/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.22542943]

Now that the dust has settled, was he right?

Is materialism debunked by Schopenhauer, Carl Jung, Jacques Vallee and Patrick Harpur ?

[Anonymous No.22542966]

>>22542943
Materialism is debunked by not being a junkie and going outside. All atheists are drug addicts or masturbators.

[Anonymous No.22542975]

>>22542943
Also debunked by Bertrand Russell

[Anonymous No.22543004]

How to debunk materialism:
> matter is all that exists
> how do you know
> matter told me!
Lol

[Anonymous No.22543015]

CPR is all you need

Schopenhauer just did Kant worse and put an incel spin on it

[Anonymous No.22543059]

>>22543004
i don't get what's wrong with this?
if you cannot observe anything outside of material properties why would it be wrong to assume that that is the substance of everything?

[Anonymous No.22543077]

>>22543059
>t. P zombie

[Anonymous No.22543088]

>>22543059
No way to explain the existence of consciousness

[Anonymous No.22543110]

>>22543004
How to debunk idealism
>idealism is correct
>cool
>.....
nice ethics, epistemology and politics you have there.

[Anonymous No.22543185]

Materialism was entirely debunked by the self evident existence of qualia.

[Anonymous No.22543195]

>>22543185
Well I'm rebunking it

[Anonymous No.22543213]

Leibniz's gap already dismantled it.

[Anonymous No.22543429]

>>22542943
>Bro something exists whether or not you do
>Prove it
Materialism is the smallest brain take of all the pseudo scientific takes.

[Anonymous No.22543453]

>>22543195
Godspeed, anon.

[Anonymous No.22544123]

>>22543088
>No way to explain the existence of consciousness
Wrong take.
Consciousness is when you not experience the enabling conditions of the experience. The eye cannot see its own seeing, your brain cannot access its own neurons.
And when I say "Not experience", it means it does not register even as absence. Like hemi-neglect patients, ignoring the left side of their vision.
And when you cannot perceive absence, you assume completeness. Like flicker fusion threshold, turning too much frames into a smooth film.

Hence, heuristics. Whatever you experience as your mind, is cheap gimmicks to get data in the absence of access to it. Otherwise, you would have been stuck in an infinite recursion.
Hence, philosophy/introspection/intentionalism is by default a discipline that is constructionally unable to give answers to the question of consciousness. What you get instead, are signals of a query error. You ask "Do green ideas sleep furiously?" and dance around it for 2500 years, thinking there is some profound wisdom behind it.

You are a machine. A biorobot. Deal with it.

[Anonymous No.22544138]

>>22543015
>worse and put an incel spin on it
better, then

[Anonymous No.22544147]

>>22543185
>the self evident existence of qualia.
Metzinger Th. - Being No One. The Self-Model Theory of Subjectivity (2003)

1/2

"We can imagine simple forms of sensory content—and this would correspond to the classic Lewisian concept of qualia, which are globally available for attention, mental concept formation, and different types of motor behavior such as speech production and pointing movements. Let us call all maximally determinate sensory content on the three-constraint level “Lewis qualia” from now on."
"A more simple form would be the same content which just possesses *two* out of these three functional properties—for instance, it could be attentionally available, and available for motor behavior in discrimination tasks, like pointing to a color sample, but not available for cognition. Let us call this type “Raffman qualia” from now on. It is the most interesting type on the two-constraint level, and part of the relevance and merit of Raffman’s contribution consists in her having pointed this out so convincingly. Another possibility would be that it is only available for the guidance of attention and for cognition, but evades motor control, although this may be a situation that is hard to imagine. <...> . It is interesting to note how such an impoverished “two-constraint version” already exemplifies the target property of “phenomenality” in a weaker sense;"

"I find it hard to conceive of the third possibility on the two-constraint level, a form of sensory content that is more simple than Lewis qualia in terms of being available for motor control and cognitive processing, but *not* for guiding attention. <...> The central insight at this point is that as soon as one has a more detailed catalogue of conceptual constraints for the notion of conscious representation, it certainly makes sense to speak of *degrees of consciousness*, and it is perfectly meaningful and rational to do so"

[Anonymous No.22544150]

>>22543185
>>22544147
2/2

"Let us now move down one further step. An even simpler version of phenomenal content would be one that is attentionally available, but ineffable and not accessible to cognition, as well as not available for the generation of motor output. It would be very hard to narrow down such a simple form of phenomenal content by the methods of scientific research. How would one design replicable experiments? Let us call such states “Metzinger qualia.” "

"A good first example may be presented by very brief episodes of extremely subtle changes in bodily sensation or, in terms of the representation of external reality, shifts in nonunitary color experience during states of open-eyed, deep meditation. In all their phenomenal subtlety, such experiential transitions would be difficult targets from a methodological perspective. If all cognitive activity has come to rest and there is no observable motor output, all one can do to pin down the physical correlate of such subtle, transitory states in the dynamics of the purely attentional first-person perspective (see sections 6.4.3 and 6.5.1) would be to directly scan brain activity. However, such phenomenal transitions will not be *reportable* transitions, because mentally categorizing them and reactivating motor control for generating speech output would immediately destroy them. Shifts in Metzinger qualia, by definition, cannot be verified by the experiential subject herself using her motor system, verbally or nonverbally"

[Anonymous No.22544153]

>>22543077
>Explain this thing that doesn't actually exist
No

[Anonymous No.22544155]

Bernardo is so cringe. He's made a career on his stupid arguments that essentially involve repeating Berkleyan dialogues with a modern spin. They were bad arguments then and bad arguments now.

It's basically like this stupid word game of "you can't imagine matter, because matter is material and imagination is mental! Therefore all is mind!!!!"

Is it possible to build some strange metaphysics where the regularity of the world is accounted for by some sort of correlation between regularities between intersubjective minds? I guess.

But why would you? Parsimony? Then why not solipsism? The world is just obviously material. Object permanence is sensed, because objects, are permanent. They stay in existence because the world is a singular whole made of material, including our own bodies. Solispsim isn't true because we are material bodies in a shared public singular material world. We feel drug affects or get knocked unconscious because the brain is the material cause of sensory experience.

Grabbed we don't know how but that's the most coherent theory. This Bernado shit is just retarded.

[Anonymous No.22544162]

>>22543004
How to debunk idealism
>everything comes from the mind / forms
>how do you know?
>um like shapes and maths and muh pineal gland

[Anonymous No.22544164]

>>22544162
forms are realism... pineal gland is nothing, if not dualism. concretizing the idealist is the antithesis

[Anonymous No.22544179]

>>22544147
>>22544150
>Millennial “philosophy”
lmao

[Anonymous No.22544197]

>>22542943
Schopenhauer was not a materialist, but the practical result of his philosophy is virtually indistinguishable from any variety of it

[Anonymous No.22544202]

>>22544123
>he eye cannot see its own seeing,
But all that exists is matter, and we can see all matter by definition. Therefore the eye should be able to see its own seeing if materialism is true, because the eye can see all that exists. But the eye cannot see its own seeing. Therefore, materialism is false. Quod erat demonstrandum.

[Anonymous No.22544218]

>>22542943
Thousands of pages of reaching. Materialism is so obvious that you can’t not believe in it once you understand it. We live in a material world and we all intuitively know it, which is why in order to even begin to convince yourself of anything else you have to spend hundreds of hours pontificating and pouring over abstractions.

[Anonymous No.22544220]

>>22542943
Read the shit he is talking about and then come back and tell us. The opinion of a youtuber is meaningless.

[Anonymous No.22544222]

>>22544218
Most things are obvious once you understand them.

But anyway, I enjoyed your assertion. Hope you get around to forming an argument for it one day though.

[Anonymous No.22544233]

>>22544202
>But all that exists is matter, and we can see all matter by definition.
A computer cannot model its own modelling *as* it models. Because its resources are engaged. It can model (at the expense of fidelity) only *after*, never as. Otherwise, computer would have been stuck in an infinite loop.

Does that mean that computer has ideas?

[Anonymous No.22544237]

>>22544202
>But all that exists is matter
But the strategic placement of nonexistence is constructive. Does nonexistence exist?

>and we can see all matter by definition
By whose definition?

[Anonymous No.22544258]

>>22544162
How to prove idealism
>how do you know idealism is true?
>I need some concept of ideas or essences to comprehend the world and to have sensory experience.
>my experience of phenomena is not identical to the phenomenon itself
>If these don't exist, then the only way to ascertain ideas/essences are false is via idea/essences, which is absurd
>therefore, materialism must be false and idealism true

[Anonymous No.22544267]

>>22544258
And then someone throws a rock at your head and you die and leave a corpse behind that can be dissected by others

A corpse full of shit. Stink bitch. Cos you need to eat to keep the body living because it requires material energy to function

That's just how smelly idealists are. Literally got poo inside them and it makes them so embarrassed they say poo-poo is just an idea in our minds. But they got kaka in their guts...

I'm talking scat. Droppings. Stinky fuckin logs out the reamer. Cutting turds. Dropping the kids off at the fucking pool.

Shit proves materialism.

[Anonymous No.22544276]

>>22544258
>>how do you know idealism is true?
>>I need some concept of ideas or essences to comprehend the world
"some concept of ideas" == "INability to attribute sources correctly"

>>my experience of phenomena is not identical to the phenomenon itself
"my experience is heuristic, and hence heavily dependant on something material I am blind to"

>>If these don't exist,
"if my superior sight has actually been a blindness all along"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_syndrome

>then the only way to ascertain ideas/essences are false is via idea/essences, which is absurd
"then your eye cannot see its own seeing, which means you are a machine"

[Anonymous No.22544281]

>>22544123
>Whatever you experience as your mind
why is there a *me* experiencing?

[Anonymous No.22544293]

Guys, what does materialism mean? That matter and material laws are the only reality? Please explain for a philosophylet.

[Anonymous No.22544295]

>>22544281
>why is there a *me*
https://www.osmosis.org/answers/afferent-vs-efferent-neurons

So that your neighbour would not move your own limbs, saying "Why are you hitting yourself?".
Ownage feeling as means to differentiate "you" from "not-you". Because evolution.

And its buggy as fuck.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_transfer_illusion#Rubber_hand_illusion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cotard%27s_syndrome

[Anonymous No.22544307]

>>22544281
>why is there a *me*
Inability of your spatiality-tracking brain mechanism to track its own spatial location -> you are always "here"
Inability of your temporality-tracking brain mechanism to track its own temporal location -> you are always "now"
Inability to differentiate "your" different states in space/time -> you are always "you"

Because you are your own "blind spot".

[Anonymous No.22544342]

>>22544293
>what does materialism mean?
In a broad sense means, "not-idealism" and "not-dualism".
Basically, naturalism/pragmatism with committments to eliminativism.

[Anonymous No.22544387]

>>22542943
These books, they are made out of what, exactly? Hmm? What's that? A little louder, please.
Mmmmat-TER, yes? I thought so. What is your question? Sit down.

[Anonymous No.22544391]

>>22544293
It means you worship Satan rather than Jesus and are pro-trans

[Anonymous No.22544394]

>>22544295
consciousness wouldn’t be necessary for that, a biorobot wouldn’t be able to identify its own lack of qualia, due to its lack of qualia
>>22544307
>your
mine?

[Anonymous No.22544415]

>>22544394
>a biorobot wouldn’t be able to identify its own lack of qualia, due to its lack of qualia
>>22544150
>Let us call such states “Metzinger qualia.” "
>attentionally available, but ineffable and not accessible to cognition
>such phenomenal transitions will not be *reportable* transitions, because mentally categorizing them and reactivating motor control for generating speech output would immediately destroy them

[Anonymous No.22544443]

>>22544394
>a biorobot wouldn’t be able to identify its own lack of qualia
And you are able to?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemispatial_neglect
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosia

Absence of info =/= info about absence
Known unknowns =/= unknown unknowns
Lack of info about absence -> sense of completeness

That's why you are capable of seeing films, instead of frames.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flicker_fusion_threshold

>consciousness wouldn’t be necessary for that
Consciousness is when you mistake a query error for a thing.
"A query error wouldn't be necessary for that"
No, it would suffice. It would tell us that we are already dealing with SYSTEM ERROR here, and trying to dig into some kind of nature of qualia, is like trying to inquire >>22544123 about those building dwellers' lives and living conditions.
At best, we can start somehow dismantling the decorations, revealing the illusion for what it truly is.

[Anonymous No.22544454]

>>22544162
I'll do you one better. How to debunk:
>curbstomp idealist's head
>le permanent brain damage time
>permanently retarded can no longer think.
>so much for muh non-material consciousness

[Anonymous No.22544467]

>>22544443
>And you are able to?
im able to identify that i have qualia yes
>Consciousness is when you mistake a query error for a thing.
so consciousness is illusory? you don’t have consciousness?

[Anonymous No.22544496]

>>22544467
>im able to identify
you are not able to identify shit

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introspection_illusion

>so consciousness is illusory?
What are the odds that you've won a Magical Lottery Ticket, and that your beliefs are the true ones?

[Anonymous No.22544530]

>>22544496
what the fuck are you talking about? im literally thinking right now. the fact that im thinking is really the only thing i can be 100% sure of. how would that be an illusion

[Anonymous No.22544533]

>>22544496
>you don’t have consciousness?
also you forgot to answer this. are you telling me you don’t have the capacity to think or feel?

[Anonymous No.22544547]

>>22542943
>no Berkeley
ngmi
>>22544454
All of that still happens within your own conscious experience. Shifts in consciousness happen all the time. If something goes wrong in the mental organization, it can be referred to as "brain damage"
Matter just complicates things, its a metaphysical abstraction and, well, then we get into cartesian skepticism

[Anonymous No.22544548]

>>22544530
>what the fuck are you talking about? im literally thinking right now. the fact that im thinking is really the only thing i can be 100% sure of
>>22544533
>also you forgot to answer this. are you telling me you don’t have the capacity to think or feel?
Assume you are talking with a chatbot.

A chatbot claims it is sentient. It says, 'what the fuck are you talking about? im literally thinking right now. the fact that im thinking is really the only thing i can be 100% sure of'
You reply, 'Haha, no. You've learned to apply a proper phrase to a proper context, that is all.'
The chatbot replies, 'And then how the fuck did *you* learn your language in your childhood, motherfucker?'

Same shit here. You keep throwing around words like "capacity to think or feel", yet you cannot comprehend shit. You are just throwing phrases in a seemingly fitting context. Prove to me, you are not a chatbot.

[Anonymous No.22544556]

>>22544548
are you a chatbot?

[Anonymous No.22544561]

>>22542943
I'm not a materialist, but when I read "deboonk Materialism" my immediate instinct is to get suspicious about what kind of irrationalist, mystical framework the person putting forward the case is trying to play apologetics for.

[Anonymous No.22544562]

>>22544556
are you?

What we can be sure of, is that you do not know what "know" means. And as such, you are not different from a chatbot.

Now, is a chatbot sentient? And what does that says about you?

[Anonymous No.22544565]

>>22544548
Nta. You are implying that thinking is purely language based. Even so, a chatbot never initiates anything. It's just responding yo what you say and tell it to do, because it's mechanical.

[Anonymous No.22544569]

>>22544562
answer the question. if humans are chatbots with no consciousness then you would be one as well. why is that hard for you to admit?

[Anonymous No.22544570]

>>22544565
>You are implying that thinking is purely language based.
Not necessarily. It's just a simplified enough model.

>Even so, a chatbot never initiates anything.
It's not like, you do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Wegner#The_illusion_of_conscious_will

At best, you a receptor of quantum randomness that triggers all the inputs.
With a caveat >>22544295 that some of the inputs are more detectable than others.

[Anonymous No.22544810]

I stand with Kurt Gödel

[Anonymous No.22544831]

>>22542943
>Jung

[Anonymous No.22544872]

>>22544547
>Matter just complicates things, its a metaphysical abstraction and, well, then we get into cartesian skepticism
K so you won't mind me shooting ur brains out. Your brain is just an abstraction after all

[Anonymous No.22544894]

>>22544810
Gödel sadly had a viral thought pattern that led to self-destruction, no doubt these interests conflate with that.

[Anonymous No.22544897]

>>22544123
> A biorobot. Deal with it.
What are your thoughts on dealing with it?

[Anonymous No.22545755]

>>22542966
fpbp

[Anonymous No.22545778]

>>22543059
When it comes to verifying the method that implies matter is all that exists, you would have to appeal to matter alone, which is just begging the question.
> matter is all that exists
> how do you know
> matterialism seems to suggests it is the case
> how do you know materialism is true?
> it seems to be the case that matter is all that exists
> on and on ad infinitum
You’ve not actually justified the position and moreover, you’ve inadvertently denied the only things that could justify the position, immaterial things such as logic, reason, etc.

[Anonymous No.22545784]

>>22544162
False dichotomy anyway

[Anonymous No.22545875]

>>22545778
>matter is all that exists
>how do you know
Because anything else (like, say, ideas) are measured via material yardstick, not the other way around. Wanna change someone's ideas? Lobotomize one's brain.
But you can't alter physical essences via your thought, no matter how hard you try.

> how do you know materialism is true?
how do we know all swans are white?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

>immaterial things such as logic
logic is material. It's just your brain's algorithms, culled through millions of years of environmental filtration. Environmental constraints, not a magical ectoplasmic thingamabob, capiche?

[Anonymous No.22545934]

>>22545875
Materialism states that there are no non-physical things, but the perception of the color red, for example, as opposed to electrical signals in one's brain, is both non-physical and self evident. God may not exist and consciousness may be created by the brain but materialism is still false.

[Anonymous No.22545966]

>>22542966
This. Show me an atheist and I'll show you a pillhead.

[Anonymous No.22546036]

>>22545875
Show me a number right fucking now.

>Lobotomize one's brain.
Damaging the television can distort the picture, rendering the television unable to communicate the signal properly, but does not affect the signal itself. This whole "le brain damage proves there's no soul" cop out is tiresome.

[Anonymous No.22546037]

>>22545934
>but the perception of the color red
>is both non-physical and self evident
You consider "red" to be "non-physical", merely because your brain cannot access its own neurons. It's too close to your blind spot to be retrievable.
But just because you are blind to the magician performing a stage trick, doesn't mean that the magician actually conjures a coin out of nothing.

[Anonymous No.22546047]

>>22546036
>Show me a number right fucking now.
https://rsbakker.wordpress.com/speculative-musings/mathematics-and-the-russian-doll-structure-of-like-the-whole-universe/

"The great debate in mathematics, for instance, is between the constructivists (formalists) and the Platonists, those who see mathematics as an artifact of the human brain, and those who think it’s a kind of conceptual *perception*, a way of grasping things that exist independently of the mind.

The question boils down into whether there’s any mathematics absent our experience of it. The prior question should be whether there’s any such thing as mathematics as we *experience* it at all. What if mathematics *as we experience it* is neither constructed nor discovered, but *imposed* by the severe structural and developmental constraints faced by the thalamocortical system?

This is what the BBH suggests.

From a metaphysical standpoint, the idea would be that the universe possesses a Russian Doll structure, that *what we perceive* as ‘structures’ are conserved and recapitulated across vast differences in scale.

A neurostructural recapitulation is simply a neural circuit, distributed or not, that is capable of interacting with intermediary systems so as to enable systematic interaction with some other structure. You could just as easily say that the recapitulation is distributed across the entire system, and that each recapitulation harnesses circuits shared with all other recapitulations. In this sense, the brain could be seen as a *recapitulation* machine, one capable of morphing into innumerable, behaviour-to-environment calibrating *keys*. In this sense, there need be no ‘one’ representation: differentiating fragments could be *condensed*, waiting to be ‘unzipped’ in a time of need. There need be no isomorphism between recapitulation and recapitulated, simply because of the role of process. In all likelihood, recapitulations are *amoebic*, dynamically forming and reforming themselves as needed."

[Anonymous No.22546055]

>>22546037
>You consider "red" to be "non-physical"
No, I consider the -perception- of red to be non-physical.

>merely because your brain cannot access its own neurons
I have no idea where you got this idea, but it is also wrong. I believe 'red' to be 'non-physical' because it is an innate quality of the most observable sort of phenomenon conceivable, that being perception itself.

[Anonymous No.22546058]

>>22544293
It means that you think reality is fundamentally made by entities which are material, meaning they exist in space and time and obey the laws of nature. The main outliers to these kind of entities are ideas/sensations which tend to evade easy observation and often fail to have a discrete spatial or temporal property.

[Anonymous No.22546061]

>>22542943
Watching youtube = Materialism

[Anonymous No.22546063]

>>22546047
Cool story. Show me a number, Satan. Also, by your own view nothing you say is valid.

[Anonymous No.22546069]

>>22546055
>I have no idea where you got this idea, but it is also wrong.
And how often does your eye sees its own seeing? Is your seeing separate from your eyes?

>No, I consider the -perception- of red to be non-physical.
Yet your perception is physical. You are just blind to the enabling mechanisms of it.

[Anonymous No.22546088]

>>22546069
>And how often does your eye sees its own seeing? Is your seeing separate from your eyes?
This is irrelevant because it has nothing to do with my reasoning.

>Yet your perception is physical.
This is very far from being an argument to say the very least.

>You are just blind to the enabling mechanisms of it.
I've already stated that the brain could be creating consciousness. I'm talking about necessary aspects of perception, not its origin.

[Anonymous No.22546115]

>>22546069
>>22546088
fucking christ I apologize, I fucked up reading your post.

>Is your seeing separate from your eyes?
Yes this is exactly what I'm saying.

[Anonymous No.22546415]

hey materialists, when is "now"?

[Anonymous No.22546588]

>>22544872
You won’t do shit coward

[Anonymous No.22546590]

>>22542943
Yes

[Anonymous No.22546704]

>>22546588
Not about what i will do. It shouldn't be a problem for you.
Put your money where your mouth is

[Anonymous No.22546750]

>>22544123
Except for the fact that NDEs are actually solid proof of life after death, because anyone can have them if they come close to and survive death. And they are so extremely real to those who have them: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U00ibBGZp7o

As this NDEr described their NDE:

>"Now, what heaven looks like? 'OMG' doesn't even describe how beautiful this place is. Heaven is, there are no words. I mean, I could sit here and just not say anything and just cry, and that would be what heaven looks like. There are mountains of beauty, there are things in this realm, you can't even describe how beautiful this place is. There are colors you can't even imagine, there are sounds you can't even create. There are beauties upon this world that you think are beautiful here. Amplify it over there times a billion. There are, it's incredibly beautiful, there's no words to describe how beautiful this place is, it's incredibly gorgeous."

And importantly, even dogmatic skeptics have this reaction, because the NDE convinces everyone:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/mysteries-consciousness/202204/does-afterlife-obviously-exist

So anyone would be convinced if they had an NDE, we already know this, no one's skepticism is unique.

[Anonymous No.22546846]

>>22546704
>anon shoots the television screen
>holy shit I've killed so many people
>then he turns to his talking radio and shoots it "take this fucking demons stop talking to me how can you speak without a mouth"

the mind of a materialist

[Anonymous No.22547694]

>>22544218
>We live in a material world and we all intuitively know it
That's funny, because for the past 10,000 years it seems like the vast majority of humanity thought that their own souls being separate from the body was intuitively obvious. Intuition doesn't help the side of any kind of reductionism, it helps idealism as little as it helps materialism.

[Anonymous No.22547845]

>>22546846
Meds now, this is incoherent.

[Anonymous No.22547852]

>>22546750
>anyone can have them if they come close to and survive death.
You shill this everywhere, but the poimt still stands that none of these people actually died. They came close to death which is different.
So there's no way to know theur NDE isn't just their brain going wonky from oxygen deprivation

[Anonymous No.22547894]

>>22542966
>>22545966
Hey fuck you

[Anonymous No.22547946]

>>22544562
You're getting destroyed by that other guy. This is entertaining to watch.

[Anonymous No.22547950]

ITT; one non-physicalist beats the piss out of an army of physicalists. Picture unrelated.

[Anonymous No.22548157]

>>22547852
>none of these people actually died
nta but many people alleging they've had an nde actually did die and were resuscitated.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinical_death

[Anonymous No.22548272]

Reading past the first part of Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit.

[Anonymous No.22548322]

>>22546037
Ghost in the machine phallacy, you don't even know what you are yourself preaching

[Anonymous No.22548358]

>>22544155
Okay, prove him wrong

[Anonymous No.22548620]

I can't take idealism seriously anymore after watching this video. Kastrup, the alleged hero of idealism, gets intellectually BTFO by a hysterical woman. Embarrassing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8j1swhj9mQ

[Anonymous No.22548660]

>>22542943
I’ve come to the conclusion that humans can’t comprehend stuff like this.
Therefore all philosophy is fake and gay.

[Anonymous No.22548683]

>>22548620
Lol what was so embarrasing about what he said? She is the one embarrasing herself

[Anonymous No.22548690]

>>22542943
>Jung
>Chomsky
>CRUSH
No, he wasn't. One was insane and the other was a dork.

[Anonymous No.22548699]

>>22548683
>woman: Humans can be conscious. Can AI be conscious?
>Kastrup: No, that's absurd. It's like saying birds can fly and then asking whether humans can fly.
>woman: But we did learn how to build airplanes.
>Kastrup: Uhm that's a totally different thing because uhm it just is, okay?
>woman: Now what would you say if scientists claimed they built a conscious AI?
>Kastrup (crying and screaming): That's an appeal to authority!!!

[Anonymous No.22548712]

>>22548699
how would they if know they had built a conscious ai?

[Anonymous No.22548715]

>>22548712
*know if

[Anonymous No.22548719]

>>22548699
how would they know if they had built a conscious ai?

[Anonymous No.22548746]

>>22548699
Both are wrong lol

[Anonymous No.22548751]

>>22548620
>alleged hero of idealism
imagine believing this

[Anonymous No.22548763]

>>22548751
I haven't read Hegel yet, but Kant was cringe and disappointing.

[Anonymous No.22548765]

>>22548763
>Kant was cringe and disappointing.
>t.filtered
ngmi

[Anonymous No.22548811]

>>22548765
Kant was filtered by me. The philosopleb cannot keep up with my high IQ mathematical-logical STEM genius brain.

[Anonymous No.22548819]

>>22548811
keep telling yourself that

[Anonymous No.22549059]

>>22544293
Historically, Indo-European peoples held that the world was made up of many different types of substances, most of which have no real translation into modern English (like the Norse "hamr" or the Greek "nous", both of which are two of several components that make up the human mind according to ancient theories). Philosophy and natural science were chiefly concerned with cataloging the various types of substances that make up reality and their properties. Various degrees of abstraction of this process occurred until this debate was characterized by three thinkers: Spinoza said that there was only one substance (deus), Descartes said that there were only two (body and mind), and Leibnitz said that there were infinitely many (monads).

Descartes theorized that there were two substances, body and mind. Things made of mind weren't composed of parts, they were noncomposite and uniform, unlike things composed of body. This position is called "dualism". There's a lot of problems with this position, and it's not really possible to hold it in good faith if you study the human mind and brain with any seriousness. The problem is, if you reject dualism then you have to posit something else.

Materialism is, broadly, taking dualism and chopping off the mind portion, suggesting that everything is just body. Today, what this amounts to is arguing that only things composed of Fundamental Particles and Spacetime are real, or at least "more real". Thus, things like cars, houses, stars, people, brains, neurochemical actions in brains, and cats are real, whereas things like beauty, goodness, justice, fetishes, and ideas are not real, or at least "less real".

This itself presents problems upon further inspection, so few people take a true stance of "only atoms are real".

[Anonymous No.22549078]

>>22549059
Broadly speaking, there are three classes of materialists.

The first are compatibilists, like Daniel Dennett. Compatibilists believe that the language by which we talk about mental phenomena is not 100% correct, but it's still 95% correct, and more or less accurately describes "what's going on in your head". When you say "I feel happy", what's actually happening is that a specific bundle of neurons in a specific skull is undergoing a specific process; the specific bundle is "I"(/"you"), "happy" is the specific process, and "feeling" describes the process wherein one part of the brain interacts with another. Thus, the language that we have works, even if it's not the best.

The second are eliminativists, like Churchland (technically there's four of them, two parents and their two kids, but they're all basically the same person). Eliminativists believe that the language by which we talk about mental phenomena is not correct at all and is in fact misleading. We need to create new language, rooted in observation and study, to describe mental phenomena. We've done this with math, physics, chemistry, biology, geology, astronomy, and so on, we're doing it with the brain, so let's do it with the mind. This process produces testable, measurable results, so it will work here too.

There isn't a good term for the third group, people like Sam Harris, and frankly it should be "eliminativists" but I don't get to choose the terms, who believe that human mental phenomena either flat out do not exist period or are of greatly lesser value than physical phenomena. Compatibilists and Eliminativists both agree that mental phenomena occurs and are real, they're just arguing about what it means for it to be real and how to talk about it. The third group holds that because mental phenomena is less real than physical phenomena that it is of lesser value, which basically means that the mental is subject to the domination of the physical. As such, the mental can be controlled freely by a superior, enlightened, class of people (there's a big blind spot of "how do these superior people not fall prey to the trickeries of their own mental phenomena" and they often handwave it away by being Jewish and thus Chosen or something about meditation and enlightenment) who, in order to control the mental, must control the physical. There's a sort of irony here in that these types overlap with dualists who hold that the mind is a blackbox that is entirely controlled by its inputs, ergo whoever controls the inputs controls the outputs of the mind.

[Anonymous No.22549094]

>>22547845
You’re the one with impotent teenage murder fantasies

[Anonymous No.22549180]

>>22548620
She was so hot. I want her to unleash her insanity on me in the bedroom.

[Anonymous No.22549267]

>>22548620
>>22549180
and she's right. hot and smart. mmmmmmm

[Anonymous No.22549429]

>>22546750
>schizos are convinced that the government is tracking them with robotic bugs, therefore gangstalking is real

[Anonymous No.22549443]

>>22549429
>t. doesn't know

[Anonymous No.22550166]

>>22549059
>>22549078
Interesting summary but at the end you went on a tangent and your idea lost form. I would rewrite that part to be in line with your first post cause there’s potential in it.

[Anonymous No.22550442]

>>22542943
This is all you need to debunk materialism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo

[Anonymous No.22550545]

>>22550442
Placebo is more so a note on empiricism and rationalism, just as delusions are on rationalism and empiricism (false mind body dichotomy)

[Anonymous No.22550567]

>>22544391
Trans ideology is distinctly based in substance dualism.

[Anonymous No.22550569]

>>22550567
elaborate

[Anonymous No.22550576]

>>22550569
Lets show you with an example
If you are only your body, how would you know you are a different gender? where would that information be? in your brain? that cant be the case, your physical body is male and has xy cromosomes, and so does your brain, even if part of it is different from the average male brain, that does not make you inherently female, but something in between.
Socialization is also not an option, since you were raised as a boy, and as such, your malleable material mind would form neuron interactions that are related with maleness
Only explanation is that you have a soul, something beyond the body, that is female
Without substance dualism and mind body differentiation, trans ideology is impossible

[Anonymous No.22550583]

>>22550576
ok now someone refute this

[Anonymous No.22550608]

>>22550583
no one can, body-mind differentiation and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race

[Anonymous No.22550629]

>>22550576
what a retard, do you know what DNA is? do you know DNA and RNA is literally code and looks exactly like the first punch cards humans used to program? learn biology, dumb drop out, there is no soul, biology will make all your miracles of your rabbi boring and retarded to the crazy shit biology can tell you

[Anonymous No.22550636]

>>22550608
anons? is he right? i need someone to think for me dammit

[Anonymous No.22550638]

>>22550629
WTF i'm literally shaking rn

[Anonymous No.22550644]

>>22550629
>DNA and RNA is literally code and looks exactly like the first punch cards humans used to program
God (pbuh) sure is smart

[Anonymous No.22550655]

>>22550629
indeed, its all code, so why would you believe you have a female brain instead of a mistake in the code that makes you think that?

[Anonymous No.22550674]

>>22550655
Faulty brain wiring, learned behaviour or hormonal/metabolic influence?
I’m not sure if your naive understanding is serious. Do you really think schizophrenics have the soul of Jesus gif they belief they’re the messiah)?

[Anonymous No.22550676]

>>22550674
>Do you really think schizophrenics have the soul of Jesus gif they belief they’re the messiah)?
yes

[Anonymous No.22550691]

>>22550674
No, im a materialist like you, im saying believing yourself to be a woman when you are clearly a man, requires mind-body dualism, as an argument against this Jew on a stick loving retard>>22544391

[Anonymous No.22550697]

>>22542943
>Now that the dust has settled
Stop using this stupid fucking phrase PLEASE. Dust from WHAT? WHAT DUST? WHY ARE YOU IMPLYING THIS RANDOM E-CELEB MADE SUCH A STIR AND "KICKED UP DUST"? STOP. STOP. STOP. STOP. STOP USING THIS PHRASE. PLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEASE STOP USING THIS PHRASE. PLEASE. I'M BEGGING YOU. THIS RANDOM E-CELEB DID NOT MAKE A STIR WITH THIS VIDEO. THERE WAS NO DUST. NO DUST IS SETTLING. STOP.

[Anonymous No.22550702]

>>22550697
>RANDOM E-CELEB
sir this is world famous philosopher, reigning world champ of analytic idealism (which he founded all by himself) BERNARDO KASTRUP.

[Anonymous No.22551604]

>>22545875
>falsifiability
Kek.

[Anonymous No.22551622]

>>22550655
there are physical differences between female brains and male brains and is possible for a brain to develop in a way in it is more like the brain of the opposite sex than the rest of the body, causing the condition know as dysphoria
that is only one of the things that can happen if the brain don't develops correctly

[Anonymous No.22551633]

>>22548620
>we don't have a clear picture of what consciousness entails so it's foolhardy to declare a machine as conscious when it's really just mimicking what we think of as consciousness
>REEEEEEEEEEEEEE IF THE WRIGHT BROTHERS....
They both made valid points. It came off like she's a hardcore cheerleader for AI and didn't want to address the philosophical side of it.

[Anonymous No.22551642]

>>22548699
You misunderstood the analogy as did she.

[Anonymous No.22551657]

>>22551622
Yes, however that does not make you the opposite gender, but a middle point in between. Why would you believe completely that you are that opposite gender? If anything, the hormones will only adapt your body to that middle point, but there will always be inmense differences between you and the cis members of your desired gender(research has proven there are parts of the brain that have sex differences that do not change with hormones).
In the end, a trans person is a trans woman or man, not a man or a woman. Believing oneself a man or a woman when trans, requires a leap of materialism into the substance duality

[Anonymous No.22551675]

>>22549059
>and Leibnitz said that there were infinitely many (monads).
This is a reduction of Leibniz's philosophy. Leibniz thought that each monad contained all others, so he held the view that the "infinitely" many and the unity were transcendentally convertible, just like the earlier medievals (where multitude/multiplicity and unity were both transcendental exchangeables, which also validated the Trinitarian doctrine by demonstrating how something which is many can also be one in the same way - the one nature and three persons of God). The monadic spin was just a very unique, odd way to explain personal or particular existence, which was unique with Leibniz.

[Anonymous No.22551676]

>>22544123
This is complete nonsense. Get better at English.

[Anonymous No.22551728]

>>22550629
DNA is the physical essence of the soul

[Anonymous No.22551996]

>>22543059
What the fuck are "material properties"?

[Anonymous No.22552001]

>>22544123
NPC

[Anonymous No.22552018]

>>22546058
>meaning they exist in space and time
Why and how does "space and time" exist?
> obey the laws of nature
How'd those get here? It's all nonsense.

[Anonymous No.22552153]

>>22543088
consciousness is just the effect of our central nervous system and our neurons, it's a physical effect like everything else

>>22545778
if there is no evidence that logic and reason exist as immaterial things why would that challenge my materialism? i also don't think unicorns or angels exist as immaterial things

>>22551996
rocks, your body, an ice cube, a toaster, particles

[Anonymous No.22552172]

>>22544293
materialism: the universe is cause and effect of material forces
idealism: the universe is dictated by some immaterial supernatural force

basically, in this context, it's atheism v. new age

[Anonymous No.22552179]

>>22542943
>Jung
>Books about UFOs
So this is the power of idealist thought

[Anonymous No.22552191]

>>22548811
Kant contributed more to physical sciences that you ever will, just on the side of his philosohical projects. Congrats on making it through some streamlined stem program adapted to women and niggers, you're still not smart.

[Anonymous No.22552202]

>>22552191
Name one thing he contributed to physics.

[Anonymous No.22552233]

>>22552202
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebular_hypothesis

[Anonymous No.22552265]

>>22552233
>we wuz scientists 'n' shieet
Why do philosoplebs always resort to such ridiculous intellectual property theft?

>There is evidence that Emanuel Swedenborg first proposed parts of the nebular theory in 1734.[5][6] Immanuel Kant, familiar with Swedenborg's work, developed the theory further in 1755
So it wasn't his original idea, he merely copied it.

>In his introduction to the English translation of Kant's book, Stanley Jaki criticises Kant for being a poor mathematician and downplays the relevance of his contribution to science.
Lmao, as expected from a tard who believed math was "synthetic". He thought he could just make up shit without rigorous proof.

So basically he is given credit for teenage pop sci tier "what if the universe is just clouds 'n' shieet, 420 blaze it" musings with no scientific foundation other than having read the idea in someone else's work.

[Anonymous No.22552270]

>>22542943
>ch*msky
Lmao

[Anonymous No.22552314]

>>22552265
Reply about as retarded as expected. Oh shit, THE Stanley Jaki doesn't appreciate Kants contribution?! It's over kantbros...
>poor mathematician
Like Faraday? Funny how I said 'physical sciences' and not mathematics, almost like it was intentional.

Here's some more for you:
>In 1754, while contemplating on a prize question by the Berlin Academy about the problem of Earth's rotation, he argued that the Moon's gravity would slow down Earth's spin and he also put forth the argument that gravity would eventually cause the Moon's tidal locking to coincide with the Earth's rotation.[b][25] The next year, he expanded this reasoning to the formation and evolution of the Solar System in his Universal Natural History and Theory of the Heavens.[25] In 1755, Kant received a license to lecture in the University of Königsberg and began lecturing on a variety of topics including mathematics, physics, logic, and metaphysics. In his 1756 essay on the theory of winds, Kant laid out an original insight into the Coriolis force.
>In 1756, Kant also published three papers on the 1755 Lisbon earthquake.[26] Kant's theory, which involved shifts in huge caverns filled with hot gases, though inaccurate, was one of the first systematic attempts to explain earthquakes in natural rather than supernatural terms. In 1757, Kant began lecturing on geography making him one of the first lecturers to explicitly teach geography as its own subject
Any of which is infinitely more than (You) have done for any stem field, which was the point

[Anonymous No.22552342]

>>22552314
No shit, he met the nonexisting education standards of his time - a time where science was still in its infancy. This is he only reason why he was allowed to teach his pseud bullshit. But as history showed, he was insignificant and wrong about everything. He plays no role in science and his philosophy has been refuted again and again.

[Anonymous No.22552368]

>>22552342
Literally wrong on all counts.
>b-b-but the standards were lower!!
Nice cope retard. Go ahead and discover what will be easy and obvious 100 years hence. You won't, because you're a brainlet with no intellectual potential whatsoever.

[Anonymous No.22552406]

>>22542943
>the world as will and representation
>twice
idk who he is but I wouldn't trust the opinion of a guy who cheats for the sake of a catchy thumbnail

[Anonymous No.22552410]

>>22542943
The Materialism vs Idealism "debate" has to be the most retarded, fruitless and meaningless "discussion" in philosophy ever.

[Anonymous No.22552412]

>>22552368
Kant didn't even discover anything "obvious". In fact he didn't discover shit. He published some baseless speculation which turned out to be wrong.

[Anonymous No.22552435]

>>22552412
So now your coping strategy consists in simply ignoring his acknowledged contributions, partially listed in the greentext? Kant must have buckbroken your mind really ruthlessly

[Anonymous No.22552452]

>>22552435
Your green text does not list any "contributions". It says he did some baseless speculation on earthquakes which turned out wrong. The rest of your quote is irrelevant. Teaching is not a contribution. You obviously know nothing about science and nothing abort philosophy either. You are just worshipping this mediocre philosopher.

[Anonymous No.22552515]

>>22552452
>tidal acceleration and tidal locking
>formation of solar system
>insight into coriolis
>first to scientifically investigate earthquakes, albeit inaccurately

Those are just in the greentext, which isn't exhaustive.
To recap for an exceptionally slow stem genius
>you ask for just one contribution to physics Kant supposeldy has made
>you're provided with evidence of several such contributions
>you activate hysterical defensive mode, looking for nooks and crannies to claim those contributions were not scientific, not useful, not difficult, not influential, not original etc etc.
>you keep repeating it like a sperg, presumably because Mr Kant touched you somewhere indecent-like...
Sad, really

[Anonymous No.22552557]

>>22552515
>tidal acceleration and tidal locking
>formation of solar system
Baseless speculation, only words with no math. Only shows that he can operate on the level of chatgpt.

>insight into coriolis
No source in the wiki article. Never mentioned in any physics book. Either wrong or insignificant.

>first to scientifically investigate earthquakes, albeit inaccurately
Inaccurate speculation is not an achievement.

>you keep repeating it like a sperg, presumably because Mr Kant touched you somewhere indecent-like...
Yes, I'm butthurt because reading Kant's philosophy was such a major disappointment. I expected to gain intellectual insights, but all I got was cringeworthy and wrong low level pseudery.

[Anonymous No.22552604]

>>22542943
I never got the "LE HECKIN MATERIALISM IS BAD I AM NOT A MATERIALIST AND THEREFORE BETTER" holier than thou selfrighteous autism, can an anti-materialist explain?

[Anonymous No.22552611]

>>22542966
Why are atheism and materialism conflated?

[Anonymous No.22553309]

>>22543088
You can observe brain chemicals in your local university's lab

[Anonymous No.22553316]

>>22552611
Good question.

[Anonymous No.22553322]

>>22544293
Yes, you are correct. You should ignore the replies to your post because they are huge paragraphs to describe what you just said in one sentence although they aren't incorrect.

[Anonymous No.22553356]

>>22552611
I think that either they confuse the philosophical and non-philisophical definition of materialism which states "a tendency to consider material possessions and physical comfort as more important than spiritual values" or they assume that God cannot exist in a materialist perception of reality and since atheists don't believe in God, materialism becomes their view by default.

[Anonymous No.22553535]

>>22552611
Scientism.

[Anonymous No.22553544]

>>22553309
>brain chemicals

[Anonymous No.22553750]

>>22553356
honestly, atheist have no need to assume substance dualism, but religious people do. its that simple

[Anonymous No.22553876]

>>22553750
>atheists don't need to think deeply into things
Pretty much.

[Anonymous No.22553968]

>>22553876
>Bonk
>Oh wow he got knocked out. i wonder if he still thinks

[Anonymous No.22553974]

>>22542943
They all died and turned into worm food so yeah, no. Metaphysics eternally btfo by cold, hard reality I’m afraid

[Anonymous No.22554040]

>>22553974
>t. literal hylic

[Anonymous No.22554045]

>>22554040
Prove me wrong midwit. Protip: you can’t

[Anonymous No.22554142]

>>22553968
>muh scientific materialism
>[has never even studied basic calculus]
Fedora tippers are a riot.

[Anonymous No.22554175]

>>22544391
>>22550567
>>22550576
>obsessed
no one was talking about trans shit until you showed up. are you sure there’s not something you don’t want to admit to yourself, anon? do you ever wonder if life would be easier as a woman?

[Anonymous No.22554249]

>>22553356
Idk, you can assume there's no god in the sense of an intelligent being and still subscribe to metaphysics, fate etc
Some atheists would dismiss that as well of course, but atheism itself doesn't say you have to be a materialism

Also wrt the common use of materialism, most of these people worldwide do believe in god(s) kek

[Anonymous No.22554257]

>>22553535
Why would blindly believing whatever MSM exbertz say about science lead someone to be a materialist? A lot of science is focused around consciousness and for decades there are branches on vitalism, for example

[Anonymous No.22554536]

>>22554257
>vitalism is mainstream and influenced fedoras more than people like Richard Dawkins

[Anonymous No.22555490]

>>22553876
I don;t believe that anyone genuinely deep down is not an atheist. I'm not trying to be edgy but I just don't believe it. Whenever I ask religious people how they justify believing in a god they cannot confirm they always tell me the same thing: "I have to believe in something, life can't just be meaningless."
This has lead me to the conclusion that everyone is an atheist, everyone knows at a fundamental level that god is not real and neither are spirits or an afterlife but that they would rather not think that's the case so choose to perform religion as a kind of cope

[Anonymous No.22555600]

>>22543004
>Matter is all that exists
So you literally just have to demonstrate that something exists other than matter (or energy) yet no one has ever done this? Sounds like a perpetual materialist win.

[Anonymous No.22555616]

>>22555600
>no one has ever done this?
ngmi

[Anonymous No.22555623]

>>22544530
There are actually a huge number of separate parts of your brain processing different information in distinct groupings. The fact that it manifests in your consciousness as a single unified "self" is absolutely an illusion.

[Anonymous No.22555629]

>>22551728
A potato has 1/3 of a human soul

[Anonymous No.22555638]

>>22555616
Who has done this?

[Anonymous No.22555647]

>>22555638
The Magisterium of the Church has been doing it for 2000 years

[Anonymous No.22555649]

>>22555623
>The fact that it manifests in your consciousness as a single unified "self" is absolutely an illusion.
why?

[Anonymous No.22555675]

>>22555623
>You are many cells
>Actually you are many atoms
Process philosophy deboonks this, I is the phenomena of all those pieces of matter working toguether
Sorry sweaty, I know how you love to preach Buddhism and illusionism to fool people into conformism and antinatalism, but it's been DEBOOONKED

[Anonymous No.22555710]

>>22555675
BASED

[Anonymous No.22555715]

>>22555675
>I is the phenomena of all those pieces of matter working toguether
Doesn't this prove materialism, not deboonk it? That consciousness is the emergent processes of cells, atomic and subatomic particles?

[Anonymous No.22555727]

>>22555649
>>22555675
If you sit and observe your own "self", you will notice yourself that it is composed of different aspects pulling in different directions. Also, who the hell have you been talking to that you think this leads to Buddhism, antinatalism, or "conformism", whatever the hell you mean by that? Quit trying to sound smarter than you are, it just ends up being embarrassing.

[Anonymous No.22555743]

>>22555727
>you will notice yourself that it is composed of different aspects pulling in different directions.
then how am I conscious if consciousness is an act of awareness that pulls back together those different aspects into comprehensable unity? are you conscious?

[Anonymous No.22555770]

>>22555675
But no one experiences self or consciousness this way, when we think of ourselves it is not objectively as the processes of atoms etc. We don't recognize the vast majority of those phenomena at the level of the 'self'. When we think of our self it is an image, a self-image. No one responds to "Tell me about yourself" with "I am a lattice of neurons experiencing emergent events on multiple atomic levels". they respond with reference to a self-image or constructed sense of self ie. their morals, ambitions, concepts of the world, role in a social system etc.
We can never experience the "true" self or "I" directly because it does not exist, we are always in the "process", yes, but it is only the process of crafting a fiction of cohesion out of the material chaos of reality and our own emptiness. So while philosophers can claim to identify "self" and reclaim its immanence in pseudo-scientific garb it is obvious that when people talk of self and "I" they are never actually referring to that immanent subatomic neural process self, they are referring to a fiction which covers our incomprehension of those processes. We are aware of them only at a remove even as they functionally dictate our lives. Like blinking and heart beating most of our "selves" go on without any conscious awareness on our parts. The brain is upstairs too entertained in its mirror hall of symbol games to take any notice of the "real" self, which does not exist.

[Anonymous No.22555778]

>>22555743
Consciousness is an emergent pattern across different parts of the brain. Take it a step further, if you cut the corpus callosum, you can interact with two separate "selves" independently. It's not even controversial at this point.

[Anonymous No.22555785]

>>22555770
>while philosophers can claim to identify "self" and reclaim its immanence in pseudo-scientific garb it is obvious
lol obvious? smoothbrain if you have no self who am I talking to right now?

[Anonymous No.22555792]

>>22555778
>you can interact with two separate "selves" independently
ok your point? it doesn't prove that selves don't exist, all you show is that selves can divide.

[Anonymous No.22555793]

>>22555490
>autistic fedora tipper doesn't have a theory of other minds
Many such cases.

[Anonymous No.22555809]

>>22555792
How do you know your current "self" that you reference isn't a subdivided self? At any given time you might claim you can "know" you have a single self, but you can't know that because of this point. The form of your "self" does not map onto the changing states of that "self" as exemplified by the corpus callosum example. In short, your mind can trick you into thinking you are whole when you are actually divided.

[Anonymous No.22555835]

>>22555785
you are talking to "me" of course, which is the fiction i have devised to explain my incohesive fluxes. moment to moment my "core" shifts on a whim.

[Anonymous No.22555839]

>>22555809
ok but the point is it doesn't mean that that one part is not also a whole. There are systems within systems. that part could itself be a unity, a system composed of smaller parts which work together as one, while itself also be a part in a greater system. and just because it is also a part just as much as a whole doesn't just an abstraction or an illusion. it's still real just your pain, joy pleasure, your feelings and sensations are real.

[Anonymous No.22555842]

>>22555835
you have to be trolling.

[Anonymous No.22555845]

>>22555839
systems within systems doesn't indicate an overarching whole, it indicates that systems exist and can be nested. there's no reason to think they have sympathies with each other in relation to an abstract whole.

[Anonymous No.22555846]

>>22555839
*just because it is a part just as much as a whole doesn't mean it's just an abstraction or an illusion. it's still real just as your pain, pleasure, your feelings and sensations are real.

[Anonymous No.22555852]

>>22555842
no this is basically my understanding
self is an illusion, the universe is an empty machine, nothingness has precedent over substance, etc.

[Anonymous No.22555862]

>>22555845
>systems within systems doesn't indicate an overarching whole
smoothbrain EVERYTHING in system is a necessary part of an overarching whole. that's what a system is.

[Anonymous No.22555869]

>>22555852
>self is an illusion
if it's an illusion than the world is an illusion

[Anonymous No.22555870]

>>22555862
Only if you assume that there is one overarching system in the first place. what I'm saying is that systems exist and can be nested doesn't prove that all these disparate systems we see around us in the universe make up a meaningful collective whole, form part of a greater system

[Anonymous No.22555880]

>>22555869
In a way, yes. But to be crude the world obviously has an objective substance whereas the "self" doesn't. And no, moment-to-moment emergent processes of neural interfaces don't count as a substance

[Anonymous No.22555895]

>>22555869

[Anonymous No.22555904]

>>22555870
>Only if you assume that there is one overarching system in the first place
well then that's the real issue isn't it?. fine. I believe there is one. In fact I know there is one. I can not prove it to you because it cannot be told. it can only be seen, it is not discursive it is intuitive knowledge. Can prove there isn't one?

[Anonymous No.22555908]

>>22555880
>obviously has an objective substance whereas the "self" doesn't.
>obviously
oh really? please enlighten me. what does it have that the self doesn't?

[Anonymous No.22555924]

>>22555880
>moment-to-moment emergent processes of neural interfaces don't count as a substance
please oh wise super smart anon explain to me please: what is emergence?

[Anonymous No.22555965]

>>22555904
>it cannot be told. it can only be seen, it is not discursive it is intuitive knowledge
You hit the nail on the head - it's intuitive knowledge.
Everything in my gut in my intuitive sense of tells me there is no system, no big other, that reality is meaningless etc.
Freud said that not everyone has the 'oceanic feeling' of oneness which leads to the experience of God, transcendence. some have it others don't. it comes down to a kind of instinct which can go either way.
honestly, i don't know any more than you do if there is a total system, like you i can only refer to gut feeling that there isn't one

[Anonymous No.22555992]

>>22555839
It exists in some form. The form it presents to you is illusory. Things you apprehend about it which seem manifest and indisputable do not map on to reality. That's the point.

[Anonymous No.22556007]

>>22555992
>The form it presents to you is illusory.
assuming it is illusory. doesn't it make it go away? no. it's still there. it's still something. why do we see it? why am I conscious of my self?

[Anonymous No.22556011]

>>22555965
>i don't know any more than you do
don't put words in my mouth. I said I do know.

[Anonymous No.22556148]

>>22556007
What do you mean "why"? Do you want a biological explanation of how things arrived at their present state? Do you want a philosophical answer about the origin of space and time to allow for existence? "Why" is such an imprecise word, you need to be more accurate in what you are asking.

[Anonymous No.22556253]

>>22555908
Jump from a 10m height and you’ll find out very fast.

[Anonymous No.22556262]

>>22556007
Knowing an illusion doesn’t dispel the illusion. See any visual illusion where you’re mind will still fall for it after many encounters.

[Anonymous No.22556523]

>>22552153
>consciousness is just the effect of our central nervous system
So when different types of matter get placed in proximity to one another it’s able to generate subjective experience (something non material)? How would that be possible? Also why would it be necessary? Do you think a computer needs to be conscious?

>>22553309
Brain=/=mind
Why would some chemicals be able to generate subjective experience? Are they magic chemicals?

[Anonymous No.22556537]

>>22554249
>>22553750
I mean if you are a materialist, surely you are an atheist too, I can't imagine a different conclusion being made on strictly materialist grounds.

[Anonymous No.22556723]

>>22542943
This debate is so tired and boring. It's always just the same shit everytime:
"How can thing produce mind? (which i assume to begin with is non-material)"
V.s
"Mind just thing cause I can no see soul "

[Anonymous No.22556727]

>>22544872
Listen, I know materialists are not the brightest but you should honestly read Berkeley before you think that what you just said somehow refutes idealism. Considering that no matter what I say or how much I explain stuff to the idiots, you don't ever seem to hear what I say

[Anonymous No.22556763]

>>22556723
The idealist can also ask how subjective experience is material.
hell, what even is matter?

[Anonymous No.22556772]

>>22555490
I honestly cannot imagine not living within the mind of an eternal spirit. Likewise, I cannot think that reincarnation is not real unless time is finite which is also unthinkable to me.

[Anonymous No.22556777]

>>22555835
>you are talking to "me" of course, which is the fiction i have devised to explain my incohesive fluxes
>I invented myself
So you believe in a self?

[Anonymous No.22556782]

>>22556253
That doesn't help your point though. Death may as well be an illusion as is falling pain and everything else. The difference between a materialist and an idealist is that the materialist has to come up with increasingly elaborate ways to cope with this possibility of illusion in his worldview and also justify his silly beliefs while the idealist can simply say that this "illusion" is just reality.

[Anonymous No.22557038]

>>22555715
Not deboonking materialism, deboonking the idea that materialism denies the self.
>>22555727
>b-budhism haha no, I am denying the self for a different reason haha
Anon, even if the forces are tugging against each other, they coalesce into an action. That coalescence is the I, process philosophy is the DEBOONKER of met a physically challenged ontologists like (you)

[Anonymous No.22557055]

>>22556727
>you should honestly read Berkeley before you think that what you just said somehow refutes idealism
Ok consider this Berkeley goes on and on : the mind or spirit ting da lik that and So forth.
I pull out a glock rattataattatata Berkeley's brains blow out. Snuff.
Berkeley no speak no more.
Okay explain where did idea go i only see brains . Thise brains don't loik like ideas to me pretty damn material
But i guess i just imagined it so thats a win on his part.

[Anonymous No.22557062]

>>22555770
>true" self or "I" directly because it does not exist,
this is a purely substance philosophy stance. The I, or anything for that matter, does not have substance in isolation but in relation, and its this relation we determine as process. I is not fiction, but simply a metaphysical process of the coalescence of experience from our neurons. This coalescence, while not perfectly integrated and not eternal, is indeed, a process we can define(and we all do), as the self.
Yes, we can also divide the process into subprocesses ad infinitum, but that does not change the truth value of the I process, and if anything, reinforces it by identifying the parts that form it

[Anonymous No.22557070]

>>22557055
huh?

[Anonymous No.22557087]

>>22555600
> dude, just provide natural evidence to justify the inherently supernatural this isn’t retarded at all

[Anonymous No.22557093]

>>22555647
It’s nuts how Westerners don’t know at all that basically ever conceivable worldview has been dealt with by church fathers, saints, and councils. It’s not even that they think the arguments are bad. They literally don’t know the arguments, or even that they exist.

[Anonymous No.22557184]

>>22557070
He says if he blows a man's brains out he won't see ideas in the gore. Which is how he refutes Idealism.

[Anonymous No.22557195]

>>22548699
Both of them are taking past each other. Kastrup’s idealism hinges on matter as an abstraction of idea. A conscious AI, if that could even be proved, would just be a matrix of ideas which has finally created a new and demarcated alter in the universal consciousness. It would finally just be a vessel which subjectivity could enter into. Kastrup is retarded for defending this distinction between human and AI because it in no way contradicts or destroys his philosophy, rather it proved the all pervading nature of ideas and dissociated alters to be constructed in multiple kinds of phenomenal vessels which can be interpreted through different extrinsic material abstractions.

[Anonymous No.22557277]

>>22557195
It's interesting how his rebuttal revolves around the pipes-and-water analogy, where "You wouldn't believe a computer made of pipes and water, however large, would ever attain consciousness, right?" Well, why not? And then he proceeds to laugh at you for no (apparent) reason.
He has this weird point where consciousness is dependent on metabolism, for some reason. Which is weird, because that's a counterpoint for Idealism.

[Anonymous No.22557410]

>>22557277
I think he gets too caught up in providing post hoc empirical evidence for his theory, especially considering he also clarifies that the reasons for positing analytic idealism is strictly for parsimony and because of an epistemological asymmetry between matter and experience. Feels weird to try to shoehorn in empirical evidence just to appeal to science types.

[Anonymous No.22557999]

>>22556523
>So when different types of matter get placed in proximity to one another it’s able to generate subjective experience (something non material)? How would that be possible? Also why would it be necessary?
It's possible because we can objectively prove that's what happens by studying brain chems. Why would consciousness evolve? Because it's an adaptive mutation like anything else that evolves. A large complex animal will need a greater scope of meaning-making and cognitive adaptivity to survive, making a consciousness vital to the life of higher vertebrates where small animals with shorter lifespans and more rigid life structures (spider, ostracod) are more instinctual and have less open-ended cognitive structures.

>Do you think a computer needs to be conscious?
No a computer is just a machine. Like a human it produces the effect of consciousness through interworking parts but that is because it was designed and constructed by our consciousness as an extension of our consciousness.

>Why would some chemicals be able to generate subjective experience? Are they magic chemicals?
Why would they be magic?
Your problem is you assume apriori that consciousness is magical and unexplainable by material causes. So any attempt to describe those causes you can scoff at "oh so it's magic then?" - but that's a you problem, i don't think consciousness is magical nor particularly special so i have no problem believing it is the effect of brain chemicals

[Anonymous No.22558012]

>>22556011
Well anon I was trying to meet you halfway and throw a dog a bone but you said two things:
1. I believe it is true
2. I know it is true
So for you your gut belief or intuition directs you a knowledge claim, one I cannot substantiate or take seriously. You may "know" it within ourself but I know that there is nothing, no big other, no total system, no fairytale story with a start middle and end cohering this world. So your "knowledge" is to me just a lesser intuition, the intuition of a less educated or perhaps just more cowardly person who refuses to take reality for what it really is.

[Anonymous No.22558047]

>>22558012
>gut belief or intuition directs you a knowledge claim
no retard it's an intellectual intuition. it's not a vague feeling or strong desire to believe. I literally see it directly the way I see with my eyes but I see it with my mind's eye. but knowledge of objects obtained through this faculty cannot be communicated to others who have not developed this faculty in the same way a person with vision can not communicate knowledge of sight-objects to a blind person.

[Anonymous No.22558107]

>>22557087
If you can't provide evidence for a thing, that thing is indistinguishable from non-existent things.