ok, so you haven't responded to any of the reasons I gave for why consciousness can't be reduced to brain states.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 14:37:49 2021 No.17721938 >>17721915 >It seems obvious Is this your reason?

Anonymous Sun Mar 7 14:39:08 2021 No.17721947

>>17721317
>Red doesnt exist outside of our perception of it
exactly, but our perception of it is the problem. what is the thing we are percieving if all the things that create it (the lightwaves, the synapses) arent it. theyre not red. but the experience of red still exists

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 14:40:24 2021 No.17721963 >>17721938 How can a material composite produce an immaterial unity? How can a material thing 'own' a thought? How can matter develop intention and purpose?

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 14:42:57 2021 No.17721983 >>17721963 >an immaterial unity? Prove it's immaterial. >'own' a thought? Thoughts are emergent properties of the brain (material). >intention and purpose? Purposefully vague wording, sentience arises thanks to material interactions.

Anonymous Sun Mar 7 14:47:07 2021 No.17722021

>>17721963
intention and purpose are unrelated to sentience. they are illusions. you are observing your decisions not taking them
>>17721983
>Prove it's immaterial
you cant see someones experience when you open up their brain. you can only see what creates that experience, but not the experience itself

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 14:47:41 2021 No.17722027 >>17721983 is love and justice a material interaction?

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 14:48:21 2021 No.17722034 >>17722021 I can't see my operating system when I open up my computer, I can only see what allows the OS to run but not the OS itself. >>17722027 Yes they are abstractions created by material interaction.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 14:50:43 2021 No.17722061 >>17722034 who says what love and justice is? is logic a material interaction? who says what's logic and what is not? is reason a material interaction?

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 14:51:42 2021 No.17722068 >>17722061 >are these abstractions material interactions Yes, I told you already.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 14:52:18 2021 No.17722073 Read Husserl

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 14:53:05 2021 No.17722084 >>17722068 what came first logic, love, justice and reason, or the universe?

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 14:54:11 2021 No.17722096 >>17722084 >what came first, abstractions with no inherent existence or the universe? The fuck kind of question is that?

Anonymous Sun Mar 7 14:54:27 2021 No.17722099

>>17722034
everything that you would call the OS is there. nothing that you would call the experience is there when you open up a brain. only things that create it. and then theres the problem of who is experiencing that experience. there is no perspective haver to be found in the brain either

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 14:54:34 2021 No.17722101 >>17722096 you dont get it?

Anonymous Sun Mar 7 14:54:36 2021 No.17722103

>>17721983
>Prove it's immaterial.
1. A subjective experience (qualia) exists.
2. Subjective experiences (qualia) cannot be directly observed by external subjects.
3. For something to be material, it must be able to be directly observed by two independent subjects.
4. Therefore, subjective experiences (qualia) are immaterial.
5. Therefore, materialism is false.

>Thoughts are emergent properties of the brain (material).
begging the question

>Purposefully vague wording, sentience arises thanks to material interactions.
>>17722021
Show me one instance of a non-living (hence non-sentient) thing which shows causality not included in the currently widely accepted 'laws of physics'. Intention and purpose are necessary in sentient causal chains.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 14:55:50 2021 No.17722108 >>17722096 do you think the universe is logical and reasonable?

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 14:56:22 2021 No.17722110 >>17722073 What does he say about this?

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 14:57:22 2021 No.17722119 >>17722099 >nothing that you would call the experience is there when you open up a brain. Yeah it is, a neurosurgeon could open up your cranium and poke around and your consciousness would still be there.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 14:58:23 2021 No.17722128 >>17722119 >they can point out your consciousness lmao

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 15:00:19 2021 No.17722143 >>17722128 Yeah they just have to point at your brain you fucking moron. You can also point to where your OS "is" on your computer if you open it up.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 15:00:59 2021 No.17722148 >>17722143 come on man, where is consciousness? can you point it out? is your whole brain your consciousness? lmao

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 15:01:22 2021 No.17722156 >>17722119 im not saying it wouldnt be there. im saying the consciousness itself would be unobservable to the outside observer. theyd only observe whats causing the consciousness, not the consciousness itself.

Anonymous Sun Mar 7 15:02:05 2021 No.17722158

>>17722148
Saying "lmao" doesn't make you right, brainlet. Just because we currently don't know enough about the brain to know exactly which zone generates consciousness doesn't mean it's some kind of magic substance that comes from elsewhere. See occam's razor.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 15:02:06 2021 No.17722160 >>17722143 the absolute state of materialist thinking

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 15:02:58 2021 No.17722167 >>17722158 come on man, you dont know either, nobody knows, and maybe you dont even know what i mean with consciousness if you know, point it out

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 15:03:23 2021 No.17722171 >>17722158 The problem isn't that we don't know how it would do it. They are qualitatively different things. It's a metaphysical problem, not an argument from ignorance.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 15:04:07 2021 No.17722174 >>17722167 >nobody knows How do you go from that to idealism let alone religion?

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 15:04:36 2021 No.17722179 Any consciousnessanons read that paper by a guy named Benovksy in which he introduces Dual-aspect Monist panprotopsychism. Some fairly convincing arguments in there.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 15:04:56 2021 No.17722182 >>17722158 >generates consciousness so you accept that consciousness and what generates it are different things? the problem isnt where. the problem is how and what is it generating

Anonymous Sun Mar 7 15:05:13 2021 No.17722185
File: 126 KB, 1080x1349, 2fn2ks.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>17720267
>good refutation to materialism
Consciousness. In the sense of the observer of thoughts, emotions, ideas etc. Not in the sense of being simply awake.
Not only is there no materialist account of consciousness, it is almost equally inconceivable to explain consciousness by matter, as it is to explain matter by consciousness.

>>17722119
>>17722143
>consciousness is in the brain because that's where it is
It may be 'in' the brain like information is 'in' a medium, but that doesn't make information a material thing. Information is that which material hosts.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 15:06:05 2021 No.17722191 >>17722174 no one does. youre not arguing with religious people

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 15:06:38 2021 No.17722199 >>17722174 the metaphyisical thinking was always there, it wasnt invented by me, but by nature, do you think nature is wrong?

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 15:07:00 2021 No.17722207 >>17722191 What do you believe? I wonder how your beliefs differ from physicalism if you just don't think consciousness is material yet aren't religious.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 15:07:54 2021 No.17722215 >>17722207 philosophy isnt religion

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 15:08:53 2021 No.17722224 >>17722215 Again, what do you believe?

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 15:09:36 2021 No.17722230 >>17722224 there is a physical and a metal physical world, easy

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 15:10:07 2021 No.17722234 >>17722230 >metal physical world Sounds hardcore. But seriously what does that entail for consciousness?

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 15:11:29 2021 No.17722245 >>17722230 >metal meta lmao >>17722234 what do you mean? if there are external forces that arent seen, that work in other plane of excistence that can affect you, it's pretty important

Anonymous Sun Mar 7 15:12:54 2021 No.17722261

>>17722245
Yeah okay but physicalism tells you things are pretty simple: your brain made your consciousness, you'll be conscious until you die, and then it's just a dreamless sleep forever.
How do you deny this, yet also deny religion? By default anything that isn't the physicalist position requires faith.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 15:14:25 2021 No.17722272 >>17720936 How is it then a universe composed of a dozen particles & forces, when in large quantities, give rise to something so much more dynamic and qualitative?

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 15:14:30 2021 No.17722273 >>17722261 doesnt everything requires faith? how do you prove what you said? or what you believe?

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 15:14:33 2021 No.17722274 >>17720267 No real "refutations", but there are things materialism can't satisfactorily explain, or at least not yet, like consciousness, both human and animal.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 15:14:47 2021 No.17722280 >>17722261 >By default anything that isn't the physicalist position requires faith. Not him, but physicalism (and hereto attached naturalism) require faith as well. They're unfalsifiable by virtue of their design.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 15:14:48 2021 No.17722281 >>17721317 >Red doesnt exist outside of our perception of it, it delineates a specific set of experiences. The specific wavelength of light exists, but not red. Red IS the specific wavelength of light, they are the same.

Anonymous Sun Mar 7 15:15:14 2021 No.17722286

>>17722207
my only belief in regards to consciousness is that the hard problem is a valid thing to ask with our current lack of understanding. i dont have any religious explanation of it. they only beg even more questions. i accept my ignorance instead of filling it with a materialism of the gaps argument

Anonymous Sun Mar 7 15:15:45 2021 No.17722289

>>17722273
>>17722280
>require faith
To varying degrees. I observe that I have a brain and if I poke it in different ways it reacts in different but predictable ways. I observe the same kind of predictability in the natural world.
Any kind of idealism requires a much larger leap of faith.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 15:16:04 2021 No.17722291 File: 383 KB, 420x610, 1615046874414.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>17720267 read everything by sextus empiricus and protagoras.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 15:17:02 2021 No.17722299 >>17722289 okay so we both work with faith, so what now? is your faith better than my faith or something?

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 15:17:52 2021 No.17722307 >>17722299 I said >To varying degrees At least the thing I have faith in can be observed directly and seems to behave predictably enough that basing my faith on it is reasonable. You've never observed a metaphysical realm.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 15:18:13 2021 No.17722310 File: 13 KB, 307x384, 190425_gma_moran_hpMain_4x5_384.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>17722148 >Come on man

Anonymous Sun Mar 7 15:18:16 2021 No.17722312

>>17722289
Everything you've ever observed was through consciousness, which even after centuries of trying, we have no sound theory or even methodology to physically 'touch'. The leap to idealism has to be made only if you'd already made the leap away from it, towards physicalism.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 15:18:32 2021 No.17722315 >>17722289 you have knowledge of the outside material world through your experience. you know your experience first, than the material. material requires more faith.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 15:20:27 2021 No.17722330 >>17722307 how do you think the universe came to be?, so you have faith in the big bang? why do you think having faith in that requieres more faith than the things i believe?

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 15:20:53 2021 No.17722332 >>17722084 The universe, since it came about before humans.

Anonymous Sun Mar 7 15:20:54 2021 No.17722333

>>17722312
You're operating within the idealist framework here. If you believe consciousness is not an emergent property of the brain then it seems like a leap to believe in physicalism, but there is more evidence for consciousness originating in the brain than there is evidence for it being something else.
>>17722315
My experience alone provides no model aside from solipsism, which refutes itself.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 15:21:32 2021 No.17722338 >>17722332 do you think the universe is logical and reasonable?

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 15:22:31 2021 No.17722346 >>17722330 I mean, at least our universe can be observed and examined. Metaphysical realms cannot.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 15:22:33 2021 No.17722347 >>17722333 who says there is more evidence? what evidence? you cant even say what consciousness is

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 15:23:32 2021 No.17722353 >>17722347 I told you, consciousness responds directly to physical stimulation of the brain. Consciousness states can seemingly be mapped to specific areas of the brain. So is this just a coincidence?

Anonymous Sun Mar 7 15:25:17 2021 No.17722367

>>17722346
we can, we can analyse what is logic, what is reasonable, and think beyond it, even quantum physics work with things that shouldnt be there

>>17722353
what consciousness? if you mess with the brain, ofc you are going to see results, but doesnt mean it answer why or how is it there

Anonymous Sun Mar 7 15:25:18 2021 No.17722368

>>17722333
>You're operating within the idealist framework here.
I'm also showing why it's the default position. Because you start with 'consciousness' and through it, you work your way to 'material' existing whatsoever. Only then you make the leap towards 'material' actually being the primary constituent.
You've made the leap of faith towards physicalism and now you identify that I'm one leap away from you. Which is correct in a funny way...
>there is more evidence for consciousness originating in the brain
There is absolutely none. All we have is that the content of consciousness can be manipulated materially. Which is fine with me.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 15:25:48 2021 No.17722370 Can someone ITT divert from the main discussion and explain to me how materialists like Marx and Engels were influenced by idealists like Hegel and Kant? I don't know if materialism and idealism are polar opposites, but aren't they pretty far apart?

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 15:26:37 2021 No.17722377 >>17722333 anything more than solipsism does require more faith. i have that faith. >>17722346 no one believes in metaphysical realms here. they believe in experience, which can be observed, and is observed whenever you observe anything

Anonymous Sun Mar 7 15:30:00 2021 No.17722401

>>17722367
>we can
Can you show me the metaphysical?
>what consciousness?
Awareness of existence.
>>17722368
>you start with 'consciousness'
Yes, this is solipsism, it's not idealism in the strict sense. And solipsism refutes itself, so you need to move on to something else.
>the content of consciousness can be manipulated materially.
Seems pretty huge since it already poses the problem of interaction if you believe in substance dualism. Again it's just occam's razor at work, if I poke the brain in specific ways I observe specific things in the way consciousness changes, exactly how software changes through hardware manipulation.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 15:30:03 2021 No.17722402 >>17722103 remains unrefuted

Anonymous Sun Mar 7 15:30:11 2021 No.17722403

>>17722370
hegel and kant are only called idealists when their ideas about subject are pretty specific and much more nuanced. marx and engels are materialists in a completely different political context. they believed material neccesities made political things happen instead of ideologies.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 15:31:07 2021 No.17722406 >>17722401 didnt answer any question can you answer this? >>17722338

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 15:32:02 2021 No.17722408 >>17722370 The similarity is essentially an analogy, a similarly structured process in a different substrate.

Anonymous Sun Mar 7 15:32:15 2021 No.17722412

>>17720924
Explain how you can sense god in a way that isn't vacuous, empty, and ultimately comes down to a process of observation-based stimuli.

You can't. No one in all of history has been able to. You're entire argument is literally
>i felt it, just trust me bro

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 15:32:42 2021 No.17722417 o my fucking god materialists are either retarded or p-zombies

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 15:32:56 2021 No.17722421 >>17722412 can you prove you are real?

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 15:33:08 2021 No.17722422 >>17722412 It's the same thinig as drugs pretty much. It says a lot that your super special mystical experience can be replicated with acid.

Anonymous Sun Mar 7 15:34:18 2021 No.17722426

>>17722401
>>you start with 'consciousness'
>Yes, this is solipsism
It's the first step of all thought, including solipsism, sure. But you can't refute the fact our first principle is "I am conscious" by arguing that solipsism takes it to a flawed end.
>it already poses the problem of interaction if you believe in substance dualism
Having a question arise is not evidence for brain generating consciousness, since that also generates a fair amount of unanswered questions.
>consciousness changes
Nope. Content of consciousness changes.
>it's just occam's razor at work
Occam's razor is precisely in not making the leap towards physicalism.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 15:34:19 2021 No.17722427 >>17722406 The universe isn't anything, we ascribe various abstractions to it. But the universe itself isn't "logical" or whatever, it just appears to be because we're here to give it these labels.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 15:34:30 2021 No.17722430 >>17722412 no one is talking about god. know what youre talking about

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 15:35:07 2021 No.17722432 >>17722427 so you believe it is the way it is just by coincidence?

Anonymous Sun Mar 7 15:35:18 2021 No.17722435

>>17722281
Different Anon. I don't think people conceptualize red as wavelengths and photons (nor have the capacity to do so without scientific models. Our bodies send sensory information to the mind (not the outside world itself, but a representation of it based on it's effect on the body). This is further translated in a manner advantageous for retention and self-preservation. Qualia is product of the mind, unable to store nor perceive it's surroundings as they truly are.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 15:35:52 2021 No.17722440 >>17722432 Why are you so intent on applying manmade abstractions to the universe? You're asking me to adopt your own biases, I refuse.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 15:36:18 2021 No.17722444 >>17722370 Marx and Engels ain't real materialism, any utopian vision is a clear idealism. I rec Gustavo Bueno

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 15:36:30 2021 No.17722445 >>17722408 Are you saying that Marx used -let's say- hegelian methodologies to derive his very own theories, which on their own aren't necessarily similar to Hegel's philosophy?

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 15:36:57 2021 No.17722450 >>17722440 im just asking, what do you believe about the universe? it came to be? it always was? what do you believe?

Anonymous Sun Mar 7 15:37:04 2021 No.17722451

>>17722426
>Content of consciousness changes.
Seems like arguing semantics.
And consciousness changes when you're asleep since it disappears.
>not making the leap
Towards what do you make the leap then, and why?
As for the rest of your post I can't disagree with it but you're not arguing against physicalism.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 15:38:06 2021 No.17722455 >>17722450 I don't know. Just like I don't know how exactly the brain generates consciousness. Doesn't mean I feel the need to fill in the gaps with some supernatural force.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 15:39:20 2021 No.17722461 >>17722444 >>17722445 different contexts

Anonymous Sun Mar 7 15:39:20 2021 No.17722462

>>17722445
I'm saying that Marx has some schemas of historical progression that are somewhat structurally similar to Hegel's schemas of historical progression, while the 'substance' of the two differs. You can make the same shape out of different materials basically.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 15:39:27 2021 No.17722464 >>17722455 okay, just living by faith like anyone else you tend to believe in something particular, there is other people that want to ask question and fill the gaps

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 15:40:11 2021 No.17722467 >>17722464 There's no faith involved in saying I don't know.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 15:40:44 2021 No.17722473 >>17722462 that's better, thanks man

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 15:41:12 2021 No.17722477 >>17722467 but you dont know, what if science proves the excistence of a deity or a metaphysical realm? are you then going to start believeing? or are you going to keep arguing?

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 15:42:31 2021 No.17722487 >>17721181 >liberalism and mass literacy was a huge mistake. True

Anonymous Sun Mar 7 15:42:51 2021 No.17722491

>>17722477
>what if science proves the excistence of a deity or a metaphysical realm?
Putting aside that it wouldn't be a metaphysical realm if it was physical, I wouldn't need to believe since it would be proven to me.
But I doubt this will happen because existence doesn't need a deity. It's an unnecessary concept.

Anonymous Sun Mar 7 15:44:16 2021 No.17722504

>>17722451
>Seems like arguing semantics.
>consciousness changes when you're asleep since it disappears.
See >>17722185. You're definitely not the first one to use the colloquial meaning of 'consciousness' in these discussions, but it's not what the argument is about.
There is no question about the fact that you can sometimes be not aware of your surroundings. That is completely obvious to everyone. And it can be induced by material means. But the argument is about the fact there is a field of consciousness where experiences happen to begin with (even during sleep, since you DO experience things in your sleep, although fictional).
>Towards what do you make the leap then, and why?
I made a leap towards dozens of things, but I'm not going to pretend they were all completely justified. And had I made a leap towards physicalism, I wouldn't pretend either. The default position is idealism, since all you know is through consciousness.

Anonymous Sun Mar 7 15:45:27 2021 No.17722514

>>17722491
if the realm is not material it would be metaphisical, and the creator is a logical argument, you like to argue about things you think you know, as living by faith
but you are going to say everything you know is fact checked by you, and there is no doubt about what you believe
i dont think that's real, with the universe, consciousness and God
you seem to be very doubtful

but that's normal, that's why there is metaphisics

Anonymous Sun Mar 7 15:45:29 2021 No.17722515

>>17722491
>existence doesn't need a deity
How did you determine this? Not trying to pull a 'gotcha', just wondering what reasoning you have for this. I mean, all things do rely on conditions for their existence, even timespace changes under particular conditions so...

Anonymous Sun Mar 7 15:45:58 2021 No.17722519

>>17722504
>you DO experience things in your sleep
When you're in deep sleep or in a coma, you're completely unaware.
>The default position is idealism, since all you know is through consciousness
Wouldn't that make the default position immaterialism, and not just idealism in general?

Anonymous Sun Mar 7 15:48:43 2021 No.17722538

>>17722519
>When you're in deep sleep or in a coma, you're completely unaware.
You wouldn't know. You don't even remember the dreams when you know you have indeed dreamt.
>Wouldn't that make the default position immaterialism
Not necessarily, there may be as much matter actually existing as you please. It just doesn't get to be regarded as the metaphysical substrate of everything else.

Anonymous Sun Mar 7 15:49:08 2021 No.17722541

>>17722514
>the creator is a logical argument,
I didn't say it was illogical, I said it was unnecessary.
>>17722515
A deity is quite a specific kind of entity. What I meant is that we don't need a sacred or divine principle, if there is a first cause it doesn't have to be a deity, much less an omnipotent God like most people imagine it.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 15:50:10 2021 No.17722547 >>17722541 >if there is a first cause it doesn't have to be a deity I guess that depends on how you imagine a deity. If it's a bearded ghost dude, then surely not.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 15:50:36 2021 No.17722552 >>17722422 I've done acid. I don't think it's the same thing being described by Hindu sages. Many traditions even go so far as to assert that raptures, visions, etc. are not the goal.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 15:50:49 2021 No.17722554 >>17720782 Personal perception is a social construct.

Anonymous Sun Mar 7 15:51:34 2021 No.17722559

>>17722538
>You wouldn't know.
It is agreed upon that deep sleep is dreamless.
>there may be as much matter actually existing as you please.
We're talking about default positions here. The default position once you've abandoned solipsism because it's contradictory becomes immaterialism if I follow your logic.

Anonymous Sun Mar 7 15:53:03 2021 No.17722570

>>17722547
I'm saying human beings are quick to call things sacred. Assuming there is a first cause (there might not be), it doesn't have to be divine or sacred at all. It's a pop science favorite and a bit naive but it could be something like Asimov's last question, for example. Doesn't have to be a superior being, much less any kind of God or immanent divine substance.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 15:53:05 2021 No.17722572 >>17722541 if the universe is logical and reasonable, the conceps need to excist before it, and the idea of a creator is necessary

Anonymous Sun Mar 7 15:53:58 2021 No.17722577

>>17722559
>It is agreed upon
That agreement implicitly stands on physicalism and it would be circular to use it as proof of physicalism. You simply do not know.
>becomes immaterialism
I don't see why. Perhaps we don't share the precise definition of immaterialism? Is it truly the denial of matter existing for you?

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 15:54:06 2021 No.17722578 >>17722572 >if the universe is logical and reasonable, the conceps need to excist before it No, your logic is based on flawed assumptions. The universe isn't anything, we ascribe notions to it.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 15:54:20 2021 No.17722580 >>17722570 what if it's the Christian God tho

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 15:55:22 2021 No.17722588 >>17722578 the universe is something, it exists, arent you an existencialist? ,dont deny it just cause you dont want to explore more about it lmao

Anonymous Sun Mar 7 15:56:17 2021 No.17722595

>>17722570
>it doesn't have to be divine or sacred at all
It would be scared by definition, since the term really only means 'separated' from the profane, the worldly, the lower-tier concrete existence. But as I wrote in >>17722547, it really just boils down to what you imagine those religious jargon to mean. If god to you is a bearded ghost and 'divine' means it's sparkly and shiny with angels around it, then the First Cause surely doesn't have to be that. Not trying to be condescending, it's how many atheists AND theists would frame the words if they were honest.

Anonymous Sun Mar 7 15:56:29 2021 No.17722596

>>17722552
Even the weird stuff about nondual awareness and whatever can be replicated with drugs like 5-Meo-DMT or high doses of ketamine, I'm not just talking about the visions. There's no reason to think there's anything special about religious practices.
Near-death experiences, drug experiences and mystical experiences seem to be basically the same thing when you get down to it. It's just wishful thinking that leads people to go "nah man my religious experience was definitely different, I know it because I had the experience"

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 15:57:22 2021 No.17722605 >>17722578 Why does reason work though? Why is it that when we apply reason to our sensory input it produces actionable models whose similarity to the structure of the world outside us is verified by their allowing us to navigate it?

Anonymous Sun Mar 7 15:57:53 2021 No.17722608

>>17722577
>That agreement implicitly stands on physicalism
Not really it just stands upon the fact that you are unaware of existing while in deep sleep. Again, occam's razor: is your unawareness actual unawareness or actually another state of consciousness which you just happen to entirely forget after waking up?
>Is it truly the denial of matter existing for you?
More like skepticism rather than denial.
>>17722580
kek yeah what if, I guess.

Anonymous Sun Mar 7 16:00:55 2021 No.17722626

>>17722588
Any way you describe the universe is through manmade concepts, no way around it.
>>17722595
When I think of the sacred I think of worship, devotion and a mystical sense of awe or whatever. If it turns out the universe was created by previous humans for example it'd be silly to worship them or consider them sacred, not sure if that makes it clearer.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 16:02:20 2021 No.17722637 >>17722605 >Why does reason work though? I don't know. Why do you think it works? Why does reason working imply the universe was created?

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 16:03:07 2021 No.17722641 >>17722626 so what is there than no manmade concepts according to you?

Anonymous Sun Mar 7 16:03:20 2021 No.17722643

>>17722608
>Not really it just stands upon the fact that you are unaware of existing while in deep sleep.
>unaware of existing
Consciousness doesn't equate self-awareness. You have experiences even when having a so-called ego death. And besides, you seem to propose that a conclusion stands on itself. Aka The idea of being unaware in deep sleep stands on the idea of being unaware in deep sleep. I'm telling you you have no evidence of that, you only know that you don't remember.
>is your unawareness actual unawareness
Begging the question. I am not granting you that not remembering experiences proves you were unaware of anything.
>More like skepticism rather than denial.
Would you posit "I don't think matter is the end-all be-all" as skepticism of matter's existence? Or I mean what's the straight line between the two?

Anonymous Sun Mar 7 16:05:31 2021 No.17722657

>>17722626
>If it turns out the universe was created by previous humans for example it'd be silly to worship them
Yes, because that's not a principle, that's just a temporal link between past and present, it's nothing other-worldly in any sense except a 'in previous episode' sense. But I get what you mean.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 16:05:48 2021 No.17722660 >>17722637 >Why do you think it works? I honestly don't know, I just find it highly spooky, especially since we have no way to clearly think about reason 'from the outside' since it is embedded in all our most primitive faculties of thinking.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 16:07:46 2021 No.17722667 >>17722110 phenomenology is all about consciousness which is not really explainable with a purely materialistic philosophy.

Anonymous Sun Mar 7 16:08:21 2021 No.17722674

>>17722643
>You have experiences even when having a so-called ego death.
Do you? I've never experienced ego death.
>what's the straight line between the two
I don't understand your question. Immaterialism is just saying that as far as you can tell, only mind exists. After looking it up I realize it can be equated to eliminative idealism but that's not what I meant, and it seems silly to me to say that only the mind exists. If only the mind exists why do I perceive matter that respond to specific laws? What is entirely a product of the mind (a dream, for example) does not follow such laws.
>>17722660
Yeah ok I understand what you mean. But still, I don't think this is enough to claim that we were somehow created by a superior being. There could be other explanations.

Anonymous Sun Mar 7 16:10:20 2021 No.17722684

>>17722657
>it's nothing other-worldly in any sense
I think my point still stands, there's no reason to worship what is otherworldly or to assume that worship would mean anything to this hypothetical otherworldly force (let alone worship being required from it). From this the whole sense of "sacredness" and awe that comes with religion falls flat in my mind. I know I sound like some kind of fedora redditor but I can't help but see it as a silly projection of human desires rather than a genuine interest for what might exist beyond this reality.

Anonymous Sun Mar 7 16:11:36 2021 No.17722694

>>17722674
>Do you?
Of course. If all it took to stop experiences was to forget that you exist, pain management would be a question of training yourself to forget a thing.
>Immaterialism is just saying that as far as you can tell, only mind exists.
Matter seems to me to exist, I don't see how I'm forced to go that way simply by virtue of assigning primacy to consciousness.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 16:13:00 2021 No.17722702 >>17722684 >people praise celebrities or kings >but a creator of the universe has not worth of worship lmao these people

Anonymous Sun Mar 7 16:15:33 2021 No.17722723

>>17722684
>interest
Religions aren't intellectual exercises, all of their concepts will necessarily fall flat on their face if you evaluate them as such. They're participatory exercises mostly.. Worship in particular is a ritualised way of expressing value, role and relationships. The idea that you should worship God does stand on the premise that he is conscious and can actually be formed a relationship with, but be that justified or unjustified, it's not an expression of intellectual interest, it's an expression relationship.
Think "how do you print this color" vs "thank you for the portrait".

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 16:18:30 2021 No.17722739 >>17722702 Where did I say you should praise anyone? Why do you feel such a strong need to worship something?

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 16:19:59 2021 No.17722747 >>17722694 So what remains when the experience of self-awareness stops? Why would that even be considered consciousness, since you wouldn't be able to observe your own existence? >Matter seems to me to exist Are you a dualist?

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 16:21:34 2021 No.17722762 >>17722739 you sould pretty automaton to be honest are you able to create relationships? do you have someone you like and want to follow? do you think worshiping God would be bad? why?

Anonymous Sun Mar 7 16:22:55 2021 No.17722776

>>17722747
>So what remains when the experience of self-awareness stops?
Other experiences.
>Why would that even be considered consciousness
>you wouldn't be able to observe your own existence
Because it is conscious of something. That you wouldn't be able to juxtapose the experiences correctly on the spectrum of 'me vs non me' doesn't make them disappear.
>Are you a dualist?
Yes I speak English and German. Just kidding, I'm not sure, I guess I'm not opposed to the idea.

Anonymous Sun Mar 7 16:25:19 2021 No.17722803

>>17722723
>Religions aren't intellectual exercises
So you can't believe this universe was created by something external to it but only seek to understand this thing or even just interact with it without necessarily submitting to it?
Anyway I get your point.
>>17722762
I sound like an automaton because I'm not willing to make the two leaps of faith that are believing in a creator and assuming that creator is a superior being that wants me to praise it?
>create relationships
Yes.
>someone you like and want to follow
Sure.
>do you think worshiping God would be bad?
If you specifically make your God out to be a being that wants you to worship it, I can't argue against that, I'm just saying it doesn't seem necessary. It hinges on a lot of very specific assumptions is all. But now we are straying from the subject of this thread and getting into the subject of religion which I definitely do not believe in and is just a particular manifestation of the belief in idealism.

Anonymous Sun Mar 7 16:27:54 2021 No.17722816

>>17722776
>Other experiences.
Can't you be more specific?
It's conscious of something, but we don't know what? Seems difficult to call it an experience in the first place if it entirely defies everything that we can presently understand when we talk about an experience.
>not opposed to the idea
I asked since you said you were an idealist but also believed matter existed, so how would you address the problem of interaction?
You don't need to answer since I have to leave now so I won't reply, but thanks for the discussion anyway.

Anonymous Sun Mar 7 16:30:11 2021 No.17722824

>>17722803
>only seek to understand
You can, but your capacity to understand is inconceivably more narrow than your capacity to participate, and accordingly, the intellectual element of religions is just a tiny fraction of its overall more participatory element.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 16:33:43 2021 No.17722843 >>17722824 >capacity to participate Assuming it even makes sense to participate

Anonymous Sun Mar 7 16:36:40 2021 No.17722863

>>17722816
>>Other experiences.
>Can't you be more specific?
Well... I really can't. When you take away one particular experience, what remains are ... the remaining experiences. It's like wanting me to specify "what remains in the fridge when you take the beer out?" Well... all the other things. And the beers may have very well been the 'core' of the fridge, establishing the proper place of every other item, but the items are still there.
>it entirely defies everything that we can presently understand when we talk about an experience
I don't know what you're talking about. Nothing in our understanding of 'experience' defies ego death, flow state or any other case of 'forgetting to exist'.
>how would you address the problem of interaction?
The same way a physicalist would address the fact that information is modified when the carrier of it is modified. They're simply different layers, one more abstract, the other more specific. Same with consciousness and matter. I think they're either an expression of one essential substrate or that consciousness is actually the substrate, matter being in some way a degenerated version of it.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 16:40:22 2021 No.17722886 >>17721014 Hes a process philosopher

Anonymous Sun Mar 7 17:30:44 2021 No.17723206

>>17722281
What is the wavelength of red? 600nm? 700nm? 800nm? Red is defined not as a specific wavelength, but as what is not the other delineations of color. There are plenty of examples of cultures that lacked specific colors, and would be confused if you differentiated them. For instance, the wine-dark sea.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 20:17:13 2021 No.17724145 >>17720267 No, shit comes and go. If you weight your value over objects you pretty much, as a person, share the same value of a chair.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 7 22:10:22 2021 No.17724827 >>17720267 >Nick Fuentes Sr.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 8 00:09:17 2021 No.17725438 File: 126 KB, 1159x1280, photo_20181221_133632.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>17720267 "Why Materialism Is Baloney" - Bernardo Kastrup https://youtu.be [forwardslash] 7jrxrE6eW04

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 8 02:01:56 2021 No.17726062 >>17724145 Do you know what materialism is?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 8 04:17:33 2021 No.17726580 can't refute beliefs

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 8 04:49:46 2021 No.17726727 >>17724145 Come on now, read the thread first. We're talking metaphysics, not ethics.

Anonymous Mon Mar 8 04:51:08 2021 No.17726736

>>17720267
Setting aside the fact that watching /lit/ argue about this is like watching a blind puppy run into a wall over and over, if you're debating "materialism" you are several centuries behind on the literature. You're living in the rationalist-empiricist debate era no matter how hard you want to LARP as a Renaissance man.

Anonymous Mon Mar 8 04:54:34 2021 No.17726758

>>17720267
No, we know nothing and everything is cope, as many have said in this thread already.

Here are your options:
>Suicide
>live for nothing
>live for some arbitrary thing of your choosing
>live for what society tells you to live for (Materialism)
At this point I don't even think humans are even conscious, nor is "life" sacred in any way.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 8 05:01:34 2021 No.17726798 >>17726758 Plato talked about this.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 8 05:04:57 2021 No.17726815 >>17721240 No, because that sleep and dream only induce changes in the objects of sentence/consciousness that appear or dont appear within it and not consciousness itself

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 8 05:10:37 2021 No.17726841 >>17722353 >consciousness responds directly to physical stimulation of the brain no it doesnt

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 8 05:11:09 2021 No.17726845 >>17726841 lmao

Anonymous Mon Mar 8 05:13:17 2021 No.17726855

>>17722596
>There's no reason to think there's anything special about religious practices.
Yes, there is, for the reason that people who attain those states through religion describe it as unceasing and constant while people who reach it through drugs only ever get a temporary and confused looked through the door

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 8 05:14:38 2021 No.17726864 >>17726855 So you've managed to durably rewire your brain instead of temporarily. So? >it's special because it feels special Not very convincing. Why can't you admit that you simply don't know? >>17726758 is right.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 8 05:15:30 2021 No.17726868 >>17726845 Can you give an example of it doing so?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 8 05:16:33 2021 No.17726873 >>17726864 >Not very convincing. First hand experience is the most convincing and the most verifiable thing possible

Anonymous Mon Mar 8 05:17:57 2021 No.17726883

>>17726873
>it feels true so it's true
And yet you will readily admit that our senses cannot be fully relied on.
Just admit you don't know, why is it so hard? As real as your experiences may seem, they may be complete bullshit no different from drug-induced states.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 8 05:20:02 2021 No.17726894 >>17726868 https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/07/the-brain-on-trial/308520/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30711788/

Anonymous Mon Mar 8 05:28:20 2021 No.17726932

>>17726873
And by the way, religious experiences hinge on the threat of your afterlife being different or at least partially dependent on whether or not you adopt the right practice/praxis before dying, which also seems like a huge and baseless assumption with no real reason to be. Why should someone who's induced these states have a different afterlife than someone who didn't? Why should someone who's induced these states alone have a different afterlife from someone who used drugs or even shamanism to do so?
Just seems like another way to peddle a specific spirituality since there's absolutely no reason why the afterlife (assuming there even is one) should somehow change for you because you meditated or prayed enough. And if the afterlife is the same regardless of what practices you adopt, or don't adopt, then religion loses its main purpose.

Anonymous Mon Mar 8 05:28:32 2021 No.17726934

We're retarded hairless insignificant apes on a rock in the middle of nowhere. Materialism has no arguments against it because it is correct. We are such lowly creatures that our lives should be spent pursuing such worthless things as sex and money. We are that deplorable. The reason we cannot find greater meaning than that, is because we are not capable of understanding greater meaning than that. Anyone claiming to is a liar. All of our happiness simply stems from our biological functions. How could you deny that? Imagine you took away sex, food, sleep, and competition from humans, what happiness would they have? Nothing, they'd be fucking nothing and everyone would resort to delusions about God and "an eternal paradise" (Which you should know by now would just be a fantasy world where we fulfill our biological functions forever).

Humans are not intelligent, we are not more important than animals, nor are we even more important than rocks or dirt. Our lives are insignificant, vile, and spent doing exactly what we were programmed to do as flesh of the Earth. This is the only conclusion we could have possibly reached with our current reality and "knowledge". Free will, unfortunately, does not seem to even exist, and life as we know it is probably not alive at all. Our best hope would be to escape this reality, in some way, and perhaps we could find the real truth. But, how would we do such a thing? We are beings made up of this reality and our brains only can comprehend it and only it. I think death may be the way to escape this, it will do away with our senses, consciousness, and return whatever we are, to another reality, or possibly the true reality. Unfortunately, that may be just an empty void, and non-existence is our natural state.

So what do you do while you are alive? Kill yourself so you die now, wait 80 years so you die then, or try to live forever, somehow. Yes, if you do choose to live, there's nothing wrong with materialism, you are simply submitting to the truth that we are nothing, but you do have the option of trying to cope and being something greater. You will fail, but you can try nonetheless.

>>17726798
I've read Plato. What were you specifically referencing in his works?

Anonymous Mon Mar 8 05:28:37 2021 No.17726937

>>17726894
> The real or perceived proximity to death often results in a non-ordinary state of consciousness
‘states of consciousness’ appear within the continuous span that is consciousness, as things distinct from it and which are illumined by it, they are not identical with consciousness itself. Someone being sentient and having a NDE and someone being sentient while walking around only have a difference in what appears within their sentience, absent this difference, the sentience that remains at the same time as the thing appearing inside it is absolutely identical in both circumstances for both people, as well as for all other circumstances.

Anonymous Mon Mar 8 05:30:18 2021 No.17726945

>>17726934
>We are beings made up of this reality and our brains only can comprehend it and only it. I think death may be the way to escape this, it will do away with our senses, consciousness, and return whatever we are, to another reality, or possibly the true reality.
This is what I'm starting to think. But it's not really materialism.

Anonymous Mon Mar 8 05:32:56 2021 No.17726957

>>17726873
So anyone who feels anything is therefor true? The homeless man rambling through gibberish talk? Seniors with dementia? Your enemies speaking lies of you?

Face reality. As science is the method that humans use to understand reality through our systems of "logic", religion is the method that humans use to understand reality through our emotions. Religious sensations are just emotional responses people have about things. They are not absolute truth in any way.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 8 05:36:30 2021 No.17726974 >>17726957 There is no reason to think logic is perfect either. The conclusion will always inevitably come back to epistemological nihilism.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 8 05:38:01 2021 No.17726982 >>17726934 >What were you specifically referencing in his works? The forms

Anonymous Mon Mar 8 05:42:35 2021 No.17727002

>>17726945
No, it's not, you are correct. It would be nothing. -ism's are practices of thought used to try to traverse this world. Dying to leave our reality, that's not technically a practice of thought anymore, it's something beyond it. Thought may also be below such a thing.

Nevertheless, we simply can't comprehend it. That's why we fear death so much. Death is the complete opposite of all that 'we' are as conscious humans. Again, think of the basic human fantasy land of heaven. It's literally exactly as you would expect a human to want.
>"A world where I can eat, sleep, and fuck all I want! and live forever!"
One could see the implicit bias in this fantasy and immediately see that it's just pathetic cope. And of course it is, but examine the themes in it and you will see what humans fear the most.
>I starve, I never sleep, I never get to have sex, and I die
This is basically hell. It might even be what we revert to upon death, and maybe why we naturally fear it so.

Anonymous Mon Mar 8 05:43:14 2021 No.17727005

>>17726957
>So anyone who feels anything is therefor true? The homeless man rambling through gibberish talk? Seniors with dementia? Your enemies speaking lies of you?
But all of these things /are/ true. The person has clearly experienced it. I cannot see why a materialist would deny this.

Anonymous Mon Mar 8 05:45:18 2021 No.17727012

>>17727002
So you're sayinig death isn't nothingness, it's just null, undefinable, unimaginable, and outside of everything — every "ism", every hypothesis. Is that it?
It does make sense: death being the cessation of everything we know about existence, there is no real reason for what happens after death to have any sort of link to what happened before it, aside from wishful thinking.
At the same time, it leads nowhere. Once you've realized this, what do you do, become a hedonist?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 8 05:46:36 2021 No.17727019 >>17727005 You're implying that everyone lives in a separate reality. That there are things that are true for you but not true for everyone else. How can you affirm this while also affirming the idea of an absolute reality? Sounds like trivialism.

Anonymous Mon Mar 8 05:48:16 2021 No.17727032

>>17727005
>truth is not about what is right or wrong, but what has or has not.
>in other words, truth exists but humans do not understand it and instead apply their own systems of thought to it, to cope, to selfishly cope
Hm, this could be possible. I must think about this more. If that were true, then why do humans obsess over truth and pursue it so? Yet fail to understand it?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 8 05:50:58 2021 No.17727041 >>17722412 >he didn't feel it sucks to suck

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 8 05:51:08 2021 No.17727045 >>17727032 >why do humans obsess over truth We're wired to seek meaning?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 8 05:51:59 2021 No.17727049 >>17720267 Read your own pic related, for starters.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 8 05:55:16 2021 No.17727061 >>17727041 >dude just keep practicing until you convince yourself it's true and you'll realize it's true This contrarian trend of mysticism on 4chan is getting annoying

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 8 06:01:17 2021 No.17727080 >>17727019 If sense experience is the basis of all knowledge, how can the man with dementia not be right without undermining knowledge itself? For materialists only. Platonist chads are covered.

Anonymous Mon Mar 8 06:01:41 2021 No.17727084
File: 27 KB, 700x530, Homer thinks of his mom.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>17727012
>So you're saying death isn't nothingness, it's just null, undefinable, unimaginable, and outside of everything — every "ism", every hypothesis. Is that it?
Correct. We cannot understand things beyond this reality while we're alive and stuck in this reality (Our being, feelings, comprehension are only capable of seeing this reality). It's like a computer trying to define something that it is not programmed to. It will return nothing or crash.

But, there are just a few places where I believe we may be able to find answers, though they are impossible to terrain.

These are:
Birth, death, the beginning of the universe and the end of the universe.

Birth and death are the passing points. We come from somewhere and are placed here, and in death, we die and disappear to somewhere else. By induction, the escape of this reality is at both of those points. Unfortunately, "we" only exist after birth and before death. I am not able to comprehend beyond those points, but something different must be there, even nothing.

The others are the beginning and and of the physical universe. If we were to find where the universe ends and begins, we could possibly understand our reality much more. Of course, we have no way of doing that, it is basically impossible. It is so nearly impossible we can only describe such concepts in science with simplified abstractions (i.e, the answer to "where is the beginning of the Universe" and "what does the end of the universe look like" are, "it has no beginning" and "it has no end"). Black holes may also chime in to understand our reality better. Currently, that's all we have.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 8 06:04:12 2021 No.17727093 >>17727080 Sense experience isn't the basis of all knowledge. Otherwise knowledge becomes subject-dependent and everyone gets to exist in their own separate reality. >Platonist There is no evidence for the world of forms.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 8 06:05:57 2021 No.17727100 >>17726883 >And yet you will readily admit that our senses cannot be fully relied on. >impying non-dual consciousness is attained via the sensory organs ngmi

Anonymous Mon Mar 8 06:06:27 2021 No.17727103

>>17727084
I don't think we'll ever find these answers. Our methods of inquiry are, by definition, confined to this existence and limited by it. It makes no sense to envision a way by which we could somehow pierce through this reality using only means available in this reality (which is why I think mysticism is wishful thinking and confirmation bias).
In the end you're right, we don't know shit and never will until we die.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 8 06:07:57 2021 No.17727105 >>17727100 >implying it isn't But it doesn't matter, if believing you're tuning into some kind of magical reality above the senses gives meaning to your life, then by all means, keep doing what you're doing.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 8 06:08:09 2021 No.17727108 >>17727061 Man it must really suck to suck this much.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 8 06:09:11 2021 No.17727110 >>17727108 How does it feel to know that your super special and unique religious state that is totally unavailable to the uninitiated normies can be replicated with a syringe and some horse anesthetic? You are coping extremely hard.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 8 06:11:20 2021 No.17727119 >>17727105 >>implying it isn't Explain how consciousness is experienced via the senses then anon. That’s the opposite of what happens, the sense are experienced in and through consciousness

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 8 06:11:48 2021 No.17727122 >>17727108 If the only proof and justification you can offer boils down to "bro you just have to experience it" then it can be safely and summarily dismissed

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 8 06:13:17 2021 No.17727126 >>17727110 >>17727122 Oh boy, it sure must be upsetting to have this much suck.

Anonymous Mon Mar 8 06:15:06 2021 No.17727131

>>17727119
Are you implying that your consciousness isn't fallible? Emotions and feelings can be artificially induced, impressions can be manufactured, your nondual experience is exactly that. You trained yourself to attain an altered state without drugs. This does not make it meaningful, it does not indicate that your experience is tied to any kind of superior reality or truth.
>>17727126
I know it makes you seethe to be faced with the fact that you've wasted your time on what essentially amounts to deluding yourself, but don't take it out on me.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 8 06:17:30 2021 No.17727141 >>17727108 >>17727126 It's so transparent how 4chan "mystics" use occultism to feel superior to normies and cope with their shit lives kek Nietzsche wrote books about you

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 8 06:19:38 2021 No.17727156 >>17726932 Nobody's going to answer this?

Anonymous Mon Mar 8 06:20:27 2021 No.17727160

>>17727103
>we don't know shit and never will until we die
Yeah, it's disappointing to hear but that is the only conclusion we can make. Even if our lifespans were much longer and we could somewhere traverse to the end and beginning of the universe, all we would see are fabrications that our mind shows us, which would be based from this reality, as you say.

....so what do then? Return to monke? Progressive-ism? Materialism? Suicide? Cope? I suppose the choice is for everyone to make on their own. I personally would like to live my life until my death, no matter how drought it is of truth. I am a being of cope and I will cope it out until the end. I'll try to find meaning, truth, maybe attempt to make it, and I know I won't be able to and that's just cope, but it's just cope, so it doesn't have to be true.

Anonymous Mon Mar 8 06:23:45 2021 No.17727166

>>17727160
This is basically existentialism right? I'm pretty sure Camus talked about this.
I dismissed existentialism for some time but it's really the only thing you end up coming back to again and again. We just live, fool ourselves into believing we know things, then hopefully get to know for real once we leave this world.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 8 06:27:32 2021 No.17727178 >>17727131 >>17727141 Gee willickers, you fellas sure are cranky about sucking.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 8 06:27:43 2021 No.17727180 >>17727178 cope

Anonymous Mon Mar 8 07:18:57 2021 No.17727356
File: 159 KB, 727x1024, BC2E0EEF-AEEA-47B5-A663-DE00ACC2DBFE.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>17727131
>Are you implying that your consciousness isn't fallible?
Yes
>Emotions and feelings can be artificially induced
That says nothing about consciousness because those are things glimpsed within consciousness as opposed to being consciousness itself, so they don’t provide us of evidence of some change affecting consciousness itself, similar to how regardless of what we aim a telescope at the telescope itself doesn’t become changed by and actually take on the physical properties of whatever we see through the telescope.
>impressions can be manufactured, your nondual experience is exactly that.
Non-dual experience is unmanufactured for the reason that it’s always the nature of consciousness and you just have to distinguish it, in order to realize It you have to learn how to discern something which has been there your entire existence in front of your face without you realizing it. When someone distinguishes It for the first time, that is not a new experience being manufactured, it is instead the unveiling to Itself of the unproduced and constantly-present ground of experience.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 8 07:20:32 2021 No.17727364 >>17727356 >it's always the nature of consciousness You don't know that and can't prove it, for all you know it's another form of delusion. Just because it feels special doesn't mean it is.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 8 07:42:01 2021 No.17727466 >>17720991 Nietzsche’s materialism is the reason his philosophy failed. He put too much faith in individual humans just like everyone else did.

Anonymous Mon Mar 8 07:44:07 2021 No.17727477

>>17727356
>That says nothing about consciousness
I can shut your consciousness off with a piece of lead shot at a high velocity into your brain, or with the application of very particular chemicals. If you have a dreamless sleep, your consciousness, from night to morning, evaporates.

Anonymous Mon Mar 8 07:47:57 2021 No.17727492

>>17727119
>Explain how consciousness is experienced via the senses then anon.
Buddhists would say consciousness IS a sense of its own sort. In fact, I even recall the Upanishads saying the same thing, or maybe I'm mistaken. Consciousness is an integrative sense, in that it subordinates the other senses, yet it is still a sense.

Anonymous Mon Mar 8 07:51:17 2021 No.17727501

>>17720267
The very question that you are asking and your internal inquiry that brought it forward answers it.

The very existence of a mental framework to refute or support materialism, rejects it.

Materialism cannot stand on itself to explain itself and has no mechanism of certification on whether what you are saying is absolute gibberish or a fundamental truth about our world.

You are asking other entities about something, on what mechanism do you evaluate their answers and what guarantees its truthfulness?

Anonymous Mon Mar 8 07:57:51 2021 No.17727532

>>17726934
Is there a possible reality that what you are saying does not hold? Or are all possible realities that you can imagine variations of this thought?

Monks from almost all religions willing-fully deprive themselves of comfort, sex, food and even sleep and consider competition over matter a human passion. They are not trying this, they are doing it on purpose and on many decades. Thus something else, brighter than matter nurtures them and sustains their behavior. This is also not something new but a historical observation up to this age.

Why did matter evolve in this way to give birth to the forms that we see around us, including ours? What is the fundamental truth behind this specific physical appearance of the universe and not any other?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 8 07:59:18 2021 No.17727539 >>17726934 What a pathetic, miserable way to live. I hope you suffer and die alone lol

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 8 08:18:17 2021 No.17727617 >>17727012 >Once you've realized this, what do you do, become a hedonist? Not him, but I believe you have to choose a belief system and go with it. There's really no other option. You can become a hedonist but I wouldn't advise you to.

Anonymous Mon Mar 8 08:19:00 2021 No.17727621

>>17727532
>something else, brighter than matter nurtures them and sustains their behavior.
That's just wishful thinking. Monks do this because they get "mystical" experiences which push them to believe their lifestyle is justified. There's nothing special about it.

Anonymous Mon Mar 8 08:19:40 2021 No.17727624

>>17727364
>You don't know that and can't prove it,
That's not a refutation of that as being a coherent position to hold about consciousness. It's actually make less claims on faith about consciousness than those who claim that it emerges as an emergent property of matter and that its changed by mental states and brain manipulation. The former position doesn't seek to assign consciousness a cause because of the absence of any self-evident cause of consciousness, and so then they don't have to take it on faith like materialists do that it magically emerges from the brain.
>>17727477
>I can shut your consciousness off with a piece of lead shot at a high velocity into your brain,
You have no way of knowing that, you have to believe that it's true, and claims which are predicated on an unverifiable belief are not a refutation of anything. If consciousness is unproduced then harming the brain would do nothing to it, you just re-asserting that you think the brain produces consciousness does nothing to address or refute this hypothetical possibility.
>If you have a dreamless sleep, your consciousness, from night to morning, evaporates.
That's incorrect, because dreamless sleep is a change which comes and goes within the same continuous span of consciousness, that's why we are able to position it in relation to the other states of dreaming and awake and say I "I was asleep". In sleep there is just the quiescence of the intellect which is different from consciousness, but there is a more primordial and fundamental sentience which continues unaffected and, it's the ground in which waking, dreams and dreamless sleep all come and go.

Anonymous Mon Mar 8 08:20:25 2021 No.17727627

>>17727617
How do you choose a belief system when none of them actually matter? It's just larping.
At least hedonism feels good. And I'm not talking about mindless consooming shit, but intelligently living your life so you maximize the amount of pleasure without burning yourself out.

Anonymous Mon Mar 8 08:21:33 2021 No.17727633

>>17727624
Your word salad means nothing. You cannot prove that your mystical experience is anything else than delusion. You cannot prove that it points towards some kind of supreme metaphysical reality as opposed to being just an interesting feeling similar to what many drugs can induce.

You do not know.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 8 08:27:12 2021 No.17727662 >>17727627 Sure, but I just wouldn't consider pleasure the primary focus of my life. Hedonism fails when you contact with other people regularly.

Anonymous Mon Mar 8 08:30:41 2021 No.17727675

>>17727662
I don't see what the alternative is if you don't want to larp. You could delude yourself into believing in something superior but I'm not attracted to this kind of life, and knowing myself I'd probably remain skeptical anyway.
I don't want to kill myself because I like being alive. But since there is nothing to focus on because we can't ever know what this is all about, what else is there to do but just live in the most pleasant way possible?

Anonymous Mon Mar 8 08:32:32 2021 No.17727685

>>17727675
A weak way to live and perceive the world, but your mindset is sadly how most people today live. Go with the flow and never aspire for anything greater than you are, because life is worthless and everything is incidental. I don’t understand how you could possibly live like that and enjoy being alive

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 8 08:33:44 2021 No.17727692 >>17727685 What's your alternative? I keep asking you but you won't answer. I enjoy being alive because life is enjoyable in itself.

Anonymous Mon Mar 8 08:37:17 2021 No.17727716

>>17727692
I am conscious and I am uniquely perceptive of my place in the world. Naturally this means that my consciousness is unique to me and I was placed in this world in my body for a reason. That leads to believe in God. Every tear and every emotion I feel only matters because God exists and created matter. That’s the explanation I see, and living life and enjoying life itself is an act of worship just by fulfilling what I was created to do.

Anonymous Mon Mar 8 08:40:47 2021 No.17727737

>>17727716
>Naturally this means [...] I was placed in this world in my body for a reason. That leads to believe in God.
The logic doesn't follow for me, but fine.
This means that without a leap of faith, going with the flow is the best way to react to meaninglessness.

Anonymous Mon Mar 8 08:41:07 2021 No.17727741
File: 219 KB, 1084x1151, m3dkj0g348q51.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>17727633
>Your word salad means nothing.
t. coping nihilist (pic related)
>You cannot prove that your mystical experience is anything else than delusion.
There to nothing indicate that it is a delusion, since false experiences are seen to be false when they end but attaining the summit of mysticisms doesn't have an end but its unceasing once you reach it and so it doesn't have the unreality of delusions.
>You cannot prove that it points towards some kind of supreme metaphysical reality as opposed to being just an interesting feeling similar to what many drugs can induce.
I don't have to prove that in order for my position on consciousness to be a more coherent worldview than materialism and in order for me to directly know and confirm in my own experience what it says about consciousness being non-dual.

Anonymous Mon Mar 8 08:43:33 2021 No.17727757

>it's the guenonigger
I should've known that only that schizo could be so obtuse.
>>17727741
Theism is cope by definition.
>There is nothing to indicate that it is a delusion
Not addressing the point. You cannot prove that your mystical experience is true. False experiences are not always seen to be false because inherent biases exist. More word salad, more meaningless, baseless claims.
>I don't have to prove
Then we're done talking, keep believing in whatever you want to believe.

Anonymous Mon Mar 8 08:48:01 2021 No.17727785

>>17727685
I'm the anon you replied to, I wouldn't see it as deluding oneself, but choosing how you would like to live your life. Once you get too deep any alternative is equally valid, even though none is of much value. Just do what you think is right, I guess. I myself try to act as logically as possible but that is still a choice had to make.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 8 08:49:04 2021 No.17727794 >>17727785 Replying to >>17727675 sry

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 8 08:50:00 2021 No.17727801 Why is it so hard for people to just admit they don't know what the fuck this is all about? why all the mental gymnastics? tell me

Anonymous Mon Mar 8 08:51:11 2021 No.17727804

>>17727785
>choosing how you would like to live your life.
If you acknowledge you cannot know, but choose to have faith in something, in the end that faith will transform into an impression of pure certainty, which seems to be the very definition of self-delusion.

Anonymous Mon Mar 8 08:58:43 2021 No.17727837

>>17727757
>Theism is cope by definition.
No it's not, it's the only thing that satisfactorily explains the existence of the universe.
>Not addressing the point. You cannot prove that your mystical experience is true.
I don't have to prove it to you personally in order for it to be totally coherent worldview, much more so than materialism and/or nihilism. It confirms itself in our own unending experience of it which is as good a confirm of anything that anyone will ever get, there is no better way to confirm something than for it to be realized and always known as a constant and unceasing feature of our own experience as a sentient beings, at all times.
>False experiences are not always seen to be false because inherent biases exist.
the nature of consciousness or having sentience is self-revealing as true, just so, only a fool would doubt that their sentience illuminates what is insentient, and not vice versa.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 8 08:59:20 2021 No.17727845 >>17727837 More word salad, spinning in circles, I know your deal since I've already seen you display your massive autism in other threads. No thanks, go spaz out elsewhere

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 8 09:04:59 2021 No.17727874 >>17727801 People want to believe.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 8 09:06:35 2021 No.17727885 >>17727539 Of course it's pathetic, he's describing humanity. Humanity is pathetic. Do you believe otherwise? Please describe how humanity is not pathetic and deplorable, and why -if there were a god- we deserve him.

Anonymous Mon Mar 8 09:08:29 2021 No.17727896
File: 34 KB, 600x354, 44866129_542727909483391_7031005959136739328_n.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>17727845

What is there to spin in circles over? Materialism and atheism are both completely incoherent worldviews that can't satisfactorily account for either the nature of consciousness or of the existence of the universe. This is self-evident to any intelligent person who has read the arguments for both sides and who is being honest with themselves instead of coping with various mental gymnastics because they hate life and would rather just be annihilated. If you believe those are likely to be true because you were told so in school then you are basically the perfect programmed NPC of modern society.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 8 09:10:38 2021 No.17727907 >>17727896 The only coherent worldview is skepticism

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 8 09:10:54 2021 No.17727909 Anon said “dogma” and “real philosophers” in the same sentence. it seems like he would like to stick to his own dogma

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 8 09:13:53 2021 No.17727925 >>17727907 The only coherent worldview is actually naive realism since that's how you instinctively act anyway, skepticism contradicts your own behavior

Anonymous Mon Mar 8 09:14:06 2021 No.17727928

>>17727804
In my case I'm conscious of my choice, so I am aware of the limitations my beliefs have. But yes, since at some point you'd have to follow a dogma I guess it would count as delusion. Still, from my experience I can say it's better to be consciously deluded than to larp

Anonymous Mon Mar 8 09:20:07 2021 No.17727978

>>17727925
The world appears to behave in a predictable way but there's really no way to be sure. It's probably more sensible to behave in a manner that aligns itself with these seemingly predictable mechanisms, but again you're not asserting any kind of absolute knowledge here. There is underlying skepticism, or rather a denial of knowledge itself.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 8 09:21:25 2021 No.17727986 >>17727978 There is the possibility of underlying skepticism, but there is no reason to actually be skeptical, especially since it contradicts how you act yourself.

Anonymous Mon Mar 8 09:22:18 2021 No.17727990

>>17727986
>there is no reason to actually be skeptical
There is no reason not to be, since nothing is verifiable. It doesn't contradict how you act since you're simply aligning your actions in a way that appears to make sense, but you're not actually verifying anything.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 8 09:24:04 2021 No.17728002 There's no reason that science couldn't eventually explain qualia, assuming that it goes through some sort of Copernican revolution.

Anonymous Mon Mar 8 09:24:24 2021 No.17728006

>>17727928
>you'd have to follow a dogma
The issue is what kind of dogma will impose the least amount of biases onto my worldview. You can add many layers of dogma in order to construct an entire system of elaborate delusion, but you can also go the opposite way and seek to make as little leaps of faith as possible without becoming a literal vegetable who just eats, shits and sleeps.
What would be the result then? Just a go with the flow attitude like was mentioned earlier?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 8 09:25:28 2021 No.17728015 >>17721821 Hi Jimbo!

Anonymous Mon Mar 8 09:25:56 2021 No.17728016

>>17727990
There are two possibilities, you can be skeptical about the assumptions underlying your behavior, or you can assume they're true. There is more reason to assume they're true than to be skeptical, since they do in fact underlie your behavior, and you are not capable of doing anything at all without them. You are not verifying anything in an absolute sense, but the scale is stll tipped towards the position that they are true and away from skepticism. You have to be skeptical about the skeptic position.

Anonymous Mon Mar 8 09:27:44 2021 No.17728022
File: 51 KB, 602x283, main-qimg-6b5f55a6347e8e67be4bc9e61e3d6bae.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>17727907
No, because complete skeptics end up being no better than mere fools by being skeptical about the existence of their own consciousness despite it's existence being the foundation through which their thoughts about skepticism are observed. The existence of consciousness is self-evident to everyone who isn't a fool or some coping nihilist, the hard problem of consciousness indicates that consciousness is unproduced or outside/different from the brain because the materialist explanation of being produced by the brain has a lot of holes in it.

When we consider the existence of consciousness in the universe, or the universe as apprehended through the existence of consciousness, that calls into question what permits that to exist, and from what permits things to exist you get to metaphysics. False experience doesn't arise from complete unreality but only by being contingent upon what allows it to be such, if the skeptic nihilist (B*ddhist) tries to main his skepticism to the point of maintaining the possibility that from complete unreality and non-existence arises the false experience of existence that's a much more logically incoherent worldview and a much more severe form of coping than any form of Theism ever.

Anonymous Mon Mar 8 09:29:45 2021 No.17728036

>>17728016
I can assume they're true, but I can also retain a level of skepticism instead of believing they are absolute truths. As you said, I'm not verifying anything in the absolute sense, just being practical.
>You have to be skeptical about the skeptic position.
Yes and that's what I always do, be skeptical of absolutely everything. But since applying this to your life is impossible, it's just something to keep in the back of your mind to avoid falling into dogmatic claims and assumptions.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 8 09:30:49 2021 No.17728039 >>17728022 cope

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 8 09:31:41 2021 No.17728043 >>17722554 > t. npc

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 8 09:36:22 2021 No.17728066 >>17728039 >t. a nihilist NPC hylic

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 8 09:38:00 2021 No.17728076 >>17728066 kek

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 8 09:40:12 2021 No.17728085 >hylic Larping pseud spotted.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 8 09:42:16 2021 No.17728095 File: 1.16 MB, 686x776, 9070561B-846D-477E-9B76-34A1BCE96A16.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >He said hylic? what a pseud!

Anonymous Mon Mar 8 09:43:40 2021 No.17728102

Notice how quickly the th*ist resorts to labeling people NPCs when he is faced with the existential truths he refuses to acknowledge. This is the th*ist's most effective coping mechanism, as it allows him to avoid confronting the painful truths of existence that he desperately seeks to forget and sweep under the rug through his larping.

Anonymous Mon Mar 8 09:44:21 2021 No.17728107

>>17721058
>>17721386
so if electrons is just the means by which your brain functions, and not the actual reason that consciousness arises, then that means you must believe that consciousness arises out of the order inherent to that structure. (unless you want to appeal to some strange, immaterial element that generates/composes consciousness, which then contradicts materialism)

what is the cutoff for ordered matter to produce consciousness? does any sufficiently-organized material structure produce a consciousness-unto-itself in a sense, perhaps (or even likely) not analogous to our own experience? is it even possible to define a cutoff? we can look at the formation of stars and galaxies from the beginning of the big bang and see complicated ordered patterns in matter (ordered patterns are what exist in the human body as well- as well as throughout the entire universe), does that not result in a universal consciousness that functions on timescales of billions of years as opposed to our instant perception of seconds?

more importantly, where is the proof that it is ordered matter that causes conscious experience? you cannot even verify that any other conscious experience that is not yours even exists, although we naturally assume so. how are you going to apply the scientific method to a phenomena that you cannot even measure objectively? the idea that science has settled the issue of consciousness is just flat retarded. you are making claims that are backed up by no evidence.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 8 09:45:58 2021 No.17728114 >>17728107 So you don't believe in gravity either? lmao

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 8 09:47:16 2021 No.17728124 >>17728114 i might be retarded, but not that retarded. explain why what i said implies that.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 8 09:48:11 2021 No.17728132 >>17728124 >you can't explain how it works yet so your model is wrong

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 8 09:48:50 2021 No.17728135 >>17728102 >as it allows him to avoid confronting the painful truths of existence that he desperately seeks to forget and sweep under the rug through his larping. For the theist with God in his heart, every moment is a blessing

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 8 09:50:02 2021 No.17728142 >>17728135 Yes, it's a beautiful cope for those capable of buying into it, I readily acknowledge that.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 8 09:53:10 2021 No.17728159 >>17728142 It's not coping because in addition to being fulfilling spiritually and emotionally it's also a logically coherent worldview unlike complete skepticism and materialist atheism, those are the real copes.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 8 09:53:24 2021 No.17728161 >>17728159 >logically coherent worldview lol

Anonymous Mon Mar 8 10:02:25 2021 No.17728228

>>17728132
the first problem is not the lack of evidence, but the lack of evidence in the face of other evidence.

science clearly lacks evidence to explain the mechanism of consciousness, as it does gravity. there is no subjective evidence to explain why gravity works, and so we must chalk it up to an unknown.

however, with consciousness, assuming that hard solipsism in any extent isn't true, we each have our own subjective understanding of consciousness and how it is something NOT material (i.e. separate in property from the matter/physical entities we touch/feel/observe). that IS evidence, and to say it isn't because it does not fall in line with objective, empirical evidence is just plugging your eyes and ears and blinding yourself. i am not saying one can "divine knowledge" subjectively, but I am saying that we do not have to in this case. unless you're an NPC, you understand consciousness on some intuitive level and you understand by reflection that it cannot be defined materially.

where does conscious experience exist? what is it made out of? to call it an emergent property and thus material would be like saying evolution exists materially, or that the flow of blood exists materially (the latter is a poor example, let me explain: the flow of blood is a concept of blood in motion through time, it exists as a concept resulting from material processes, but does not exist materially unto itself). whether it is an emergent property of matter or not is a moot point, because what matters is that it has some sort of ontological basis that appears to be incongruous with a material description of existence (speaking again of our only certain knowledge of it-- our experience of it. it may be material somehow and tomorrow evidence may come out, however for right now the only evidence we have of it does not support this conclusion)

in addition, the more major issue is the whole deal with the hard problem of consciousness is to explain how it is IMPOSSIBLE for science to just "figure it out" eventually. is it truly a hard problem/is it truly impossible for empiricism to solve? still up to debate, but it is certainly a hard one to attack. science is reaching its observational limits with something like consciousness (and too with gravity, with quantum mechanics). we understand gravity today as a function of the universe's curvature, but you can go even deeper and ask why is the universe curved in such a way? eventually we may come to some answer, however with consciousness science reaches the limit of its tools. you cannot observe empirically or materially a subjective phenomenon. that is contrary to the entire point of science. you can conceivably explain why human behavior arises from the physical constituents of the brain (map every potassium ion, map every neurotransmitter, every pathway of every dendrite, and see how it translates to physiological response and thought, etc.), but that provides no basis for the existence of conscious experience

Anonymous Mon Mar 8 10:03:46 2021 No.17728240

>>17728228
>>17728132
to clarify, when I say "does not fall in line with objective, empirical evidence", i do not mean that it is incongruous with existence evidence, i mean it is of a different quality than objective, empirical (i.e. scientifically/materially observed) evidence

Anonymous Mon Mar 8 10:03:54 2021 No.17728242

Are all the materialists on /lit/ underage? Time and time again the problem of qualia, specifically the colour red, is brought up in this same type of thread and these people get absolutely filtered by it. Jfc, are these people underage or illiterate? Literal NPCs? Is anglo materialism that powerful of a brainwash in America?

Anonymous Mon Mar 8 10:04:35 2021 No.17728246
File: 53 KB, 960x586, 87AEB4D2-FFFB-4419-B278-14D4E048C2DE.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Very interesting thread actually.
>>17727675
Have you heard of the Experience Machine?
>>17720267
Not sure if OP is the same poster as the one I responded to above but I would be interested in hearing how you explain beauty? Would you say it is objective or?

Anonymous Mon Mar 8 10:08:14 2021 No.17728266

>>17728242
> are these people underage or illiterate? Literal NPCs? I
Some are probably genuine NPCs, other people are just stuck in nihilist materialism and their worldview feels threated by things which question that.
>Is anglo materialism that powerful of a brainwash in America?
It's common in all of the Anglo countries, not just USA.

Anonymous Mon Mar 8 10:10:28 2021 No.17728276

>>17728228
>assuming that hard solipsism in any extent isn't true
There is absolutely no way to know this isn't all something you dreamed up (yes including language, not sure why this is used as an argument against solipsism when it falls apart with the dream argument)
>you understand by reflection that it cannot be defined materially.
Because I don't have the means to define it, but that doesn't mean it isn't material. Look at the work Penrose is doing with Orch OR for example.
The fact that it "feels" immaterial doesn't mean it is.
Concepts have no inherent existence, they're symbolic pointers to tangible phenomena, but why should this imply that concepts have some kind of immaterial existence?
>IMPOSSIBLE
How do you know it's impossible and that it'll forever remain impossible?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 8 10:12:41 2021 No.17728287 >>17728246 >Experience Machine Yes, but it doesn't refute living for pleasure, since you're still living, and not hooked up to the machine.

Anonymous Mon Mar 8 10:13:03 2021 No.17728290

I would respect theists if not for the fact that they won't acknowledge the roots of their beliefs are from moronic Jews from thousands of years ago with no education.

Why stand by religion? It's a dying ship. Ditch religion and just embrace pure theism.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 8 10:15:04 2021 No.17728302 >>17728290 Why embrace pure theism and not just embrace the idea that this reality was probably created by something external to it? This isn't theism.

Anonymous Mon Mar 8 10:16:20 2021 No.17728313

>>17728287
Okay so then ’living’ in this sense, in the real world, is more important than simply having pleasurable experiences yes? If that wasn’t the case, then you wouldn’t have a problem with plugging into the machine. But for you it is more important to have a genuine experience than just a nice one right?

Anonymous Mon Mar 8 10:19:02 2021 No.17728330

>>17728313
Honestly? If I were actually faced with the machine, I might plug in. But the fact I'm hesitating only proves your point.
Yes, I value genuine experience too. But if it's a genuine experience of pure suffering I'd probably plug into the machine, so the pleasure aspect is important too.

Anonymous Mon Mar 8 10:21:07 2021 No.17728349

>>17728290
>Upanishads are of jewish roots
>Taoism is of jewish roots
>Plato is of jewish roots
>Avestas are of jewish roots
We all get it, you grew around dorky low church protestants and you don't like them, welcome to the club, now stop with the monkey games and let's discuss philosophy

Anonymous Mon Mar 8 10:22:51 2021 No.17728364

>>17728276
>There is absolutely no way to know this isn't all something you dreamed up
I said assuming for the sake of argument. If it is true then there's no sense in talking about this because you wouldn't really understand what I'm trying to explain since you'd be an NPC.

> Because I don't have the means to define it, but that doesn't mean it isn't material.
If you truly gave a damn about evidence, and you aren't an NPC, you would recognize that you already have evidence that points to nonmaterial consciousness that exists in a vacuum of other evidence.

> Penrose is doing with Orch OR
This is very interesting, however a glance at the wikipedia page shows that it isn't very credible as of yet-- it is all just hypothesis without any serious evidence, criticized by neuroscientists and physicists alike.

> The fact that it "feels" immaterial doesn't mean it is.
You're right. But you are left with no other evidence about it, besides the intuitive understanding of its immaterial basis. Is it not the scientific thing to do to adopt evidence and try and make conclusions from it, in the absence of other evidence? I am not saying accept it with dogma, I am saying accept it as the only thing you have so far to explain this strange thing called conscious experience.

> Concepts have no inherent existence, they're symbolic pointers to tangible phenomena, but why should this imply that concepts have some kind of immaterial existence?
It shouldn't. That's the exact fucking point of what I wrote. Yet, consciousness isn't merely a concept, is it? You experience it as something beyond an emergent property of matter (i.e. what would be a concept), and thus know it to exist in some capacity. This capacity does not appear material, and given that it has not been observed scientifically, left with no other evidence, it is the reasonable thing to do to lend weight to the idea that consciousness is not material.

> How do you know it's impossible and that it'll forever remain impossible?
If you'd take the time to actually read what I wrote you'll see I said I didn't know with certainty, and that it was up to debate. The fact is that the hard problem of consciousness has not hitherto been provided with a satisfactory answer, not by science certainly, and that the hard problem seems to point to a limit of empirical knowledge that is reached at subjective consciousness. As with gravity, as with quantum mechanics... the difference is that we do have evidence that points to immaterial consciousness (our experience of it).

Again, this is literally the entire point of the hard problem of consciousness. Science can explain cognitive functioning down to the last atom, and there is still no discernible reason for conscious experience to arise in an ontological sense (as opposed to a "conceptual" sense or as an emergent property similar to evolution) from these material processes.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 8 10:23:16 2021 No.17728370 >>17728349 >>17728349 Yeah just go ahead and deliberately miss my point. Obfuscating faggot

Anonymous Mon Mar 8 10:23:26 2021 No.17728371

>>17728349
>>Upanishads
not interested in pajeet ramblings
>>Taoism
the philosophy is good but discussing it defeats the purpose
>>Plato
interesting
>>Avestas
haven't read that yet

Why do you need to latch on to shit made up by some dude thousands of years ago? Are you this insecure?

Anonymous Mon Mar 8 10:25:16 2021 No.17728384

>>17728349
I'm Greek Orth btw you fucking loser. Project somewhere else. Really cute that you think your jumbled up retarded collection of elementary knowledge of different worldly religious ideas is worth anything, let alone the basis for a "dicussion of philosophy"

Anonymous Mon Mar 8 10:26:26 2021 No.17728389

>>17728349
You didn't answer my criticism. Your religions were created by uneducated morons from thousands of years ago. It has no credibility. Now explain why you believe it has credibility. Reminder that your belief in God and belief in your religion's credibility are separate things, and I am asking you about just the organized religion portion of your beliefs.

Anonymous Mon Mar 8 10:26:57 2021 No.17728393

>>17728364
>you already have evidence that points to nonmaterial consciousness
I only have evidence that I am conscious. How could I have evidence that this consciousness can never be figured out by scientific means? I don't know how science will advance in the coming centuries/millenia/etc.
>isn't very credible
Sure but it's still interesting and could be promising.
>You experience it as something beyond an emergent property of matter
But that's the point though, there isn't really anything that indicates consciousness cannot be an emergent property of matter aside from "it feels special" which I don't find compelling enough to say it's immaterial.
We only disagree on the fact that our experience constitutes evidence of the immateriality of consciousness

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 8 10:27:33 2021 No.17728395 >>17728371 Haha, okay, kid. What do you like to base your ideas on, then?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 8 10:28:46 2021 No.17728401 >>17728395 >kid Go be assblasted somewhere else, >>17728389 is completely right, you're desperate for an authority figure because you're a mental midget

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 8 10:29:02 2021 No.17728406 >>17728389 What, I was actually supposed to answer that? What basis do you have for saying that they were created by uneducated morons? What passes as an "education", by your standards?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 8 10:31:26 2021 No.17728422 >>17728401 It has nothing to do with authority. Really, I consider your desperation for "credibility" a much more noxious appeal to authority.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 8 10:31:45 2021 No.17728425 >>17728422 Your opinion means a lot to me, NPC

Anonymous Mon Mar 8 10:34:08 2021 No.17728438

>>17728393
>I don't know how science will advance in the coming centuries/millenia/etc
The fact that you take that as an all clear to base your worldview on something ridiculous with no real convincing level of cogency speaks volumes about your character.
>Sure but it's still interesting and could be promising.
notanargument.wav

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 8 10:35:29 2021 No.17728447 >>17728438 >speaks volumes about your character. It actually doesn't and you're a pretentious nigger.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 8 10:35:54 2021 No.17728449 >>17728425 Nice buzzword, dimwit.

Anonymous Mon Mar 8 10:36:50 2021 No.17728456

>>17728406
-Standards of education known today, compared to standards of education known in the past
-Mere facts of the way they lived that showed how little they knew of anything
-Very simple relation of cults, cult leaders, mystical bullshit that still affect people today, and just how easily and likely these same phenomenon occurred back then
-Complete and utter absence of internet, technology, hygiene, science, knowledge in general
-Seeing any of the many bullshit stories they made up that are free for you to read right now on Google that were proven wrong long ago

Do you really need me to explain that humans were dumber back then? The funny part is we're still stupid, so if we're stupid today, how the fuck do you have faith in the very same humans from so long ago? This level of "faith" is just blissful ignorance.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 8 10:36:52 2021 No.17728457 >>17728449 Sounds like I hit a nerve.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 8 10:38:35 2021 No.17728469 >>17728447 Like it or not, but it reveals a fundamental weakness in you and a wretched and unattractive weakness in yourself.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 8 10:39:53 2021 No.17728475 >>17728469 >that level of projection Ouch

Anonymous Mon Mar 8 10:41:32 2021 No.17728486

>>17728456
>Standards of education known today, compared to standards of education known in the past
Education in "the past" (an egregiously nebulous term) was highly prized and rigorous, while it is basically a tool for corralling the masses today.
>Mere facts of the way they lived that showed how little they knew of anything
Like what.

Never mind, I just read that you cited "lack of internet" as a compelling reason for why religion lacks credibility. Bye, faggot.

Anonymous Mon Mar 8 10:41:51 2021 No.17728492

>>17728393
> I only have evidence that I am conscious. How could I have evidence that this consciousness can never be figured out by scientific means?
The fact that you are conscious and experience it means conscious experience exists. This is less about the "conscious" aspect rather than the "experience" aspect.

Science is applied empiricism. Empirical evidence comes from the objective observation of phenomena. Conscious experience appears subjective, and thus cannot be observed objectively, meaning it is outside the scope of scientific observation and description. This is acutely what the hard problem of consciousness is.

>Sure but it's still interesting and could be promising.
Agreed. But they need to first prove that subjective consciousness is an objective phenomenon before any of their ideas matter.

> But that's the point though, there isn't really anything that indicates consciousness cannot be an emergent property of matter aside from "it feels special" which I don't find compelling enough to say it's immaterial.
Again-- consciousness as an emergent property of matter or not DOES NOT MATTER. It could be a panpsychic bullshit where everything is conscious, it could be the explanation of ordered structure causing experience, whatever.

The fact is that this order, if generating consciousness, does not describe what it is made out of materially.

Again, evolution is the emergent property of material processes, yes? Yet evolution does not exist materially, but only as a concept. This is fine, does not violate materialism because information is itself an emergent property of reality. Whatever.

Conscious experience may or may not be an emergent property of material processes. Let's assume it is, for it seems that is the case (life being the material process bringing it into being). If we follow the evolution example, then it seems conscious experience exists as a concept only arising from these material processes. Yet we know it to be more than this by the very virtue of experiencing it-- unless you concede that something like the concept itself of evolution is conscious and has experience or something weird like that, then you must admit that conscious experience has an ontological presence of its own (separate from plain information-- i.e. evolution as a concept).

It does not appear that this ontological presence is material. Could it be? Maybe. That would require answering strange questions like "where does conscious experience exist?" and "what is conscious experience made of?". All humans have the innate understanding of consciousness and the intuitive knowledge that it is immaterial, and that science/empiricismhas no answers or evidence for a material view of consciousness. If conscious experience is truly a subjective phenomena, science cannot even prove it exists. In the absence of any other evidence, I do not understand why it is not the reasonable thing to do to lend strong credence to the idea that consciousness is immaterial.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 8 10:42:35 2021 No.17728497 >>17728457 Yeah I am definitely bawling my eyes out after being called a video game insult on a Taiwanese carpet weaving forum

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 8 10:42:40 2021 No.17728499 >>17728228 >unless you're an NPC Ad hominem >you understand consciousness on some intuitive level and you understand by reflection that it cannot be defined materially Argument from incredulity Two fallacies in the same sentence, very impressive.

Anonymous Mon Mar 8 10:43:05 2021 No.17728503

>>17728486
Not him but religion lacks credibility because there's no reason to think one dude got it right among the hundreds of other people and their equally specific and often ridiculous symbolism, liturgy and other bullshit.
Just be a theist, why is it so hard?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 8 10:44:39 2021 No.17728516 >>17728497 Sorry I didn't think you'd be that affected by it

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 8 10:46:04 2021 No.17728529 >>17728516 Do you want my dick? Do you have a crush on me?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 8 10:46:54 2021 No.17728533 >>17728529 Y-yes

Anonymous Mon Mar 8 10:48:01 2021 No.17728538

>>17728330
Yeah it’s interesting. I’d like to think that I would heroically decline the opportunity and simply live in the real, painful world. I don’t really know what I would do though if I was faced with the dilemma you pose. Clearly, to some extent at least, pleasure seems to matter as well.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 8 10:49:27 2021 No.17728551 >>17728533 unzips slowly, lending you a salacious view of my torn up, fucked little cock You ready to surrender yourself to NPC daddy?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 8 10:49:44 2021 No.17728556 >>17728538 As far as we're concerned, pleasure and experience are intertwined since Nozick's machine doesn't exist. You can be an "experiential hedonist" in that sense, by seeking out the real experiences that yield the most pleasure or satisfaction.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 8 10:50:37 2021 No.17728560 >>17728556 >doesn't exist What do you call this ,then?)))

Anonymous Mon Mar 8 10:50:55 2021 No.17728563

>>17728499
> Ad hominem
That wasn't an ad hominem you retard. For one, I meant NPC as in a philosophical zombie. That statement had nothing to do with the value of what he said.

An ad hominem is when you demerit someone's argument based off of value judgement, you fucking dumbass idiot bitch cunt.

...and I still haven't committed an ad hominem. If I had said "you're a fucking retard and thus all of these ideas are false", that would be an ad hominem. Calling you a dumbass has no bearing on your argument.

> Argument from incredulity
I would agree here if we were discussing something exigent to the outside world, but we are talking about subjective phenomena that appears to have no objective existence. We have evidence for subjectivity and none for objectivity-- the evidence being our conscious experience itself. This isn't "I just don't believe it", this is "I have no evidence to support that, and evidence of a different quality to support this conclusion."

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 8 10:51:43 2021 No.17728568 >>17728551 unzips my own pants to reveal a bloody and pus-filled post-op gash Shoot your goo, my dude

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 8 10:53:08 2021 No.17728576 >>17728560 The experience of shitposting is still an experience. I'm not hooked to a dopamine IV. Even full dive virtual reality would not be the same as Nozick's machine.

Anonymous Mon Mar 8 11:00:58 2021 No.17728635

>>17728486
>he says while he's communicating to others on the internet
You're a fucking faggot. If not for technology you'd have worms, be unable to read, smell like shit, and would most likely be dead already. No, people in the past didn't know fuck all. Look at America, WW2 to the 2000's. They used to unironically believe in the most retarded paranoid schizo shit because they had no knowledge of anything.

Anonymous Mon Mar 8 11:02:27 2021 No.17728644

>>17728563
>For one, I meant NPC as in a philosophical zombie.
Okay. You are aware that a philosophical zombie is supposed to act the exact same as someone with qualia, right? Meaning that they'd also "understand consciousness on some intuitive level and understand by reflection that it cannot be defined materially"?
>We have evidence for subjectivity and none for objectivity-- the evidence being our conscious experience itself.
You're begging the question now. Our conscious experience proves its own subjectivity? That's obviously circular, so I'm gonna go ahead and ask for some evidence for that claim.

Anonymous Mon Mar 8 11:13:24 2021 No.17728702

>>17728644
> Okay. You are aware that a philosophical zombie is supposed to act the exact same as someone with qualia, right? Meaning that they'd also "understand consciousness on some intuitive level and understand by reflection that it cannot be defined materially"?
Fair enough, take NPC in the usual sense then. Still not an ad hominem.

> You're begging the question now. Our conscious experience proves its own subjectivity? That's obviously circular, so I'm gonna go ahead and ask for some evidence for that claim.
Our subjective conscious experience is subjective, yes. This goes down to fundamental epistemology: how do we know anything? We are reasoning about reasoning here. Everything is known through a subjective lens, all knowledge is gathered from a subjective viewpoint. I almost want to call that axiomatic.

Not sure how you want me to provide material or empirical evidence for subjective phenomena. This pretty much comes down to "cogito, ergo sum". Again, if you have conscious experience and are capable of reasoning about it, you should be able to see the nature of subjectivity versus objectivity in the conscious experience.

The crux is whether or not this subjective experience has an ontological component that is material, i.e. is an objective phenomena, which there is no evidence for as of yet.

I realize this might not be satisfactory, and that it is getting hopelessly abstract. I'm not trying to avoid the question here, but you are asking me to provide evidence for the only certain knowledge about life: our seeing through a subjective viewpoint. This is something only that each subjective viewpoint understands, independently. Again, I think therefore I am.

Anonymous Mon Mar 8 11:20:06 2021 No.17728740

>>17728702
I understand that this can be unsatisfactory and that it is slowly becoming hopeless. I am not trying to avoid the problem here, but you are asking me to prove the only wisdom in life: see us through deep thought. This is exactly what all independent thinkers understand. I think again, that's why.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 8 11:23:09 2021 No.17728752 >>17728740 if you don't agree that the only certain and axiomatic knowledge in life is the fact that we experience subjective experience then i don't know what to tell you. brain in a jar, cogito ergo sum, etc...

Anonymous Mon Mar 8 11:24:01 2021 No.17728765

>>17728702
> No problem. You know zombie philosophy blesses a person like a plaque, right? Does this mean that they "understand the world on a conscious level and understand the preconceived notions of the body"?
Okay, use NPCs under normal circumstances. No family identity

> Now you ask. Will experience prove the point? Yes, looking for evidence to support this claim is a big deal.
Yes, our experience is important. Here is a return to the traditional eyes: How do we know something? We will think about it here. Everything can be seen in the mirror by collecting light from the key of the eye. I like to call this project.

I do not know if there is much factual evidence or specific evidence that is essential evidence given "Kogoto". If you have any potential technical experience, you need to understand the purpose of the project and its importance.

What needs to be done, whether biological testing is part of it or not, is important. H. This is an excellent meeting for which there is no evidence.

I think it can be bad when you start to lose meaningful expectations. I am not trying to avoid my answer to this question, but you are asking me to show the true light of biology: simply that in our non-fictional literature we understand fictional character. As a spacious chat room, I think I'm here.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 8 11:27:34 2021 No.17728788 >>17728702 >>17728740 >>17728752 "Cogito, ergo sum" has been criticized many times before. It's not as concrete as you think it is.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 8 11:29:09 2021 No.17728797 >>17728788 So you don't agree that we experience existence subjectively?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 8 11:30:39 2021 No.17728804 >>17728788 "So I think, 'he said, no matter what it is hearing.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 8 11:31:49 2021 No.17728811 >>17728797 So, let’s admit what we don’t know about his leadership style?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 8 11:37:26 2021 No.17728845 >>17728797 Materialism, idealism, dualism, etc. are all on equal ground from an evidential standpoint, so I can't really agree or disagree. I'll suspend judgement until someone comes along and solves this problem.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 8 11:40:21 2021 No.17728868 >>17728845 >I'll suspend judgement until someone comes along and solves this problem. Based and reasonable.

Anonymous Mon Mar 8 12:25:04 2021 No.17729186

>>17720267
To do this, one must first consider how materialism came about in history and what views the ancient scientists had of it. Then you can better interpret the development and find the gaps.

Something falls out of the scientific worldview, something is not seen in it, something is forgotten and something very decisive, possibly what constitutes us as human beings, what really makes us human.
The scientific worldview arose in the early modern times and at that time the premises / basic assumptions of the scientific worldview were very consciously perceived and discussed. Over the centuries, the basic assumptions have penetrated our thoughts and feelings so deeply that we no longer reflect on them and take them for granted. The result of the basic assumptions of the scientific worldview is nowadays the renouncement of discussing ideas. Before the natural sciences, any form of education, any form of dissection, philosophical or spiritual research was automatically related to ideas. One has seen parallels, so to speak, between the Bible and certain natural phenomena or one has speculatively discussed in Greek philosophy about a sky of ideas to which everything could be traced back. The knowledge was not really certain, because when you are discussing ideas, you cannot say anything final.

Atomism leads to a certain scientific view of the world, namely, if everything consists of atoms and these atoms are actually dead, they are pure matter, then that means that everything that is made up of these atoms, including living things, only for that reason makes us something living appears because we don't quite understand it yet, but it's actually also something dead. Because if the basis of the world is something dead, then everything living that arises in this world is only something quasi-living and if we understood it correctly, if we understood correctly how the neurons in the brain communicate with each other and which biochemical processes in the brain Brain take place, then we would find out - yes, the brain is just a computer chip, even the person who stands in front of me and speaks is actually something that has arisen from dead matter and only looks as if it is alive, only it appears as if it has spirit. So actually still a Cartesian view of the world, or what he said about animals, now also related to humans.

Anonymous Mon Mar 8 12:26:10 2021 No.17729199

>>17720267
>>17729186
You can see in the 17th century that this scientific worldview is taking shape, which we live in a continuum of several centuries, so to speak, and the technological world that is now building up around us is actually just the materialization of what was thought 400 years ago Has. At that time Descartes assumed that animals are automatons, he had made pictures of ducks, dogs, etc. and actually describes them as machines. He actually assigned a soul to humans, but not to animals, but in one of his last writings, which he himself no longer published himself for fear of the Inquisition, he saw the human body as a machine, but then in that but a soul lives in contrast to animals.
One can only save the human soul and everything that follows from it in such a scientifically mechanistic world view through a dualism, if one then still accepts such a rescogitans that is somewhere else or is somehow different.

Anonymous Mon Mar 8 12:27:15 2021 No.17729202

>>17720267
>>17729186
>>17729199
The dualism in the scientific worldview - Descartes tried to maintain this dualism but in the further course of modern development this dualism is abandoned. Not only Descartes tried to hold on to it, also Newton, Copernicus, they are all still the first scientists who still have a positive relation to the idea of God and try to hold on to it. But in the course of the Enlightenment (especially the Scottish, French and English Enlightenment) this is refrained from. The natural sciences in their further development then proceeded from a monistic cosmos, that the world has only one dimension (of course it has three spatial dimensions and one temporal dimension) and that there is no spiritual dimension in the world, of which the religions are go out. The monoteistic religions all believe there is this world and the hereafter and that was then rejected in the course of the Enlightenment, especially the Western Enlightenment in France and Great Britain. The scientists also positioned themselves more and more in competition with the church and in this way came to an atheistic worldview. However, an atheistic worldview is not in itself mandatory for the sciences, because sciences are not able to decide the question of God. Neither philosophers nor natural scientists can decide whether there is God or not. From a purely scientific methodological point of view, it would actually be much more plausible if the natural sciences were to start from an agnostic position and say that we don't even know whether there is a god, maybe there is or not. But that did not happen, but in the course of the Enlightenment the atheistic position prevails and with it the assumption of a monistic cosmos, there is only matter and all spiritual phenomena that still exist in the world, only because of this people live and speak are subordinate to matter.

Anonymous Mon Mar 8 12:35:18 2021 No.17729262

>>17729186
>>17729199
>>17729202
This is still in the progress. I'm just still writing about it, although it is not my theses, but I am trying to bundle everything I have at my disposal into a critique of materialism, which I have recently collected.

It is meant to be a description of the modern world. It was only after I dealt with Nietzsche that this flame was kindled in me.

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