/sci/ - Science & Math

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

>>15082075
What’s false about it?

>>15082075
At below:
>>15082219

>>15082075
at no point. the idea that reality is fundamentally mental, is equivalent to the simulation hypothesis. untestable idea which makes no difference to our lives whether true or not. ultimately we still have to obey the material laws of the universe. no choice in the matter.

>>15082233
Same thing applies to physicalism. Untestable all the same. Time for you to reject it.

>>15082075
It's the default view of most scientists. No reason to think it's false.

>>15082241
materialism could be testable, if we could test for the necessity of a certain particle that was shown to be sufficient to produce the observed universe. not sure exactly how this would be carried out, but at least the object of experiment could possibly lie inside the simulation, and therefore be amenable to experiment. under idealism, you would need to go outside the system (universe), which is impossible.

>>15082251
But you can never know if that particle was sufficient, because the simulation has to run in this world, and if this world is non-physical, then non-physicality could be inherited in the simulation.

>>15082233
>which makes no difference to our lives whether true or not.
Ding ding ding. Only practicality matters, at the end of day. I'll never under why physicists even get the attention that they do. Almost all wankers from top to bottom. Engineers and chemists are the true masters of the universe for not getting so bogged down.

>>15082075
At the end point of infinity.

>>15082284
Who do you think discovered the principles on which the work of engineers and chemists depend on?

>>15082307
That was when they were determinists (valid or not, you can't argue with the amount of utility they brought to the world). Physics now sounds more like epistemology every day.

>>15082075
Our physical universe is an approximation to an infinitely more complicated underlying reality

>>15082352
Even I agree with that. It's just not useful and worth talking about all the time. Even the latest Nobel Prize was just awarded for this very thing (https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/2022/press-release/)), but it isn't going to amount to shit in serving any practical benefit to mankind.

>>15082366
Lel why are you talking about “practical benefits” in a thread that is clearly about abstract philosophy?

>>15082417
Because I can't beat your ass here. The best I have is ridicule.

>>15082427
Ooh, angsty. One would think a person more devoted to “practical” matters would exercise more restraint and control over their emotions.

>>15082432
Faggot talk. Anger is one of the most useful emotions. You're more lost than I thought.

>>15082437
>Anger is one of the most useful emotions
Use it. Strike me down. Complete your transformation. Give in to the anger, the hatred.

>>15082268
i have another issue with this idea. what does 'non-physical' actually mean? really to me, that's like saying 'nonexistent'. if the universe is dreamt up by a mind, that mind still has to have a physical existence of some kind. how could it possibly not have one?

>>15082284
I was worried about this post but then I read your other post >>15082317 . It's true, today too many physicists are like philosophers who don't actually advance our understanding. You know real advancements in understanding are made, when new tech is unlocked. Honestly I'm surprised that QM has given us any new tech because it's an inconsistent theory. I guess because it's not entirely wrong, just partially.

Physicists like Einstein are the good ones (yep, the determinists), and sadly yes they seem to be dwindling in numbers.

>>15082514
Try to think of physical or non-physical not in terms of something that exists or not exists, but rather different categories of the fundamental nature of reality.

The physical part of reality is the structure of say, a particle, and that the particle behaves according to some rules. Add a few fundamental rules and particles together, and from that emerges the macro-world, purely through functional behavior. A physicalist would say this is all there is to reality. Something non-physical would be something that is fundamentally different from that entire concept. Something not about how something behaves or about functional rules Something we can't clearly define in language, only vaguely get a sense of when we introspect about how consciousness seems different than physical stuff.

Years ago

>>15082233
How is it untestable? We have direct experience of mental states. We only know physical things as some sort of mental phenomena. There has never been observed anything non-mental and we cannot mention a single property of any thing that doesn't rely on some me tal sense. It reality is fundamentally mental there is no apparent problem to be solved. If it is physical then people need to do all sorts of mental gymnastics to claim that people don't actually experience anything and that it is just physical.

>>15082530
i don't like this take. there should only be one category - that which is. describing something that is undefinable seems like a dodge. nothing real should be undefinable, everything that exists should come under physics. that is the goal of physics, to fully describe the world.

if something is truly undefinable, then a good reason needs to be given as to why it is undefinable. then this whole story would be added to physics anyway.

>>15082075
When the actual consequences of mass-energy equivalence were revealed to me in a dream.

>>15082564
this now seems to be describing a subtly different kind of idealism - not the idea of one universal mind (universal idealism I believe it's called?), but the idea that we each independently dream up our own reality with our separate, mortal minds.

the problem doesn't go away if everything is classified as mental. the question just changes to "why does mental experience have this quality instead of any other quality we can imagine it having?"

>>15082233
>fundamentally mental
This is semantics but it's not "mental" it's "consciousness". The claim that reality is nothing but consciousness is actually grounded in reality because the only thing that is known IS consciousness. The material world is just an abstraction from consciousness and there's no proof of it even existing. You're not seeing a chair, you're seeing a variation of colours and a thought assigns "chair" to that variation but none of that is proof of the chair actually existing.
>untestable idea
Sure but that doesn't mean that it's false.
>ultimately we still have to obey the material laws of the universe
No you are confined by the laws dictated by consciousness.

>>15082284
>Only practicality matters
How is not understand the fundamental nature of reality not practical? At most we just don't know what to do with the information yet.

>>15082284
>Only practicality matters
How is understanding the fundamental nature of reality not practical? At most we just don't know what to do with the information yet.

>>15082839
You should watch this video where Feynman addresses your question.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8aWBcPVPMo

>>15082857
He didn't address my question at all because photons are still a part of the material world. Photons are nothing but a thought/concept that exists within consciousness.

>>15082868
You'll die of hunger soon

>>15082873
If someone tells you that you completely misunderstood what they were saying, doubling down on your point just makes you look like a retard.

Sorry I don't believe in ghosts and faries just because someone says they're real

>>15082882
So you also don't believe in the material world?

>>15082075
I didn't realize it was false at any point. How can it be false when it never even defines what it's about?

>>15082877
There's nothing there to misunderstand. Anyone who believes that there is nothing but consciousness is a retard who deserves to die from hunger as feynman pointed out.

>>15082857
He still doesn't actually answer the question other than mocking it. Really shows his sub-130 IQ with the way he pushes aside a question that he struggles to answer.

>>15082891
>He still doesn't actually answer the question other than mocking it
Mocking it is the correct answer.
>Really shows his sub-130 IQ with the way he pushes aside a question that he struggles to answer.
Lmao deluded schizo. Not worth talking to you.

>>15082885
It's verifiable and provable. There's no proof for immaterial consciousness or souls or whatever. Facts don't care about your feelings.

>>15082887
When did I, or anyone else, say that actions don't have consequences if the material world does not exist?

>>15082233
>untestable idea which makes no difference to our lives whether true or not.
Exactly the same is true of your materialistic dogma, except for the part where it forces you into claiming that consciousness is magic.

>>15082899
"anyone else", "actions", "consequences" are all meaningless terms to you. You don't even realize how dumb you sound.

>>15082896
Everything that you know about the material world is experienced through consciousness. Your hand is just a combination of colours, physical sensations etc. that are all experienced through consciousness. Does you hand materially exist in your dreams too? There is no proof of the materialism other than abstractions.

>>15082909
No they're not meaningless terms to me. Abstractions can be useful and I have no other choice.
Do you agree that the material world is an abstraction from consciousness? This does not mean that the material world does not exist, but it does mean that we don't know absolutely that it exists, unlike consciousness.

>>15082895
>Mocking it is the correct answer.
Something can be literally false but be advantageous for our survival. The question was about the truth, not practical advice. He didn't actually answer it but midwits found his answer satisfactory because he was funny.

>>15082922
The material worshipping troon is right. There is no value in rational discussions with nonsentients like him. The range of rational actions goes from easily-digestible propaganda to delegitimize and dehumanize them, to physical removal from society.

>>15082915
You have no choice? So you admit there's something other than you which is forcing you to act some way. Great, that's what everyone else calls the material world.
Abstraction of what? You can only talk of abstracting something which exists

>>15082922
Dumbfuck schizo.

>>15082895
>>15082922
Just to provide an analogy. Money doesn't actually have any value. The value is socially constructed. Responding to this with "Well if you don't use money then you won't be able to buy food and you'll starve" would be changing the subject.

>>15082912
It is only matter of time before it is known. If I head you over the head, you may lose consciousness and potentially get brain damaged, altering your whole personality. Under anaesthesia, consciousness is entirely gone with no dreams, no astral projection crap.

>>15082932
80 IQ take.

>>15082927
So you're here too. Start spamming your wojaks monkey

>>15082935
I will be here every time to remind newfags that you should be treated like the automated subhuman wastoid that you are. Don't you have some AGW doomsday thread to shill in?

>>15082937
Psychotic mental patient. Get your handlers (you love that word don't you?) to admit you in some hospital.

>>15082929
>You have no choice? So you admit there's something other than you which is forcing you to act some way. Great, that's what everyone else calls the material world.
Or consciousness
>Abstraction of what? You can only talk of abstracting something which exists
When you're dreaming, you are fully convinced that the world you're in materially exists. You believe that when your hand touches something, that this object actually exists. However you will agree with me when I say that the objects in your dream don't materially exists and are just a product of your mind. We experience reality in the exact same way while awake.

>>15082932
The exact same thing can happen in a dream too. That doesn't mean that the material world exists just because there seems to be correlation.

>>15082939
>Or consciousness
So your consciousness is forcing itself to be conscious in some other way than just being conscious? You're making no sense. I suggest medication.

>>15082937
Everyone's automated sweaty, free will is an illusion, no one is special, there's no special human soul or human condition

>>15082944
Consciousness "just exists" in the same way that you believe that the universe "just exists". But I suggest responding to my dream analogy and you tell me what you think is wrong with. I'm not saying that the physical world definitely doesn't exist. I'm saying that there's no proof of it existing.

>>15082938
Ukraine asked for it.

>>15082945
The clotshot is not safe.

>>15082951
Get sedated schizo

I swear reddit is a better place for actual scientific discussion these days

>>15082956
>I swear reddit is a better place
Go back.

>>15082956
>I swear reddit is a better place for actual scientific discussion these days
Dumb election tourist

>>15082951
>But I suggest responding to my dream analogy and you tell me what you think is wrong with
What's wrong with it is that you're already making a distinction between dreams and reality in that analogy despite claiming to prove the opposite. By making that distinction, you are conceding that a reality other than consciousness exists.

>>15083001
>you're already making a distinction between dreams and reality
No I didn't? I made the distinction between dreaming and being awake and I did so to try and convince you of a point. I never said that being awake was more "real" than the dream, in fact I implied the opposite.
You keep on deflecting without properly answering my questions. Do you agree that you're only experiencing the material world through consciousness? This does not mean that you're agreeing to the material world not existing. How is your belief in the material world more grounded while you're "awake" than when you're "dreaming". Answer the questions directly.

A lot of children had this "whoaaa, how can I know if my red is the same as other people's red?" moment but then they grew up. I suggest you schizos take this qualia shit to /x/

>By making that distinction, you are conceding that a reality other than consciousness exists.

>take this qualia shit to /x/
>having an internal experience is /x/
>i don't have it and neither do (You)

>>15083020
>how can I know if my red is the same as other people's red?"
This is off-topic and not what we're talking about. These children still believe in the material world. Also just because people stop having certain thoughts when they're older that doesn't mean that these thoughts are stupid. People tend to question reality less when they're older but this doesn't mean that these questions are stupid.

Free will and consciousness are trivially obvious to those who experience them, but seem irrational and impossible to those who are lacking them. The majority of humans are NPC.

>>15083044
>The majority of humans are NPC.
Wrong. Only a minority of specially conditioned Westernized drones are consciousness-denying determitards. Don't attribute to humanity what stems from ZOG intensive programming.

>>15082904
emergent consciousness is no more magical than emergent matter

>>15083044
Alcoholics see pink elephants, doesn't mean they're real. Please next thing you'll do will probably be invoking "quantum mechanics" to salvage free will (which is logically incoherent anyway)
>>15083048
Lol so you are invoking "noble savage" myth
Please next thing you'll be telling will be that Zeus is responsible for lightning

>>15083048
>determitards

so you're an indeterminist? you believe that the future isn't determined by anything? aka something from nothing?

>>15083061
>Lol so you are invoking "noble savage" myth
No, I'm just saying you will never be human.

>>15083019
>How is your belief in the material world more grounded while you're "awake" than when you're "dreaming"
Because I can wake up from dreams. Do you seriously have trouble accepting this?

>>15083059
>retard doubles down on his appeals to magic
Reality isn't Minecraft. It doesn't have a build system. This is a science board. Please go back.

>>15083062
>so you're an indeterminist? you believe that the future isn't determined by anything? aka something from nothing?
I like how your strawmen get progressively more nonsensical with each sentence.

>>15083024
>>15083029
>>15083044
Good monkey, keep posting more and I'll tell your handlers to give you a banana

>>15083048
Someone who has free will wouldn't fall for this programming. Most people don't have free will.

>>15083061
Quantum mechanics is indeed logically incoherent, precisely because its models don't account for consciousness yet.

>>15083071
ultimately you still need to build matter from consciousness which is just as tricky as vice versa. you don't get to just say "consciousness creates it", you have to describe how exactly.

>>15083072
say what you are then, if that's not what you're claiming

>>15083079
>ultimately you still need to build matter from consciousness which is just as tricky as vice versa.
No, it isn't just as tricky. Their metaphysics is useless but very elegant. Your metaphysics is useless but also pants-on-head retarded and laughable.

>>15083077
>Quantum mechanics is indeed logically incoherent, precisely because its models don't account for consciousness yet.
Why would QM account for consiousness? General relativity doesn't either. It's a physical framework, not a neuroscientific one.

>>15083087
I don't see the elegance but ok

>>15083088
Attributing consciousness to neuroscience is categorical error.

>>15083089
>I don't see the elegance
That's because you're nonsentient.

>>15083083
>say what you are then
Someone who is nauseated by your vile corporate neoreligion and its openly anti-human agenda.

>>15083093
>>15083087
You'll have to post wojaks if you want the banana, monkey

>>15083092
ok, have your own brain removed then. it won't affect consciousness because they're completely separate things, right?

>>15083095
Someone is living rent-free in your head.

No, matter doesn't come from your consciousness. No matter how hard you strain, you can't manipulate your physical form or levitate objects with your mind.

>>15083094
nice dodge bro :)

>>15083096
Loads and loads of creatures die every day and yet conscciousness doesn't go anywhere. Your worldview is framed in retarded terms and you can't seem to fathom that you are only undermining your views and not his.

>>15083097
Pretending that you don't want the banana won't work

>>15083105
What am I dodging, drone? I reject your false dichotomy and I don't have a metaphysics to shill. I'm just shitting all over your corporate agenda.

>>15083106
their consciousness clearly disappears. there isn't one unified consciousness, there are many individual ones. but you still haven't addressed the problem i posed to you. remove all of, or any portion of your brain and it should have zero effect on consciousness, according to you.

>>15083106
>other people and animals die but it doesn't affect living entities, checkmate atheists
Cool troll logic

>>15083109
> I'm just shitting all over
Dirty monkey, no banana for you

>>15083096
>it's another episode of NPC not knowing the sender/receiver analogy
Sigh, yikes and sneed

>>15083109
what's the third option, after being determined by something, vs being determined by nothing? no such thing as any third option.

>>15083117
>their consciousness clearly disappears
>their
Again, you are arguing against your own braindamaged model of reality, not against idealism.

>>15083124
in that case you would be wrong, since the antenna theory would still entail a deep connection between neuroscience and consciousness, so it wouldn't be a category error

>>15083127
>show me a third option
>but in the context of my false dichotomy and its basic assumptions

>>15083129
Listening to a radio doesn't tell you how the radio works internally. Neuroimaging won't show you the quantum effects in the brain.

>>15083128
>there is only one universal mind

not only is this not the only version of idealism, it is also just obviously false. clearly we each experience our own consciousness which are each separate from the others. the only way to get out of this is to commit to solipsism. you can do that but then you're just a solipsist, and secondarily an idealist.

>>15083136
Once again you are arguing with some voices in your head and disputing your own retarded concepts.

>>15083136
Can I ask you to please stop bothering my pet monkey? he is shitting himself right now

>>15083130
so you don't have a third option to show that it's not a dichotomy. i thought not

>>15083134
we already see quantum effects in the brain because brains are made of standard, baryonic matter, not any special kind of matter that violates the principles of QM

>>15083141
>so you don't have a third option
The third option is that neither is true. You're just too mentally underdeveloped to comprehend that this is an option, so you always revert back to "how can there be a third option if it's not the two options I've been programmed with".

>>15083148
ok, so what is your third option? you need one if you want to disprove a dichotomy.

>>15083150
>if you want to disprove a dichotomy.
Why would I need to "disprove" your dichotomy? You are genuinely mentally challenged...

>>15083152
because you're the one who claimed that it's a false dichotomy. and no, "it's neither" isn't a valid answer, this is just a rephrasing of "it isn't a dichotomy".

waiting for your third option.

>>15083154
>you're the one who claimed that it's a false dichotomy
It's a false dichotomy on account of the fact that you could reject the premises of the framework that gives rise to this dichotomy in the first place without contradicting any logical or empirical givens. Case closed.

>>15083162
dodge. no third option provided. you should be able to provide a third option regardless of my premises. it's clear you can't do it

>>15083175
You are mentally ill.

>>15082628
Yeah I hold the position of occasionalism. But it would involve a certain universal mind. Mental things that people share in common. Experiences of how a floor feels and so on.

And in occasionalism it makes sense that mental experiences have a certain quality presented to us and not some other. Habits of God or habits of the world that presents the mental phenomena you observe.

>>15082606
>i don't like this take. there should only be one category
Sure, ontologically there might only be 1 fundamental nature to reality, but it need not be physical or mental, but something else which encompasses both. But that doesn't mean we can't make categories to distinguish those different features of it, until we have uncovered the deepest layer, if that even is possible. On the other hand, I should point out that some sort of dualism could also be true, and ultimately the universe might not give a fuck about our preference for it to be simple.

>describing something that is undefinable seems like a dodge
Key point is that it's undefinable in language, not conceptually.

>>15083103
Do you honestly believe people who are non-physicalist believe that? First step to actually disagree with something is to understand what you're disagreeing with.

>>15083933
Umm sweaty, let me tell you what you actually believe.

>>15082075
https://vitrifyher.wordpress.com/2020/01/05/what-i-mean-by-saying-that-i-am-in-a-simulation/

>>15082075
Read pic related

>>15084206
Hate Bernardo so much. His argument is not convincing at all.

>>15084658
I knew when he came on the scene about 6 or 7 years ago that midwits were going to latch onto him like ants on piece of discarded candy.

>>15083933
I keep seeing idealists insisting that, yet they often talk like it's true. anyway, idealism still needs to explain why the world is how it is, with all its constraints, just like any other theory would need to.

>>15082075
I read his book and wasn't too impressed.

>>15083925
physicalists seem to mostly agree that there can be no mind without a more fundamental brain. do idealists really hold both the views that our brains produce our minds, but also reality as a whole is created by a big mind that has no big brain on which it depends? these two ideas aren't strictly contradictory, but there seems to be a tension between them.

>>15082909
As a transient, you /sci/ regulars sound like a bot when you do one or two sentence ad hominem attacks while not adding to the conversation. I've seen a hundred or more posts with exactly the same structure for years. It actually kind of scares me. It hurts my brain because it's like a machine hitching and sputtering but not flowing.

>>15083069
If we're lucky, that's what dying is. Waking up.

phenomenalism divorced of function is retarded. fact we can physically talk about consciousness instantly falsifies it.

>>15082233
>which makes no difference to our lives whether true or not
>implying

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvNnYFP8xpc

>>15085158
TLDR please?

>>15085020
Simplify the point that you're making, please

>>15082233
>material laws of the universe. no choice in the matter.
Another made up idea. There are no laws there are only patterns.

Yes the "natural" world is a world of laws just like our oppressive society! Of course physics is ruled by laws because society is ruled by law and society is the RIGHT way of the world. The universe simply reflects the values of society! Obviously this is the truth! I mean what do YOU think life is? Like your stupid kiddie CARTOONS!?

>>15085980
Patterns imply constraints. You sound homogay.

>>15085985
Patterns are just patterns. They don't have to last forever.

>>15085986
>They don't have to last forever.
May or may not be true but either way irrelevant. Patterns imply constraints.

>>15082075
when i realized i couldnt justify logic via logic without begging the question

>>15085990
Who cares? My hometown isn't the same my relatives are dying. The Earth is being destroyed. But the law is the law it will be there forever because uh... a Jew told me so once.

>>15085994
Take your meds.

>>15085993
And that was also the point when you realized that you are logically a tranny.

>>15085997
Ok Computer

when i started reading about the ontological status of abstracts such as logic

>>15085994
>Who cares?
myself, as well as all decent scientists.

>>15085170
>If you might be living in a simulation then all else equal you should care less about others, live more for today, make your world look more likely to become rich, expect to and try more to particpate in pivotal events, be more entertaining and praiseworthy, and keep the famous people around you happier and more interested in you.

https://mason.gmu.edu/~rhanson/Lifeinsim.html

>>15086244
don't see how those are goals exclusive to a simulated life. they seem irrelevant to the question

>>15086244
>the universe is heckin' simulated therefore you should double, triple and quadruple down on the corporate-controlled golem lifestyle
The mask slipped a little.

>>15082075

When I realized it could not explain the most basic fact of my consciousness. It is a load of garbage if it can't explain that.

>>15084686

An idealist would say the brain and body are what you mental life look like from another conscious perspective. They don't do anything. They are images of the inner mental life.

>>15082882
Funny how you use words, that were made up, to communicate that you don't believe in something that's imaginative in nature, namely ghosts and fairies, and then think that you actually have any point at all. You can't disprove or prove the existance of God or any kind of thing like it.

You should stop using language if you don't understand how it was made.

>>15084665

Idealism is a metaphysics, not a scientific theory. I don't think it is the role of a metaphysics to make precise models of the world, that is the job of science.

>>15083059
>emergent consciousness

Your framing is wrong.

In Idealism, consciousness is the ontological primitive. It is the bedrock, so consciousness does not emerge from anything.

>>15086891
if idealism is that, then it's just word salad that offers absolutely no valid explanation of our world and doesn't move the conversation forward
the survival of your body including your brain is the ultimate imperative and your death is the worst thing that can happen to you, so everyone struggles to continue living despite some notable exceptions
brain ailments can erase your mental life and make you unrecognizable personality-wise
on the other hand, science can't adequately and convincingly explain the beginning (and the presumed end) of this world, which is why metaphysics will always be relevant

>if idealism is that, then it's just word salad that offers absolutely no valid explanation of our world and doesn't move the conversation forward

What are you looking for in an explanation of the world? Idealism solves the hard problem of consciousness by demonstrating that the world can be made sense of coherently with reference to just consciousness as the only category of thing. That moves us forward by not entertaining a metaphysics that inherently doesn't account for consciousness.

If you are looking for models of reality, that is the job of science. A metaphysics isn't supposed to model reality.

>the survival of your body including your brain is the ultimate imperative and your death is the worst thing that can happen to you, so everyone struggles to continue living despite some notable exceptions

I'm not sure what you're getting it, ngl.

Death in Idealism is the dissolution of your mental structure (which appears as a body) into the universal mind. There is death in idealism in that sense. Evolution has shaped our conscious perceptions from the universal mind in order to keep our mental structure from dissolving into the universal mind.

>>15086891
iif they don't do anything then damage to them won't affect your mental life. but it does.

>>15086950
i know, in idealism matter is what's emergent, which is what i implied. emergent consciousness is the physicalist view

Haven't yet, but I do have a question for idealist, in that how do you avoid devolving into solipsism?

>>15087238
>iif they don't do anything then damage to them won't affect your mental life. but it does.

In Idealism, the brain is the [image] of a particular conscious process associated with you.

When I use a hammer (another conscious process), that hammer interacts with your conscious process (what appears as the brain) and a new image is associated with the change in conscious processes from the interaction (the image we see as a damaged brain).

>>15087352
I don't really understand your explanation.

anyway, it seems like the idealist argument is that life is some dream of another external mind, so basically a simulation hypothesis. the only way to verify this is if you ever "wake up" after death. so verifying idealism can't ever be done in this reality.

>>15086244
I love that the most batshit human beings in all existence call themselves "rationalists."

>we bark at the mailman
>we enjoy chasing cars
>also we are cats

>>15087373

I may expound on it in the morning.

Correct. The type of Idealism I refer to is that of a universal mind with embedded minds within it. Like whirlpools in an ocean.

I don't like the simulation comparison because that implies something computational, but I'm only talking about consciousness. Simulation also implies a simulator. I think the universal mind that surrounds us isn't some scientist, conjuring other minds in a rigorous way.

Reports of NDEs (near death experiences) do align with the implications of Idealism.

When /sci/ was calling bodhi schizo when he would talk about it. /sci/ is always wrong about everything

>>15082075
When I realized qualia -- the current experience I am having -- are unaccounted for extra information, according to physicalism. Even epiphenomenalists can't weasel their way out of the fact that the idea that qualia just spontaneously warp into existence upon a certain trigger is met. This is extra energy/information (we might coin a new term for this). Forget about the "how" and "why", simply answer: where does this come from? It can't be from the energy budgets of the individual particles.

So I am now panpsychist.

>>15088209
Same except the panpsychist part. Along with the vertiginous question it makes me think we have some kind of "souls" no matter which religion is right or not.
It's fucking wild that anyone would deny subjective experience when that's all we can rely on, all objectivity ultimately trickles down there.

>>15087602
bodhi is schizo nonetheless

>>15083127
>>15083130
NAYRT but there's really only 3 possibilities
1) Determined by something else
2) Determined by nothing ( true randomness)
3) Self-determined
Of course this only applies to the most fundamental level of reality. Physicalists would say 2 and 3 aren't happening.
Non-physicalists believe that because a complex system made up of groups of the fundamental "things" ( such as consciousness/mind ) can influence itself, that means 3 is possible.

>>15088421
>NAYRT but there's really only 3 possibilities
Prove it.

>>15088425
trivially true you deranged sophist.
>Hurr durr prove 1 + 1 = 2 I am so profound

>>15088430
>trivially true
The retard you're trying to refute likewise claims his dichotomy is "trivially true". Try >>>/lgbt/ where your emotional tantrums won't be so out of place.

>>15088439
ok retard, go ahead and explain how something that's not determined by itself, determined by nothing, or determined by other somethings.
That encompasses every possible relationship something can have.

>>15088448
Burden of proof is on you, tard.

>>15088567
I'm not going to write a formal proof for basic logic that's practically (c != 0 || c == 0). This is your last (you), nigger

>>15088603
Not an argument. Why do you make claims you can't support?

>>15082075
GPT post. The same exact thread with the same words and the picture of the same dude was posted months ago. I can't believe I fell already for a GPT post last time.
CLOSE THE THREAD.

>>15088637
GPT post. The same exact thread with the same words and the picture of the same dude was posted months ago. I can't believe I fell already for a GPT post last time. DELETE THIS POST.

So non-physicalists are basically the guy who tells you you're doing it wrong but can't provide how you're actually supposed to do it? Sound like a bunch of useless douchebags.

>>15088652
>So non-muslims are basically the guy who tells you you're doing it wrong but can't explain who caused the big bang? Sound like a bunch of useless douchebags.

>>15088661
non-muslims have by definition the advantage when seeking the truth, so your counterexample is horrible

>>15089099
> your counterexample is horrible
It's as horrible as your "logic" since it takes the exact same form, but I should know better than to expect a midwit to correctly grasp the relevant parallels of an analogy.

>>15087472
some things may not be computable, but everything is computational, no exceptions.

if there are minds within a mind, then those sub-minds must behave purely according to the rules of the big mind.

>>15089107
the non-physicalist example wasn't mine, idiot, but what I said about your counterexample still stands. islam is the worst option followed closely by judaism and christianity, although christianity can be salvageable because it was formed on the fertile soils of ancient philosophy
that said, whether one is a physicalist or not doesn't matter because neither can grasp infinity and nothingness, since it's a hard limit humans cannot go beyond

>>15088637
It does not matter (besides 1% of difference) on a board like /sci/ if the thread starter is AI generated or reposted or just some automated script, your imbecile.

You can immediately see why, right? Do I have to break down why? How can you be so autistic so as to me having to explain human dynamics to you?

>>15088237
your mom is schizo

>>15085158
What if we're simulating ourselves?

>>15089850
and your mom is meds