/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.20596891]

How do I escape scientific/materialist worldview and find a better path for myself? It's gotten to a point where I think of people as thermodynamic machines and it's not helping me in any way.

[Anonymous No.20596902]

process church of the final judgement, start with logics or control is contact, then as it is, then maybe read those again, then the god pattern stuff.

[Anonymous No.20596920]

>>20596891
>where I think of people as thermodynamic machines
That’s not materialism, that’s autistic

[Anonymous No.20596921]

>>20596891
>it's not helping me in any way
because you are still romanticising a world that is long dead due to its prolific documentation. the past century has been orchestrated and underpinned with individualistic narcissism and you are now here to reap what few benefits are to be found, or die seeking its negation
>I think of people as thermodynamic machines
in our current zeitgeist, this is true, so you must commit to the path you are already on and understand that it is the only way to move forward, whether you like it or not

[Anonymous No.20596933]

>>20596891
>pwease hewp. I wan to see the world like picrel again

[Anonymous No.20596935]

>>20596891
Do you have an interest?

[Anonymous No.20596940]

Read philosophy and realise that a purely materialist worldview is absurd.

[Anonymous No.20596950]

>>20596891

[Anonymous No.20596960]

>>20596891
>where I think of people as thermodynamic machines
expand on that

[Anonymous No.20596968]

>>20596920
same thing

[Anonymous No.20596980]

>>20596968
Autism isn’t materialism

[Anonymous No.20596983]

Read/watch people like bernardo kastrup and donald hoffman for the opposite perspectives just don't go full schizo.

[Anonymous No.20596984]

>>20596935
He's a musician.

[Anonymous No.20596993]

You don't.

The scientific/materialist worldview is inescapable. You can try larping, but you can't fool yourself into believing in fairy tales.

[Anonymous No.20596994]

>>20596940
>>20596968
I see so many people criticising pure materialism here. But nobody offers an argument

[Anonymous No.20596999]

Materialism can’t be a worldview. To even call it a worldview presupposes that immaterial principles exist.

[Anonymous No.20597007]

>>20596993
>you can't fool yourself into believing in fairy tales.

Most of this board does exactly that

[Anonymous No.20597008]

>>20596994
he said read philosophy, are you expecting him to sum it all up neatly for you? Go read a book

[Anonymous No.20597009]

>>20596891
read david bentley hart's experience of god and realize that materialists actually have no coherent explanation for consciousness or for the metaphysical origins of reality. i wouldn't say this book convinced me (i don't generally care about metaphysics) but it shifted the burden of proof over to the atheists. once you accept an unmoved mover you can make the argument that qualia and physics imply that god has a purpose or that god is interested in human affairs.

[Anonymous No.20597020]

>>20596994
its true but you can't really believe it in practice. for example, if you fail at something, it doesn't help to say it's not "your" responsibility, it's just collision of random material factors.

i would actually say the opposite, you can't fool yourself into not believing in fairytales.

[Anonymous No.20597022]

>>20597008
You can atleast try to sum up why materialism is wrong. You are literally doing the same thing I was complaining about.

[Anonymous No.20597033]

>>20596891
I'm just finishing this one up but I think it does a good job in describing a worldview that doesn't disagree with science but sees that science alone is not enough.

[Anonymous No.20597043]

>>20597020
>it's just collision of random material factors.


That's literally how I see my life nowadays

[Anonymous No.20597054]

>>20596891
>>20596950
>>20596984
excerpt here: https://www.themathesontrust.org/publications-files/mtexcerpt-orpheus.pdf

[Anonymous No.20597079]

Read Nietzsche

[Anonymous No.20597138]

>>20597022
Consciousness is not something you create, it's that within which every creation happens. Flip the script and explore that.

[Anonymous No.20597155]

>>20597022
https://youtu.be/lAB21FAXCDE?t=431

[Anonymous No.20597162]

>>20597138
do bacteria have consciousness? or do they not count as "creations"?

[Anonymous No.20597187]

>>20597162
Not the point I was trying to make. Creation as in what you perceive to be real, not "creations" although that is certainly included in that as well.

[Anonymous No.20597210]

>>20596891
They say that if you want to understand how absurd Christianity is, you should read the bible. Well, I would say that if you want to understand just how absurd materialism is, just read Daniel Dennett.

[Anonymous No.20597224]

>>20596994
> how do you know matter is all that exists
> the empirical method
> how do you know you can trust the empirical method
> it’s logical
> how do you know you can trust logic
> logic
> and that logic?
> logic
> exactly…

[Anonymous No.20597226]

>thesis
Mystic esotericism
>antithesis
Scientific skepticism
>synthesis
You combine them both

[Anonymous No.20597235]

>>20597224
Logic is immaterial. There is no empirical evidence for logic. Moreover, only logic justifies logic. But then what justifies the logic that justifies your logic? In the end, you accept logic on the basis of faith even though there is no empirical (material) evidence for logic itself. Materialists will sometimes insist that there is empirical evidence for logic because “it works” but you need logic before you can even know “it works”.

[Anonymous No.20597240]

>>20596993
you just did!

[Anonymous No.20597252]

>>20596993
How do you know that?

[Anonymous No.20597272]

>>20597235
Logic is transcendental.

[Anonymous No.20597286]

>>20597272
check this genius out

[Anonymous No.20597290]

>>20596891
Take a psychedelic drug.

[Anonymous No.20597295]

>>20597235
what logical rules do you need to see if logical rules "work". that would be just pure induction, and as proved by hume, unprovable by logic as to their workability in the future. seeing that something "works" has nothing to do with logical rules.

[Anonymous No.20597303]

>>20596993
I literally just have to go to sleep and dream and I've escaped the materialist worldview entirely. I can do it in waking life by just acknowledging phenomenal experience.

The materialist worldview is a perspective that people choose because they have an entirely subjective intuition that it is "rational". Materialism is no more than a certain attitude, an can never be anything more than an aspect of conscious experience.

[Anonymous No.20597309]

Heidegger

[Anonymous No.20597344]

>>20597295
If you mean to imply there is some form of inductive reasoning which is independent of logic itself, I don’t see how that makes any sense all.

Hume’s whole point is that he thinks you can collect observations but you can’t give an account for how you actually know anything. You can’t actually say anything works. That’s true for no one more than a materialist because whatever they might use to justify knowledge, they presuppose doesn’t exist. How can you know matter doesn’t exist if there’s no material evidence for knowledge? You can’t.

[Anonymous No.20597364]

>>20596993
>The scientific/materialist worldview is inescapable
Its not, though. If you rush to something else to escape the implications, yes, that is cope, but if you consider all of the unknown unknowns in the matter of existence, and all that this is, what we know we don't know, what we know we can't know, epistemology, you quickly end up understanding materialism as the accessible framework of god-knows-what.

We could pull together a GUT of all of the familiar forces and never say anything about forces we can't perceive or comprehend. We could establish a ToE and never be 100% sure that it all isn't taking place on the back of a giant turtle and its turtles all the way down.

None of this brings me comfort, therefore I'm not coping. It just makes me want to stop asking questions, chop water, carry wood, all that good stuff.

[Anonymous No.20597409]

>>20597344
I'm not an ontological materialist btw, I reject ontology.

Hume's problem of induction meant a problem for inductive reasoning. Meaning that induction with which we, context-sensitively, determine some workability, isn't actually logical. So it is actually independent of logic. What "works" in our perception is also often independent of any strict logic: you can't just draw equivalence marks between phenomenology and logic.

>You can't actually say anything works
But why would this be a problem for materialism, if logic can't be applied to contextual workability? Again, you can't draw any equivalence between those concepts.

>How can you know matter doesn’t exist if there's no material evidence for knowledge
Because there is no material evidence "for" knowledge. If there would be material evidence for knowledge, ie. something observed in matter, how could I say I know matter through it, since it would be just another piece of matter? With logic and knowledge, however, we do end up in such situations, since anything you try to say is just another piece of logic or a piece in a knowledge system, working inside that system? Hence, we can only correlate our knowledge through a phenomenological object of matter, which may or may not be ontologically something "else", something nonsesical like "spatter" or "jatter", but we may only know "about" matter since otherwise we have to talk about "knowledge of knowledge" and such regresses. So the Other is needed to actuate whatever impulse or impulses it is that come to demand aboutness and definitions, meaning it must be itself pure of all knowing.

[Anonymous No.20597428]

>>20597409
Because materialism claims that matter is all there is.

How can they claim to know that? You just admitted there is no material evidence of knowledge. You can’t claim something is true and have no way to account for how you know it’s true. This is a very simple argument.

[Anonymous No.20597450]

>>20597428
>You just admitted there is no material evidence of knowledge.
But there's also no non-material evidence for knowledge (see, i can assume your views too). This is why ontology is childish. So we should have this debate at a less childish, let's say phenomenology corrected, level.

[Anonymous No.20597453]

>>20596891
Start learning from experience and feeling instead of learning from thinking and reading. You are undergoing the typical crisis that happens when you live in your head too much. You actually start to lose touch with reality when you try to figure everything out by thinking. There is a whole “other” world compromised by feeling, and this world makes you feel full of life. Living is about balancing your thinking and feeling, but most people get stuck when they never learn to develop feeling and believe they can think themselves out of feeling like the world is hell. Then they get on SSRI’s and all that shit because they aren’t in-sync with their body anymore

[Anonymous No.20597456]

>>20597226
And get absurdism.

OP: read Camus

[Anonymous No.20597466]

>>20597450
You brought up Hume, dude. I didn’t invoke Hume and I didn’t say I agree with him. The point I was making was that strict materialists, by virtue of being strict materialists, can’t possibly justify how they know what they think they know and thus, they don’t actually know it. I don’t have to agree with Hume to make that argument.

[Anonymous No.20597493]

>>20597466
i was just responding to your comment about logic not representing myself as the strictest of materialists. and for example, daniel dennett has been called a materialist, an eliminative materialist though, which does not make the most radical claim that matter is all there is but simply that the most common point of contention, consciousness, is explicable without positing mind-body split of some sort.

[Anonymous No.20597503]

>>20597493
I don’t know anything about Daniel Dennet. I was interested in addressing OP.

[Anonymous No.20597529]

>>20596993
this anon has confused the rationalizing process for the emotional premises upon which it operates.
diagnosis: ngmi

[Anonymous No.20597544]

>>20597428
>How can they claim to know that?
Because matter is all we can observe.

[Anonymous No.20597592]

>>20597544
...observe with what? cmon.

[Anonymous No.20597606]

>>20597138
>everything is in your head
What a pointless conjecture
>>20597224
I can trust the empirical method because it produces independently verifiable results.
>>20597235
Huh?
>>20597303
Materialism acting as a certain mindset some people possess and others don't has no bearing on the fact that its still true.


You know what all of this philosophical psuedo-babble sounds like? It sounds like the mental gymnastics played by those who can't cope with the simple fact that our bodies(and most likely our minds too) are included in and extensions of the material world.

They want their sky daddies and magic to be real that bad while the world of Scientific advancement left them behind i 18th century. No wonder so many on this board unironically read Evola to practice occult.

The correctly assume that knowledge and logic is not on their side so they try to deny it entirely.

[Anonymous No.20597609]

>>20597592
All these sensory organs made of matter.

[Anonymous No.20597614]

read Bergson, Husser, and Heidegger

[Anonymous No.20597616]

>>20597609
And what processes those senses and experiences? What experiences those processes? Is that experiencer explained by your materialism? No, okay then.

[Anonymous No.20597620]

Spend 3 years preparing to read this

By the time you're able to, you'll understand

[Anonymous No.20597632]

>>20597606
You're missing the point entirely. "Muh science is leaving you behind" - no it is not. And science won't make progress into any meaningful territory (that isn't just predicting patterns) until it recognizes what our experience is. "Spirituality" and science are not mutually exclusive.

>sky daddies and magic
Nevermind, I see that you're not here for meaningful debate. Go back to your religion of materialism and science and think you have it all figured out.

[Anonymous No.20597635]

>>20597616
(Not the guy your were replying to) Its called the human brain. You know that thing with neurons that replaced "soul" as the seat of conscious experience long ago.

God immaterialists need to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 19the century

[Anonymous No.20597645]

>>20597635
You're just appealing to the authority of "science". You may as well be religious. Explain how it works, or provide the material that does so.

[Anonymous No.20597659]

>>20596891
>>>I need le heckin' spirituality to COPE with le materialistic mundane realityrinos!! I'm goin' LITERALLY HECKIN' INSAAAAANE

Not gonna make it lmfao

[Anonymous No.20597667]

>>20597009
>materialists actually have no coherent explanation for consciousness
oh that makes it ok to fill up the gaps with fairies then
david bentley hart is a moron and research on consciousness has moved on. do try to keep up

[Anonymous No.20597670]

>>20597659
You will never be a woman

[Anonymous No.20597681]

>>20597667
Are you going to contribute any explanations? It seems like you either don't understand the opposing viewpoint at all or you do but can't refute it so you resort to strawmans (e.g fairies).

[Anonymous No.20597686]

>>20596891
>I think of people as thermodynamic machines
You just admitted the primacy of thought in human action. Materialism refutes itself.

[Anonymous No.20597694]

>>20597235
How do you know what materialism even is without logic, without thinking? Knowing is thinking. Empiricism itself is a category of logical thinking, you are mistaken for thinking of empiricism as different from logic somehow. I understand that this is a necessary false distinction you must make in order to believe in materialism in the first place, but it is a false distinction nonetheless.

[Anonymous No.20597695]

>>20597670
I don't claim to be nor do I want to be. Continue to allow trannies live rent free inside your tiny, little overpressurized skull.

[Anonymous No.20597696]

>>20596891
>I think of people as thermodynamic machines
No, you don’t. You don’t act like that. You think you think that. I think you’re terrified of an abyss (because you think you need to know everything) and so you cope by repeated materialist mantras to yourself.

[Anonymous No.20597701]

>>20597645
The authority of "science" is well earned. The "immaterial" that you cling to so hard begins and ends in the realm of subjective experience.

With the immaterial you can larp about "experiencing" flight while sitting in your room and then claim that its the same as me using science to actually build a plane and fly. You may claim that the former is equivalent to the latter because the experience was just as real in your head and since my experience was essentially in my head too then there's no real difference.

I mean what utter load of pure horseshit is this. You know what the difference is? At the end I've travelled from Massachusetts to Chicago while you're still sitting in your room.

But some philosophy fag will then come up with some utterly retarded argument about how I can't "know" that I'm in Chicago because there's no material evidence for knowledge(or some other complete mental gymnastics)

[Anonymous No.20597703]

>>20596891
But everything is machines. Anti-Oedipus is right. Why is that view bad for you? What do you think you've lost? Are you sure that what you're really talking about isn't a way to express the feeling of 'I can't relate to people around me, none of my actions feel meaningful, and none of my experiences go beyond the routine'? Those aren't problems of machines in general; those are problems of machines that have had their connections blocked up and their powers deadened.

[Anonymous No.20597705]

>>20596891
>How do I escape scientific/materialist worldview and find a better path for myself?

You can't. Once you're in, there is no definitive way back. The only "way" you can stop being a materialist is by actively denying it and forcing yourself to hold thoughts non-materialistic/scientific thoughts. But that requires constant effort and is thus not sustainable; one moment you'll fail, and reality will impose itself upon you once again. That can be avoided for a while if you surround yourself with non-materialists with whom you'll share the burden of performative denial and who will enable you just as you enable them, but it will eventually get to you, because once the materialistic bug bites you, it's over.

[Anonymous No.20597712]

>>20597681
>Are you going to contribute any explanations?
what would be the point? if you are the sort of person who is convinced by anything that fat mouthbreather hart says there's really not much chance of convincing you otherwise on 4chan, is there?
but here you go, start here https://www.nature.com/subjects/consciousness and keep reading
>so you resort to strawmans (e.g fairies).
so what is it that you have filled up the gaps with then?
you seem to have a pretty wild imagination so i'm sure it's something good

[Anonymous No.20597715]

>>20597695
>live rent free inside a skull
this is wrong on every level, troons live in a grave not a skull, graves have to be paid for, and if you're in a grave you're not living in it you're dead

[Anonymous No.20597722]

>>20597712
Too short sighted to debate, you've already restricted yourself into your views. Saying that people whom you don't agree with believe in fairies or whatever other bullshit you can come up with is so absolutely dumb I can't even fathom how we could have a productive conversation.

[Anonymous No.20597732]

>>20597632
>Nevermind, I see that you're not here for meaningful debate.

This can mean two things.
1. Either you actually believe in sky daddies and magic and are offended by how I refer to them. In which case this debate is truly over lol.

2. Or you don't actually believe in such and are genuinely arguing these points, in which case explain how spirituality and science are not mutually exclusive

[Anonymous No.20597749]

>>20597722
>Saying that people whom you don't agree with believe in fairies or whatever other bullshit you can come up with is so absolutely dumb
you haven't explained exactly what it is you believe in, so i made something stupid up. it seems the irony is lost on you.
>I can't even fathom how we could have a productive conversation.
likewise, anon. i hope the fairies leave you something nice on your pillow tonight.

[Anonymous No.20597757]

>>20597749
You can throw insults all you want, you still won't have an explanation for consciousness or being at the end of the day with pure materialism the way it currently exists.

[Anonymous No.20597768]

>>20596994
>>20597224

>>20597235
>>20597409
>>20597694

I see no refutation for
>>20597224
And
>>20597694
On the part of the materialists

[Anonymous No.20597788]

>>20597757
One could easily argue from a materialist perspective that consciousness is a complex product of brain function. We don't know exactly how that works but that doesn't imply that its immaterial.

Infact considering that materialism is the truest reflection of our reality, this is most likely the case for consciousness

[Anonymous No.20597794]

>>20597788
>considering that materialism is the truest reflection of our reality

based on what?

[Anonymous No.20597804]

>>20597768
I don't see how either of those refute materialism in the first place. I don't even hold the views of the first one

[Anonymous No.20597805]

>>20597715
They live inside your gray matter. You think and seethe about them 24/7 365 days a year. You and your fellow anos never shut the fuck up about them.

They live inside your head. Rent free.

>cope
>seethe
>dilate

It's all you motherfucking schitzos talk about. Every different or dissenting opinion is the evil jooerino backed socialistic child grooming trannerinas!!!

You are all unironically OBSESSED with trannies.

[Anonymous No.20597814]

>>20597788
What happens when you go to sleep? The entire material world disappears and you are in a world manifested entirely by your consciousness. How does this fit in with your view that materialism is the truest reflection of our reality? What are you using to infer this being the case? The dreamer is the same as the waker, but perceiving an entirely different "material" world. Even your brain and head are a concept you create from your senses and perceptions and they can go away entirely, say when sleeping.

[Anonymous No.20597818]

>>20597794
Based on the fact that only the material can be rigorously observed measured and its existence ascertained.

("Nothing is real" tier psuedo-babble incoming)

[Anonymous No.20597821]

>>20597818
Lol, the first thing you do is dismiss anything opposing your view. Fuck off.

[Anonymous No.20597837]

>>20597804
The other gentleman, for whatever reason, rejected logical thinking itself in an explanation for materialism. It was very bizarre. Anyways while materialism is very strong in terms of metaphysical consistency, it's incredibly weak in ethical arguments. It's very difficult to argue for pursuing virtues as a pure materialist, since there is no ultimate "point" to reality in pure materialism, since any possible "purpose" is in itself an immaterial thing. Even Epicureanism is not compatible, since there's no immaterial purpose to pursue happiness over sad. There's no purpose to "do" anything, materialism is necessarily completely devoid of non-material ethics. Anything goes

[Anonymous No.20597840]

>>20596891
Drug abuse.

[Anonymous No.20597847]

>>20597814
>What happens when you go to sleep? The entire material world disappears and you are in a world manifested entirely by your consciousness

>brain doesn't completely shut down when you sleep

Wow such a revelation.

>The dreamer is the same as the waker, but perceiving an entirely different "material" world. Even your brain and head are a concept you create from your senses and perceptions and they can go away entirely, say when sleeping.

If you are going to make this argument why don't you take it to its logical conclusion. That is Solipsism.
Lmao I predicted the "nothing is real" tier argument before it even came

[Anonymous No.20597854]

>>20597768
i explained an improved theory of materialism even after taking phenomenology into account, in response to a comment espousing a certain view on logic, not so much as to prop up any materialist that's strictly ontological, but to show the flaws in that arrogant person's thinking. Because it is painfully obvious that a lot of the people here think that just because someone wasn't able to look at everything from the outside(!) and see it was all "matter, then we must give equal precedence non-material conceptualizations.

[Anonymous No.20597864]

>>20597847
>Lmao I predicted the "nothing is real" tier argument before it even came

you're not here to have a productive conversation. Literal child

[Anonymous No.20597878]

>>20597757
>You can throw insults all you want,
yes, that's something else that obese turd hart is more than willing to indulge in
>you still won't have an explanation for consciousness or being at the end of the day
why would i claim to? i'm just an interested layman, not a researcher in that field. but there are people who are, and they are actively trying to better our understanding
>with pure materialism
what do you think that even means, anyway? are you american? it is the sort of thing that a willfully ignorant american would come out with.
>the way it currently exists.
i believe you might be getting the point, anon. new research discovers new things. amazing isn't it? that is why the religions of the world despise it so much, because they have a vested interest in keeping people ignorant.

[Anonymous No.20597879]

>>20597847
If your takeaway from those arguments is that "nothing is real" you're not getting it. What you perceive is not objective reality. What you "measure" is not objective reality. Nothing else was implied.

[Anonymous No.20597884]

>>20597814
>Even your brain and head are a concept you create from your senses and perceptions and they can go away entirely, say when sleeping.
good grief

[Anonymous No.20597885]

>>20597878
Immediately proceeds to more insults, good contributions anon. I am not american and I have not read Hart or whatever other guy was talking about.

[Anonymous No.20597888]

>>20597854
I can barely comprehend what you are saying. If you don't mind me asking, can you re-state your theory of materialism, in full?

[Anonymous No.20597891]

>>20597837
what a load of utter bollocks
sorry anon, there's no hope for you

[Anonymous No.20597892]

>>20597884
Are you usually aware of your head and brain while you are sleeping?

[Anonymous No.20597895]

>>20597625

[Anonymous No.20597896]

>>20597821
If your "spirits" can get me from Massachusetts to Chicago without using planes then maybe I'll not dismiss the opposing viewpoint. Of course I dismiss Immaterialism, that's what started this debate in the first place.

>>20597837
I agree completely that materialism by itself is not enough to fulfill the scope of human life. There's so much more. Just because materialism is the most basic reflection of reality doesn't mean complex phenomena cannot arise from it. Human consciousness itself was an evolutionary accident. We won't even be contemplating the death of ethics in a purely material world if we didn't have that

[Anonymous No.20597899]

>>20597891
Why is it bollocks?

[Anonymous No.20597903]

>>20597885
>Immediately proceeds to more insults,
that is all this stupid thread deserves
>good contributions anon
thanks anon. have a good time with the fairies tonight

[Anonymous No.20597911]

>>20597892
explain how an alarm clock works

[Anonymous No.20597912]

>>20597805
>you and your fellows anons
>you are all
are you a glownigger?

[Anonymous No.20597913]

>>20597896
Look. I'm not trying to imply that you should forget about traveling in the "real world" and taking the argument there is being dishonest at best. It's philosophy. It doesn't reject that we have experiences of things or the world.

[Anonymous No.20597927]

>>20597888
>>20597409

[Anonymous No.20597954]

>>20597864
This is 4chan. Try refuting my points instead of focusing on that.
>>20597879
>you can't perceive reality anon.
Lol I do it every waking hour.
But of course one would need to reject that reality to make room for fairy tales(sorry can't help myself at this point)

[Anonymous No.20597980]

>>20597927
So sensation itself is separate from reasoning, I get that. But what I don't get is the rejection of knowledge based on the lack of material evidence thereof, since the deliberation of basing the validity of some object's existence (in this case, knowledge) on external evidence, is to reasoning. To observe evidence as related to and different from a lack of evidence, is to reason. And to determine that evidence for any object's existence validates that existence, and the lack of evidence as invalidating existence, is to reason. Because the very standard of evidence and non-evidence relating to truth and non-truth is to think, and to link the four concepts into two chains of concepts (evidence = truth, and vice versa) and decide what objects/concepts can be attributed to be the evidence for other objects/concepts, and what lack of objects/concepts can be attributed to the lack of evidence for other objects/concepts, is to not use the senses but rather to reason. So essentially you are using reason to reject reasoning.

[Anonymous No.20597986]

>>20597913
>Look. I'm not trying to imply that you should forget about traveling in the "real world" and taking the argument there is being dishonest at best.

Why is it being dishonest? You are the one who keeps denying the authenticity of empirical observation.
>It's philosophy. It doesn't reject that we have experiences of things or the world.

And by improving that method of experience to remove the objective wheat from the subjective chaff we come to the conclusion that the material is all there is which can be confirmed .....and which is relevant (from a utilitarian perspective that is)

[Anonymous No.20597992]

>>20597980
I should've spell-checked my medsage.
>[...] on external evidence, is to reasoning.
*is to use reasoning

[Anonymous No.20598024]

>>20597986
>utilitarian
That's the key word. We are talking about two different things (objective reality vs perceived reality). I don't disagree with the utility and usefulness of measurement or science. But there is plenty that it ignores outright, like subjective experience which I think will have a big impact in the field at some point in the near future

[Anonymous No.20598028]

>Science is.... LE BAD!

This is a prime example of collective intellectual degradation. You delve into esoteric stupidity and pretend that it makes you a deep intellectual freedom fighter who's "against the MAN" but you're actually just retarded. Believing in the flat earth doesn't make you special.

>Science and logic BAD!

This society is continually headed down the fucking shitter.

[Anonymous No.20598059]

>>20598028
>be a baconian zealot with a mind virus
>don't know it

[Anonymous No.20598065]

>>20598059
>Mind virus

Okay, retard

[Anonymous No.20598070]

>>20596891
Look up CIA Project Gateway

[Anonymous No.20598101]

>>20598065
There are three obvious failings of the baconian method that you have to be stupid to ignore. 1. It only works with that which is measurable and repeatable which most things aren't 2. It fails the second the institutions do which they have, always. They have never not been corrupt. It's the same issue as falling back on every organized religion ever. Go into a grad school and talk to anyone who does 'research' there and they will tell you that everything is garbage, teased with pivot tables because they are pushed to publish at least 10 papers before they graduate so if they get negative results they fuck with it until it emerges positive. And that is just individualistic fraud, it doesn't even come close to corporate level funded fraud. If you want to seek truth just follow first principles and your gut.

[Anonymous No.20598102]

>>20598028
>>20597986
>>20597954

Even modern science is starting to reject the idea of a purely physical objective reality (see quantum mechanics). There is a huge gap between quantities (assigned) and qualities (experience) - this is what's referred to as the "hard problem of consciousness". Many people don’t recognize this gap because they think of matter as already having intrinsic qualities like color, taste, etc, which actually contradicts mainstream materialism... According to materialism color, taste, etc., are all generated by our brain, inside our skull. I think this is actually what you think I'M saying. But this is what you believe as a materialist. That world, in some ways is much further out of reach than even your "fairies" are. In fact I would say that materialism is parsimonious just because of the fact that it invents a whole other "world" of categories apart from what we experience. Current material science is useful in that explains the BEHAVIOR of the world we perceive, it doesn't describe or explain it in a satisfactory manner though - there is nothing in current science that explains how the position of atoms or the arrangement of "material" lead to your taste of chocolate or the feeling of falling in love (the experience). In my opinion it needs to start seriously considering our experience as part of (or all of) "reality" if we want to come closer to the truth of an "objective" reality if that can even be reached.

[Anonymous No.20598107]

>>20598024
Spiritualists tend to write off empiricism as utilitarian all too often as if that could discredit it. I've seen the likes of Sadhguru do it. They don't recognize the simple fact that its utility is this good precisely because materialism is the best indicator of external reality. If esoteric spiritual concepts existed they probably too would have some utilitarian value.

And I don't disagree that subjective experience by itself is relevant. But it is what it is, subjective. So it doesn't hold the same weight when describing a reality independent of the observer(if such a thing exists)

And if you argue that empirical observation is subjected to the same biases, errors of subjective experiences, well that's why we have a method to weed out these things as much as possible and look at the cold hard truth.

[Anonymous No.20598148]

>>20598107
To your last point, what you are calling objective reality is what you are subjectively experiencing. It's absurd to suggest that indicates a 1:1 likeness with objective reality. Now, I'm not going to strictly make the argument that it's completely removed from it, it might be a decent representation if it is one at all, however even if you don't buy the other viewpoint you have to see that nothing about what you said can be verified as the "cold hard truth" when viewed from a subjective perspective (as it always is). The only cold hard truth is that of being here right now, experiencing something which appears as the world. The mechanisms behind how that unfolds are obviously not known, but we can't make any claims that we are interfacing with a reality of things as they really are just because we can attach concepts and categories onto it that "make sense" for us

[Anonymous No.20598192]

Materialism falls flat because it is Object without Subject
>is a world with Object but no Subject conceivable?
No, because a third person view of the objective world still has a Subject in it, its just an eagle eye view of Object whence it is still the exact same as now, you are just on spectator mode. You can try to conceive of death or deep sleep, yet you would be still a Subject watching an Object, only difference you'd be an unthinking Subject and the Object would be a black room or whatever you imagine.
>Is a world of no Object and only Subject conceivable?
It might be, now THAT is a leap of faith.

[Anonymous No.20598224]

>>20598101
1. Give examples of things which aren't measurable and repeatable. We'll work from there.

2. The failings of the institutions has no bearing on the fact that physical reality is all there is.
>>20598101
>Even modern science is starting to reject the idea of a purely physical objective reality (see quantum mechanics).

There is nothing in quantum mechanics which isn't entirely physical. Its just that it doesn't agree to how our brains have evolved to perceive and categorize physical reality. But the abstract concepts are confirmed in experiments again and again.

>intrinsic qualities like color, taste, etc, which actually contradicts mainstream materialism

How?

>That world, in some ways is much further out of reach than even your "fairies" are.

No it isn't. We know exactly what properties of light produce color.

>In fact I would say that materialism is parsimonious just because of the fact that it invents a whole other "world" of categories apart from what we experience.

I agree that in a way the concepts materialism come up with are fictional. But they are still a very good reflection of how reality works.

>there is nothing in current science that explains how the position of atoms or the arrangement of "material" lead to your taste of chocolate or the feeling of falling in love (the experience).

Yeah its not complete. But that doesn't discredit the viewpoint. For all we know the immaterialist ideas are always even more useless in that regard

>In my opinion it needs to start seriously considering our experience as part of (or all of) "reality" if we want to come closer to the truth of an "objective" reality if that can even be reached.

Experience is what lead to materialism in the first place. Its the only logical consequence if you believe in an external objective reality. Because to ascertain the nature of such a reality you WILL have to cut off subjective aspects to the experience of it.

[Anonymous No.20598245]

>>20598148
I actually agree with everything you've said here. I just don't see how any of this justifies the immaterial.

[Anonymous No.20598284]

>>20598224
>Examples of things which are not measurable
No things are 'measurable' without a conscious subjective observer to calibrate the measure. You can 'name' a colour with a particular RGB value, but that is just a naming convention which is only really a 'measurement' to the extent that You are a conscious observer that can understand the measure. Whence why a camera only acquires eletromagnetic waves and it has to convert those into pixels on a screen for You too see them as colour. You can even fuck around with the calibration to change the hue, brightness or saturation because ultimately those RGB values do not exist in reality, they are just a very complex way of You naming things. The same is true analogously to every single measure ever, by themselves they are pointless.

And if that is not enough of an argument as to why this 'objective world' cannot be in the room with you right now, the simplest of all relationships in nature, namely the one between circumference and diameter (π) is incommensurable, as if the Universe itself was dabbing on you materiatards

[Anonymous No.20598295]

>>20598245
The immaterial must exist because by definition matter is object, yet Subject MUST exist, and it cannot be anything objective otherwise it would be object not subject

[Anonymous No.20598306]

Is it an actual hylic bros? Also, is it morally wrong to immolate a hylic for heresy if they are not aware?

[Anonymous No.20598351]

For me it was the inability for me to reason with the cosmological and ontological arguments that did it for me

[Anonymous No.20598397]

>>20598351
what material introduced you to it or got you into it?

[Anonymous No.20598426]

>>20598397
Well I had developed an overwhelming and constant fear of Hell when I was 11 years old, I was raised as an atheist and when I watched a documentary with my father it had a segment from a Christian play that was showing what Hell was meant to be like
After that I developed OCD and became obsessed with thinking about whether God existed and spent hundreds of hours watching atheist and atheist debate videos and it was through those videos that I found William Lane Craig
I watched a lot of his videos and read his website Reasonable Faith and decided that William is probably right about the existence of God

[Anonymous No.20598436]

>>20598426
Oh also the realisation that God exists came soon after my father killed himself when I was 15

[Materialist No.20598446]

>>20598284
If you are the same guy I replied to then first you posed that there are many things which can't be measured(which implies the material can be measured) but now you argue that the material itself can't be measured or observed. The original context was the failings of baconian method.

I never argued that reality is as we observe it. My argument is that there is no aspect of reality that is not material. None of what you have written justifies immaterial reality. You are just arguing that our perception of objective material world is flawed.

>And if that is not enough of an argument as to why this 'objective world' cannot be in the room with you right now, the simplest of all relationships in nature, namely the one between circumference and diameter (π) is incommensurable, as if the Universe itself was dabbing on you materiatards

>he just discovered transcedental numbers

Don't worry anon not many of us make it beyond high school maths.

>>20598295

Our mind and senses are objects. They exist in the material world. They perceive other objects. Light enters eye. Create electric signal in brain which carries image of the object. Not that hard to understand anon. You seem to be arguing semantics here.

[Materialist No.20598460]

>>20598436
How does your father's death imply God's existence?

[Anonymous No.20598488]

>>20597606
> huh?
It is a simple argument. You assert that matter is all that exists on the basis that you have no sense data for anything else. But there is no sense data that justifies how you can rely on sense data. You make logical inferences to justify it, but there is no sense data that proves logic itself. To be a materialist, you presuppose logic but if you really and truly were a materialist, you wouldn’t believe in logic because logic is not material. It is not that complicated.

[Anonymous No.20598491]

>>20598446
>the mind is an object
The mind is literally the only Object that you have access to, but it presents to the Subject. You don't seem to understand what Subject is, it is all that which is not the Object - yet Object cannot exist without the Subject

[Anonymous No.20598502]

>>20597701
That’s not mental gymnastics. It’s an account for how you know anything. The arguments you’d have to use to justify how it is you can know you’re in Chicago aren’t justified by anything material. So if matter was all that existed you couldn’t possibly know you’re in Chicago.

[Anonymous No.20598503]

>>20598460
It doesn't, it just made the question far more important to me

[Anonymous No.20598527]

>please provide counter-arguments against my position
>NOOOOO NOT THAT ARGUMENT ITS HORSESHIT I CAN'T COMPREHEND
the intellectual dishonesty of these fuckers astounds me

[Anonymous No.20598684]

>>20596891
Read Descartes' meditations.

[Anonymous No.20598703]

>>20598502
>you can't know where you are

Mental gymnastics.

[Anonymous No.20598729]

>>20598488
>you wouldn’t believe in logic because logic is not material

You see this is exactly the kind of thing spiritualists say and then expect to be taken seriously. Of course logic is not material. Its an abstract concept that exists in our head and is a part of how our mind makes sense of things. Just because reality is material doesn't mean we can't have concepts. (Even those concepts have a reductionist basis in physical processes that go on in the brain)

This is what happens when fairies are not real but one want them to be. So one has to come up with this bs to justify it.

>>20598491
Let me repeat. Light enters eye. It creates signal in optic nerve. Signal travels neural connections in brain. You see color blue. You deliberately imply the existence of a subject(consciousness) that is independent of the object(brain) and then go aha! that you've proved the existence of something immaterial. The subject who experiences the world is part and parcel of the brain function which resides in that very world. You try so hard to make it an independent entity but doing that you disingenuously load your conclusion right in your presumption.

If what you were saying were true then there would be no need for a human brain to exist in the first place. Whatever immaterial thing that you call the "subject" would do just fine.

Your beliefs in duality come from a time when humans didn't understand how perception works or how the brain works. (We still don't understand it fully but we understand enough to disregard any immaterial explaination)

Saying that immaterial exists because consciousness is not material is on the same level of wrong as saying that immaterial exists because "logic" is immaterial... Oh wait XD. These are not the irreducible fundamental phenomena that you think they are

>>20598502
>The arguments you’d have to use to justify how it is you can know you’re in Chicago aren’t justified by anything material.

Serious question? Are you trolling. I mean a troll obviously wouldn't answer that genuinely. But still. If you're gonna be plain retarded then we can stop this exchange right now. Certainly not gonna grace this with a response.

>>20598527
I'm sorry anon that you gotta come up with dimwitted psuedo babble to justify hobgoblins and spirit elves and then call it an "argument". Maybe don't say dumb shit. Or just drop the elves. Either will do :)

[Anonymous No.20598844]

>>20598729
get over yourself

[Anonymous No.20598888]

>>20598844
Hey kid let the gentlemen talk

[Anonymous No.20599029]

>>20598703
If you don’t think you’d use logic to determine that you’re in Chicago then you’re a hopeless moron.

[Anonymous No.20599040]

>>20599029
The logic is immaterial argument has already been refuted

[Anonymous No.20599052]

>>20598729
>I’m a materialist
>nothing but matter exists
>of course I believe in the existence an immaterial principle called logic

[Anonymous No.20599055]

>>20596891
recognize the ability and glory of Consciousness within all humans.

[Anonymous No.20599058]

>>20599040
No, it hasn’t. It’s irrefutable.

[Anonymous No.20599059]

>>20598729
You can't replace philosophy with materialist science. What you're able to do is study and model observable patterns or regularities and then you're able to predict a pattern - there is huge value in that, but it doesn't say anything about the fundamental nature of things. When you characterize objects as you do in science, you're only doing so relative to something else. The positive charge only makes sense in comparison to a negative charge, etc. Being able to explain or measure something relative to something else has nothing to do with questioning the nature of said thing(s). It's a complete overreach to conflate the two.

[Anonymous No.20599072]

>>20599029
If you think logic happens outside my material brain, then you're a hopeless moron.

[Anonymous No.20599075]

> Why yes, I do believe that when you think of the number 7 and when I think of the number 7 we are thinking of the same thing even though the number 7 only exists in my head as a way of my mind making sense of things
> nothing immaterial exists btw

[Anonymous No.20599079]

>>20599072
So you think the logic you use in your material brain is different from the logic I use in my material brain? Is that right?

[Anonymous No.20599089]

>>20596891
>How do I escape scientific/materialist worldview…
It doesn’t matter what book you use, it just matters how hard you can hit yourself with it!

[Anonymous No.20599092]

>>20599059
>Being able to explain or measure something relative to something else has nothing to do with questioning the nature of said thing(s)

How can you interrogate the nature of things without explaining or measuring them?

[Anonymous No.20599101]

>>20599058
Its refuted by the simple fact that its dumb. You are literally using abstract ideas as examples of things that are immaterial lol. Already grasping at straws and we haven't even reached the part where you guys make the jump from here to spirituality and god.

>>20599075
Number 7 does not exist in the physical world. Its again... An abstract idea.

[Anonymous No.20599108]

>>20599072
What if it doesn't take place outside the brain. It could well be that the brain is what consciousness "looks like". It might be a process that we can't directly perceive other than our experience, or maybe it's a field where excitation in it look like brains to us.

[Anonymous No.20599111]

>>20598102
>quantum mysticism makes an appearance
fuck off deepak chopra

[Anonymous No.20599113]

>>20599079
His argument is that since logic cannot be confirmed with empirical evidence hence it cannot be confirmed in a material world view. And if logic is not real then empiricism is not real and the materialist worldview falls apart

This nigga literally can't differentiate between real objects and abstractions.

[Anonymous No.20599115]

>>20599101
I really don’t even know what to say to you anymore. You are even conceding the existence of things which have no physical evidence whatsoever while simultaneously denying that anything immaterial exists at all. Either you’re a good troll or a complete idiot.

[Anonymous No.20599124]

>>20599111
>fuck off!!
gottem

[Anonymous No.20599129]

>>20599113
No, RETARD. It’s that materialism necessitates the acceptance of presuppositions, which if materialism were correct should not exist.

[Anonymous No.20599150]

> it’s an abstraction
Which materialism also couldn’t account for.

[Anonymous No.20599164]

>>20599115
>You are even conceding the existence of things which have no physical evidence whatsoever while simultaneously denying that anything immaterial exists at all.
the fact that abstract ideas such as numbers exist does not imply the existence of "anything immaterial"
the number 7 may be an abstract number but there are abundant examples of seven-ness in the world. there are also many things that we have not yet learned to measure, but we can form a reasonable hypothesis about, and do experiments to either confirm or deny that hypothesis. however it is not reasonable to logically extend that idea to say that e.g. fairies exist
>I really don’t even know what to say to you anymore.
that's probably because you're quite stupid, anon.

[Anonymous No.20599168]

>>20599129
>RETARD
wow putting that in capitals sure showed him

[Anonymous No.20599182]

>>20596891
Plotinus dealt with the materialist many moons ago
>if you adopt a materialist worldview you make the claim that metaphysics essentially do not exist, and that all interactions are the result of matter interacting, such as atoms
>however, matter is always changing, yet no matter is ever created or destroyed
>if matter is constantly changing, then that means that matter has no form that could be considered a base, or an essence. matter can be anything that it transforms to
>therefore the interactions that govern the transformation of matter must be separate from the matter being shaped (forms)
>forms must be immaterial since matter is material, if forms were material they would cease to be intelligible due to a constant flux of how reality is constructed
>forms are not only separate from matter due to their immateriality, but superior to matter because matter must take on the ‘will’ of the form(s) that it is subject to, primarily the forms of magnitude, then other intelligible forms, all called emanations. this intelligibility of will is called “mind”
>mind and its forms have to be superior to matter, because we have already proven that matter is without essence or inherent attribute, meaning that the attributes of matter must come from some higher ideal than the matter as an individual thing. since we perceive the matter through the intelligible form we know this to be true
>emanations are constantly projecting outward into a more “concrete” form, which could be likened to density. solid matter like rock is the hardest density >water and gas is somewhere in the middle, visible light would be nearly immaterial
>emanations spring forth from one source necessarily
>it is necessary that emanations spring forth from one source due to the fact that each intelligible form takes possession of a lower form below it
>many forms may exist on the same playing field as pairs, opposites, and composites of superior forms
>forms exist as high as magnitude of an individual thing, as low as characteristics that one may describe something, like color
>since all the forms are immaterial, they are not subject to change, the form of “x” stays the same at all times while matter is permitted to change
>emanations can be imagined by progressive density
>the highest form possible would not only be immaterial, but it would have no attribute, because there is no higher form that can possess it, other than being the source of all others
>so it would exist and simultaneously not exist, existing due to the fact that all things come from it, not existing due to the fact that it has no attributes to ascribe to it, nor any time or place to give it. yet we also know it through the mere existence of everything that it is not
and if you really want to have fun, wait until you figure out that all matter is just increasingly densified light

[Anonymous No.20599183]

>>20599115
I just recognize the immaterialistic deceit for what it is. They start with the motive to justify the existence of things which clearly don't exist in reality (god/holy spirit being the most common example, with the context of christianity on this board) and since that's impossible to do they have to come up with convoluted rhetoric to bring down the materialistic worldview of physical reality, which developed only in the last few centuries because scientific revolution gave us a far superior understanding of how the physical world really works beyond what philosophy could offer.

If you can't see that using "abstract ideas inside the head" or "subjective experience" (again inside the head) as examples of things that are immaterial is such a weak argument then there's no helping. Let alone how will /lit/ make the jump from "abstract ideas and feelings" to "god that creates and runs the world", or Evola's magical occult secrets is beyond me.

I mean I could go the whole reductionist path with claiming that its all electrochemical reactions but I know it'll followed by some other comically forced argument of duality.

[Anonymous No.20599195]

>>20599164
You cannot even account for abstractions at all in a materialist worldview. What is “seven-ness”? How can a world of nothing more than what we perceive in sense data give an account for anything having the attributes associated with “seven-ness”? An immaterial “Seven-ness” would need to exist prior to being able to identify it, even just relationally, jn any real world object(s). Strict materialism cannot give an account of anything abstract at all.

[Anonymous No.20599199]

>>20599183
You’re trolling. No one is this stupid.

[Anonymous No.20599213]

>>20599195
It must be a relevation to you that human brain can come up with ideas.
>>20599199
I've only summarized what I've gathered from this conversation so far. The only reason I'm stooping so low as to use rhetoric here is because that's how I deal with dumb arguments. I've already refuted them so its better to just ponder on the whole thing

[Anonymous No.20599514]

>>20596891
For me the magic is in the divide between consciousness and reality. Perception is your reality, and the implications of that statement are pretty hard to really wrap the dome piece around. Food for thought I guess.

[Anonymous No.20599517]

>>20599079
Is the sun you see different from the sun I see?

[Anonymous No.20599526]

>>20599182
Meaningless schizobabble.