/sci/ - Science & Math

i am a material girl

>>15178256
just as you are not a girl, you are also not material

>>15178252
Materialism isn't even the standard view of modern science. I think you mean to attack Physicalism. They're two distinct definitions and attacking Materialism is akin to attacking physicians for believing in miasmas and omens as a cause of disease.

>>15178252
That's synonymous with "stop being a nigger"

>>15178286
You're correct that materialism is not the standard view of modern science, even though many science popularizers portray it otherwise. I use the terms materialism and physicalism interchangeably, many experts and lay people us the terms that way as stated in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. What I mean by materialism/physicalism is the belief that everything is material/physical.

>>15178288
checked

>materialism is le wrong
>chromosomes do not le exist
>gender is le arbitrary construct
>I am a woman because I define myself a woman
Is idealism the ultimate tranny cope?

>>15178305
Idealists believe chromosomes are real. Men are men and women are women. It is the dualists who believe the body is distinct from the mind and so they believe you can be a "woman in a man's body". Idealists do not believe this is possible because the body is one with the mind.

>>15178252
What does that mean?

>>15178324
Materialism (physicalism) is the belief that everything is material (physical). If you believe this is true then you should stop believing it's true.

>>15178327
What counts as physical? Your brain thinks because of electronic patterns match other similar patterns that would result if you actually encountered them. Would thoughts and dreams count as physical then?

>>15178252
how about you try and stop me faget

>>15178252
I will, the very moment you show me a non-material.

>>15178252
What is a materialist?
>>15178286
What is physicalism?

>>15178346
>What counts as physical?
That's a good question and it's one that is known among scholars as The Condition Question. I'm not entirely sure what exactly is supposed to count as physical and I don't think materialists do a good job of answering this question for us.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/#CondQues

>>15178252
Materialism is inherently stupid. A human consciousness, for example, is every bit as real as a "physical object", yet itself has no physical manifestation.

>>15178327
If it occupies physical space in the form encoding in a physical structure and is manipulable like a physical structure, how is it not material? What does it mean for something to be physical/material?

>>15178378
That's not how the burden of proof works. The materialist must prove that anything at all is material in the first place and until they meet their burden then we don't have to believe that anything is material to begin with.
>>15178380
A materialist is someone who believes in materialism. Physicalism and materialism are synonymous, it is the belief that everything is material/physical.

>>15178385
The human is the physical manifestation. Maybe a computer. Or are you asking what physical components/mechanisms of a human correspond to what is defined as consciousness?

>>15178385
true

>>15178387
>What does it mean for something to be physical/material?
See this: >>15178382
>how is it not material?
would you say objects in dreams are actual physical objects? They appear to occupy space and such.

>>15178393
>would you say objects in dreams are actual physical objects? They appear to occupy space and such.
Yes. While they are not bound by all of the physical parameters humans are, they do interact as physical objects according to how humans think they should.

>>15178252
Shut up Jew and buy my Martian gold. Everyone knows how much you want more gold.

>>15178396
A better way to put it, abstractions or imaginary objects are like electricity. They carry a physical influence as encoding in the constituents of what responds to them. They're as material/physical as electricity, like a transverse wave.

>>15178382
Is there a third option because without knowing what does or doesn't count I can't pick an option.
>>15178396
>according to
But that assumes a human knows how those interactions will go. So they very well could not have those laws apply in said thoughts.

>>15178391
>The human is the physical manifestation.
Of the consciousness? No, a human has consciousness, can access consciousness, but is not *equal* to that consciousness. A human is just a living thing, physically a network of cells.
>Or are you asking
I didn't ask anything.

>>15178256
post tits

>>15178408
They're a part of the human so their bound by the humans rules/laws. Humans are a part of the earth because their bound by the earth's rules/laws.

>>15178396
>>15178405
I see your point, but doesn't that point apply to waking life as well? I get the idea of an electric representation of a chair in a dream, and the electrical activity that generates that imagery in the brain is itself physical, but we wouldn't say there truly is an actual wooden physical chair in our dreams. That's insane. Chairs in a dream may feel like wood, but that's just a representation created by the brain. However this applies to waking life as well, which could also be said to undermine the idea that anything we experience is actually a concrete physical thing instead of some representation in the mind.

>>15178410
The physical manifestation of consciousness would then be the network of cells. Or more so the network.

>>15178416
>human so their bound by the humans rules/law
Again a human can change the law. An apple that floats or juice that is dry.

>>15178423
>Again a human can change the law
In the same way a human can change earth's laws, the same way an abstraction can change a human's laws. Its a piece of the human until it takes over or steers the human.

>>15178419

>>15178419
Think of a computer. If I have a virtualization of the computer on itself as a virtual box, is that virtualization an abstract or physical object? It has access to the same hardware the external computer does.

>>15178428
The abstraction doesn't need to change anything. The human thinks so it follows. If the human counters the law of earth then the thought counters but cannot exist since it is not there so unable to change anything. Even the human still follows the earths law since his action is separate the cycle of human-earth interactions.

>>15178433
If you're not intelligent enough to answer the question or present an actual counter argument to the point being made then your IQ must be way lower than 89.

>>15178421
>The physical manifestation of consciousness would then be the network of cells.
I'm guessing you mean the brain specifically? No one would think there is any consciousness in the elbows, for instance.
>Or more so the network.
Perhaps. Then, the cells physically present a network, which on its own is an abstract mathematical entity. Similarly consciousness exists only in an abstract, non-physical modality.

>>15178433
What is this website? I keep seeing people use it as a gotcha for posts.

>>15178380
>>15178380
materialism is the belief that the primary substance out of which the world is made are bodies with extension.

>>15178445
Photoshop.

>>15178442
>No one would think there is any consciousness in the elbows, for instance.
If the elbow cells are the same cells as the brain's differentiated in a different direction, can consciousness be said to exist in the elbows? A game of semantics, but they do have observable or tangible effects.

>>15178388
>That's not how the burden of proof works.
You're incorrect as usual!
There has yet to be any conclusive evidence of the existence of any non-material thing.

>>15178442
Does the mapping of the network itself count as an entity? The map occupying a memory taking up space within the cells?

>>15178440
If humans can influence or change the earth's laws, are they still laws?

>>15178464
Yes because they aren't changing them because the abstraction isn't happening on earth because it's laws can be changed.

>>15178441
the software took an unbiased, randomly selected sample of your writing and that was the number it returned. seeing that number made you angry because of your preposterous presumptions about your own intellect.

>>15178467
I meant in human to earth interactions putting aside the abstraction for moment.

>>15178460
Clarify what exactly do you mean by the "mapping"?

>>15178474
>putting aside the abstraction for moment.
Then what is the point of this then? The idea is about if abstractions are real? Talk about if laws or rules can be changed or not is kinda side stepping. All I want to know is if abstraction can count as physical. While it does exist because of electronic patterns does it mean it is one to one with the atomic version.

>>15178480
Like an engraving or inscription the the cell refers or calls upon to replicate or repeat the action?

>>15178487
What engraving/inscription exactly? I don't follow

>>15178486
Fair enough. They both occupy atomic forms and are symmetrical or entrained to each other. Does that qualify?
>>15178495
A physical structure embedded within a physical structure.

>>15178495
Oh I mean a molecular or atomic engraving. Like the physical structure of the atom or molecule carries weight at a macro level.

>>15178504
>carries weight
I don't know exactly what you mean by that, you need to use more precise language.

>>15178508
The configuration of molecules at an atomic level influences or controls a chain of interactions corresponding to repeated calling of a behavior within the cell.

>>15178512
What sorts of behavior? And, what's your question/point exactly?

>>15178517
The shape of a molecule produces steric effects. The effects produce structures microscopically and macroscopically. Are the macroscopic structures considered real/material where the microscopic structures are considered abstract/imaginary? This makes me wonder if the physical vs non-physical or real vs abstract question is about what our senses can detect.

>>15178472
So let me get this straight: you're saying my post is low IQ but apparently you are so much lower in IQ that you can't answer my question or provide a counter argument. Thanks for admitting your IQ is lower than 89.

>>15178533
To put it simply, everything is just logical structures, and physical objects are just particular manifestations of them.
The fundamental question is, why this universe, and why these objects.

>>15178252
Materialists have never been able to adequately answer Benj Hellie's vertiginous question.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertiginous_question
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTtxwHQ_fYQ

>>15178498
I guess. It feels kinda too obtuse. Saying I'm a materialist because the soul alters the body so is real. Like I'm side stepping an important part. Still, difference between magic and technology is how much you know.

>>15178550
>physical objects are just particular manifestations of them
I should say, physical objects are just manifestations of particular kinds of logical structures, obviously not all logical structures have physical form.

>>15178553
TL;DW:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLBuXwZ0dLA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B80baKZis5I

David Pearce's argument for non-materialist physicalism:

https://www.physicalism.com/

>Natural science promises a complete story of the universe. No "element of reality" should be missing from the mathematical formalism of physics, i.e. relativistic quantum field theory or its more speculative extension, M-theory. On pain of magic, every gross property of the natural world must be theoretically reducible to fundamental physics. The Standard Model in physics is experimentally well tested. Within its conceptual framework, consciousness would seem not only causally impotent but physically impossible. Hence the "explanatory gap" and the Hard Problem of consciousness.

>In recent years, a minority of researchers have proposed that the Hard Problem is an artifact of materialist metaphysics. Contra Kant, but following Schopenhauer, Bertrand Russell, Grover Maxwell, Michael Lockwood, Galen Strawson, et al., the new idealists conjecture that the phenomenology of one's mind reveals the intrinsic nature of the physical – the elusive "fire" in the equations about which physics is silent. Mathematical physics yields an exhaustive description of the relational-structural properties of the world. This description may ultimately be encoded by the universal wavefunction of post-Everetta quantum mechanics: our best mathematical description of reality. However, our presupposition that the intrinsic character of the physical lacks phenomenal properties is an additional metaphysical assumption. The assumption is hugely plausible, but it's not a scientific discovery. Perhaps most tellingly, the only part of the "fire" in the equations to which one ever enjoys direct access, i.e. one's own consciousness, discloses phenomenal properties that are inconsistent with a materialist ontology. For reasons unexplained, the natural world contains first-person facts. The world supports at least one non-zombie. And natural science gives no reason to believe that one is special.

>>15178486

>>15178588
You are so low in IQ that you can't answer a single question or provide a single rebuttal.

>>15178454
What is energy?

>>15178454
All you're doing is saying I'm incorrect with no justification. You're failing to understand that the burden of proof is on the claimant. That means if you want to claim that any material things exist then the burden of proof is on you to justify your claim. Prove to me that anything is actually physical. If you can't meet your burden then I don't have to believe your claim.

>>15178557
Perhaps the link is in what they're both made of. Both are entangled or dependent because they products of the same constituent. Is what makes both the body and soul real or unreal?

>>15178558
>>15178550
I think its in the extent/distance of their interactions. The universe is the universe because it ubiquitous in interactions. Perhaps the closest contender interaction wise is physical objects while abstract objects are farther contenders.

>>15178599
Energy is what objects possess and use to interact supposedly.

>>15178388
>Physicalism and materialism are synonymous
wrong

>>15178616
Then the question is, why are there any interactions, and why those particular interactions?

>>15178562
>the indication of pressure isn't the indication yet of anything mental at all
The nerves are the mind though, and can activate without touch being applied.

>>15178635
Interactions after a certain point look to blend together or stem from the same genealogy. Whether that's the case as consequence of the human sensory system or not, that depends on what the sensory system is. As to the why, that presumes every action needs a cause or origin.

>>15178654
That presumes every action has a cause or origin, whatever those are.

>>15178610
Then this leads down to the question of what is base? The absolute smallest, simplest unit which everything is made.
I think we're missing ourselves. The question should not be real vs unreal since we lack any true concrete evidence nor the ability to test these with any finite results. The question should be tits or ass?

>>15178666
I an ass man, and I think how we defined made is part of the issue. Somewhere in our reasoning, we define something by itself causing unbound or infinite consequences.

>>15178553
I posted this here years ago but until now none of you were able to understand what it meant
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMsoIFt-Yj4https

>>15178726
Can you break it down in terms the layman can understand instead of expecting one to sit through a whole lecture?

>>15178726
Can you condense or break it down in terms the layman can understand?

>>15178730
it isnt a lecture, just listen and enjoy, stop thinking with your mind and listen with your soul

>>15178733
it's already simple all you have to is experience it

one of the greatest song writers of all time >>15178726 If you listen to his albums all the questions of life can be revealed to you (if you are an initiate) to an npc it may as well be latin

>>15178630
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy states otherwise. Quote:
>"Physicalism is sometimes known as ‘materialism’. Indeed, on one strand to contemporary usage, the terms ‘physicalism’ and ‘materialism’ are interchangeable."
Source: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/#Term

>>15178742
It is what it is until its not. Stop trying to twist it and enjoy it?

>>15178752
>song writer
the answers to life mysteries are often in the places you would least expect to find them. Many people in the entertainment industry are much more educated on deep topics than the laymen would assume. The answers are rarely if ever in your textbooks, search for wisdom but searching for the wise, not where you are told to find it. Shakti sends you the symbols and answers everywhere once you have eyes to see them.

https://youtu.be/z2UHLMVr4vg

>>15178758
The anger of one is the joy of another? Who is negative and who is positive?

>>15178764
I didnt come here to give you all the answers to this life. I did come here willing to help down to path to discover them for yourself however. This is how it is done, how it has always been done. You arent initiated by being told things to memorize, you are initiated by following the clues to have your epiphany, to experience it for yourself hence why I posted a song and not a link to wikipedia. You found that on your own, you would have found it much sooner if you had listened to the understood the song when I posted it years ago kek

>>15178764
stop being in such a rush to get the answer, take the steps on the path to understand the question and yourself. Sorry I am not trying to LARP as some sage and cryptic monk but this is how it has to be done. When you get there you will understand why

>>15178764
you cannot transfer your experience onto someone else, you show them steps for them to have their own experience, if that makes sense. Just stay on the path, for those who knock the door opens

>>15178764
here have another dave song, a reaaaaaaaaaal good one
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrwWhFXeSJU

this fucking song is amazing, if you ever get to see DMB live do not miss it, I have been to over 20 live shows of theirs all over the country, thank me later

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Me2f25Cn_Go

"look for the answers in the cracks of the sidewalk"

fuck this song is so good

>>15178780
If all comes from the same field, don't we all have the same experience? How do you understand that I need to have experiences of my own?

See, I'm leaving
This warehouse frightens me
Has me tied up in knots
Can't rest for a moment
Soon I'm going
I'm slippin' slow away
Hoping to find something better than
I've got inside of here
And the warehouse slips away
Hey, reckless mind
Don't throw away your playful beginnings
You and I will fumble around
In the touches and be sure to
Leave all the lights on
So we can see the black cat changing colours
And we can walk under ladders
And swim as the tide turns you around and around
Hey, we have found
Becoming one in a million
Slip into the crowd
This question I found in a gap in the sidewalk
Keep all your sights on, hey
The black cat changing colours
And you can walk under ladders
And swim as the tide choose to turn you 'round
But I say life goes on
End of tunnel, T.V. set
Spot in the middle
Static fade, statistical bit
Soon, I'll fade away, I'll fade away
But this I admit
Tastes so good, hard to believe an end to it
Smell, touch, feel
How could this rhythm ever quit?
Bags packed on a plane
Hopefully to Heaven, yeah
Shut up, I'm thinking
I had a clue, now it's gone forever
Sitting over these bones
You can read in whatever you're needing to
Keep all your sights on
Yeah, man, the black cat changing colours
When it's not the colours that matter
But that they'll all fade away, yeah, yeah, yeah
Life, life goes on
End of tunnel, T.V. set
Spot in the middle
Static fade, statistical bit
Soon I'll fade away, I'll fade away
This I admit seems so good
Hard to believe an end to it
Warehouse is bare
Nothing at all inside of it
The walls and halls have disappeared
They've disappeared, yeah
Oh, I'd love to stay, yeah
Oh, I'd love to stay, yeah
Oh, I'd love to stay, yeah
Oh, I'd love to stay, yeah
In a corner was wondering
If a change could be better than this
Oh, and then I worry
Maybe things won't be better than they have been
Here in the warehouse
In the warehouse
In the warehouse

Oh, how I'd love to stay here
At the warehouse
Every man and woman, get alive
That's our blood down there
Seems poured from the hands of angels
But trickle into the ground
Leaves the warehouse bare and empty
And my heart's numbered beat
Still echo in this empty room
And fear wells in me
But nothing seems enough to defend
So I am going away, I am going away
I'm not giving in

>>15178286
>Physicalism
Yeah, this was a cope of materialist when there arose things like information that were just obviously not made of matter or energy so they switched to 'physicalism'. see pic. Then they tried to use shannonian quantifications and Landauerian conceptions of information to claim that information is 'physical'. Comepleatly circular when you dig into it.

>>15178795
obviously we dont, does your partitioned hard drive have the same operating system as the other partition? defeats the purpose of partitioning it doesnt it?

gateway and tesla physics
hyperdimensional mind over mater consciousness field
pretty much a big computer
machine elf processes in hyperspace
full reality control
ufos use these physics as well, mechanical brains
a lot of telepathy

>>15178833

>>15178831
>Does your partitioned hard drive have the same operating system as the other partition.
Depends on how you look at it. They both use the same hardware.

>>15178844
once you are on the path and you are able to think back, you will see everything in your life was leading you ti, you just couldnt recognize it yet. 1000's of tiny things you saw or experienced and thought "this means something" but you werent sure what so over time you forgot about it. All those little experiences will all make sense some day

>>15178252
no, materialism is the most reasonable view. stop rejecting materialism.

>namefag is up his own ass again

>>15178346
If you can measure it, it's physical.

>>15178252
So I should be dumb instead?

>>15178851
>materialism is the most reasonable vi-

>>15178385
this reminds me of the rebuttal we were taught in school (commie eastern european country) against solipsism, "if you don't believe the ground is really there, just jump off from a tower and see for yourself" (teacher attributed it to Lenin). I mean, both "arguments" are worse than puerile. there are material systems, there are states of those systems and there are abstractions we use to make sense of them. neither support ezoteric shit.

>>15178984
all bullshit.
1) the argument boils down to "our languages and notional weaponry haven't yet explained these things, therefore they are unexplainable in principle". reminder that there are only two kinds of phenomena, those explainable by physicalism and those for which we have no physicalist explanation, but we haven't ever encountered a phenomenon that is actually unexplainable by physicalism, meaning that we possess a proof that it cannot be explained.
2) same as 1)
3) same as 1)
4) there always are methodological issues. "dude, it's a transcendental mystery" obviously has none.

>>15178950
At least he actually brings knowledge to this board that he shares with anons. What do you bring to this board? Acting like a retarded nigger? Calling it acting is being generous

>>15179090
This is a cope. You admit physicalism has weak explanatory power when it comes to consciousness. You're simply praying that one day.the materialist messiah will come and solve the hard problem of consciousness for you, but that's never going to happen. In a world that's supposed to be purely objective and 3rd person, like physicalism states, there simply is no room for a 1st person subjective phenomenon like consciousness. Physicalism in principle cannot account for consciousness, hence no amount of waiting is going to help you.