/sci/ - Science & Math

>the evident failure of dualism

0/10

>>4274469

If you think there is a soul, get the fuck out of /sci/.

>>4274469
Surely you must be joking.

>>4274470
If you think there is none, YOU have to gtfo.

>>4274471
Fucking troll.

Solipsism doesn't make sense.

Ironically, the mind body problem is illusory.

>>4274463

>Implying a false dichotomy between dualism and monism

What's the difference between mind and consciousness

>>4274478

I know you're trolling, but I'll do this simple and quickly:

If the mind can interact with the physical body, then it is by definition physical.

>>4274480

Why not?

>>4274463
>and you're conscious (thus directly experiencing mind)

Would I realize that I was experiencing something non-physical if I were raised by bears in the wilderness? Point being: the mind, especially as a concept which is distinguished from the physical world, has been made up by people through culture and storytelling, and has no logical basis.

>>4274489
No, if it can interact, it can interact. Nothing more. Don't jump to stupid conclusions.

>>4274487

There isn't one.

>>4274496
confirmed for full retard

>>4274489

>If the mind can interact with the physical body, then it is by definition physical.

By what definition?

>>4274493

If something causes physical changes in a physical system then it interacts physically.

Okay, done feeding trolls.

>>4274501
It being able to interact physically doesn't make the whole thing physical, dumbass. It is still a separate entity, even though it can use an interface.

>>4274492

You can be aware without having an active ego.

Also it's funny to listen to someone who (presumably) is experiencing qualia tell me that consciousness is a fallacy.

>>4274497

What do you think the difference is, then?

>>4274507

Confirmed for doubleretard

>>4274508

>>4274510
u r so mad

>>4274510
buttmad autist detected

>>4274503

So what aspects of an entity that both reacts to the physical world, and acts on the physical world, would make it nonphysical?

>>4274519
Have you ever physically observed a thought?
I don't think so, Tim.

>>4274469
>>4274478
Look fa­ggot, everyone here is tired of your shit, in every fucking thread that consciousness is discussed you come here telling everyone that dualism is correct and that anyone who thinks otherwise is stupid. Do you know how many scientists consider dualism as something worthy of study? Almost no one. We are not in the 15th century, and if you want to talk about your ridiculous shit go back to >>>/x/. You are probably a religous fucktard, a new age fucktard or a troll. In any case you don't belong here you worthless piece of shit. GTFO.

>>4274530
Do you really think this is a SCIENCE thread?

>>4274526

Which is why I'm saying it is more sensible to believe everything is a facet of the mind.

>>4274530
OP was shitposting and claiming dualism is wrong. This is not the case.
You further prove my point by preferring to post insanity and madness over rational arguments.

>>4274540
>>4274526

To follow up, we know thoughts exist, because we have them, so to conclude that matter is a mental phenomena makes more sense to conclude that thoughts are a physical one.

>>4274530
>how many scientists consider

Argument by authority.

LOL

>>4274505
>You can be aware without having an active ego.
Aware of what? Of bears? Aware of some made up shit?
>active ego
Don't know how you're using ego here, but no one has mentioned ego in this thread (because it's irrelevant)

>Also it's funny to listen to someone who (presumably) is experiencing qualia tell me that consciousness is a fallacy.
Did I say consciousness was a fallacy? Consciousness is real, specifically, it is equivalent to the action of thousands of neurons in the human brain. How is this so complicated? Where is there even room for a non-physical entity which supposedly interferes with this process?

>>4274543

Well, I think you're wrong, because dualism is pretty obviously logically flawed to me, BUT

it doesn't really have anything to do with the thread, which is why those who reject it favor the physical over the mental.

So kindly fuck off.

>>4274498

Since you cant provide me the definition to which you refer to, your arguments are invalid.

>>4274550
>is pretty obviously logically flawed to me
>to me

Logic is not a matter of opinion, fucktard.

>it doesn't really have anything to do with the thread

It was OP's initial troll statement. Tell me this is unrelated to his thread.

>>4274543
Dualism IS wrong you fucking dumbass. Get off your high horse fucktard, you are not the rational here, you are just a fucking idiot who believes in supernatural shit. If you have a rational and scientific argument that shows dualism is even remotely probable I will listen, otherwise you are just an arrogant worthless fuck.

>>4274545
It seems you don't know what argument by authority means.

I've always felt like a dualist, even though I know there isn't a shred of evidence supporting it.

Hey, at least I don't crash into buildings because of it.

I guess I don't want to accept monism, not because of a fear for death, but because of a highly escapist imaginative mind.

>>4274557
>shifting the burden of proof

No, you fucker make a fallacious claim. Now it's up to YOU to prove dualism wrong. (Obviously you can't, because philosohy is not science and you are retarded anyway).

>>4274547

Ego as in personal identity. I was getting at the fact that you don't have to realize you're aware to be aware.

And how do you explain the actual experience of being conscious?

If everything is mind, the apparent physical world can logically be considered a figment.

If everything is physical, how do you explain the apparent mental realm of experience?

>>4274566
I do, you don't.

>>4274571
Oh shit, oh shit, OH SHIT! You are even more fucktarded than what I tought. We already know what produces conciousness, and that is -in the case of humans- the motherfucking brain, and thats is supported by a colossal amount of studies and evidence, saying otherwise is like saying gravity is fake. I don't have to disprove dualism, because that was done centuries ago, you fucking arrogant pseudo-intellectual fa­ggot.

>>4274590

Explain qualia.

>>4274575
Nope. I won't waste my time with you. Educate yourself idiot.

>>4274590
>We already know what produces conciousness

How about you publish your religious revelation and give your knowledge to all the serious neuroscientists who don't know what produces consciousness?

>>4274597
How should my education make up for the lack of yours?

For fuck's sake, can we have ONE thread on /sci/ without everyone jerking themselves off and insulting the person they're arguing with? Do you think actual philosophers and scientists call each other faggots during debates? This isn't goddamn middle school. FUCK, you should be ashamed of yourselves.

>>4274614
Fixed:
Can we have a /sci/ - science and math board without philosophy shit threads?

>>4274621

Sure, just make a philosophy board.

>>4274595
Explain dualism.

>>4274573

Would love to hear a response to this, as it was the actual point of the thread.

>>4274627

I'm not a dualist. I'm a monist, but I think it is more rational to assume everything is mental than everything is physical.

Thus: Explain qualia.

Where in the brain is consciousness? Where am "I"?

>>4274627
I didn't claim to have an "explanation" for dualism. In fact you cannot explain it, just state that it is a viable hypothesis.
YOU on the other hand made an enormous claim, saying you can explain consciousness.
I'm looking forward to having good laughs while seeing you coming up with more troll logic and fallacies.

Demonstrating that Mind is caused by Matter does not mean that Mind is not separate from Matter.

>>4274636
I didn't say I can explain consciousness you fucking fa­ggot, I said that consciousness comes from the brain and not from a magical "soul" like you are claiming. Just because we don't know everything about a topic doesn't mean that we should invoke supernatural mythological claims to fill the void, like you are doing with the whole dualism shit. Dualism is dead, get over it.

>>4274649

Why do you assume a false dichotomy between dualism and physicalism? Mental monism doesn't have a problem explaining the physical world. Physical monism has a doozy of a pickle trying to explain the mental world.

>>4274649
>"I didn't say I can explain consciousness"
>makes half-assed troll attempt in explaining consciousness

You suck at trolling. Dualism has nothing to do with magic. It is one rational hypothesis. Your pseudo-religious fanaticism is sick. Science explains physical things, the soul is a subject of philosophy. Fucking deal with it, faggot sucker.

ITT: I'm an atheist debate me .jpg

Okay, I'm going to try this again:

ASSUMING YOU HAVE ALREADY DISREGARDED DUALISM, AND ARE A MONIST:

How do you explain the actual experience of being conscious?

If everything is mind, the apparent physical world can logically be considered a figment.

If everything is physical, how do you explain the apparent mental realm of experience?

>>4274667
Wait, you're that same exact fucking guy posting in every thread about free will? Do you have a job, a hobby or something?

>>4274490
Because induction would be useless.

>>4274675

How so?

>>4274667
Nope, you suck at trolling. Making strawman arguments and being a pseudo-intellectual hipster won't lead you anywhere.

>Dualism has nothing to do with magic. It is one rational hypothesis.
>the soul

Go fuck yourself, you worthless troll.

>>4274674
This is the first time I am actively posting in a philosophy thread and the only reason for doing so is that I was seriously appalled by the ignorance presented by your person.

>>4274676
Because solipism does't account for the unexpected.

Like muons, or accidental flatulence.

>>4274680
Do you realize that you just dismissed the whole field of philosophy as trolling?

>>4274680
Confirmed for not having a soul.
How does it feel to be a robot?
Oh wait, you don't have feelings.

>>4274685

If all your feelings are figments of your mind, why can't surprise be too?

> What I feel like doing to this dumbass thread

>>4274686
No, I dismissed a fa­ggot that appears on every thread saying "dualism is right, you are an idiot and should go back to >>>/x/ if you don't believe in the soul!!!1!!1!" as trolling

>>4274692
If you don't have consciousness, then how can you troll this thread?

>>4274693
See? You are a shit-tier troll.

ITT: Physicalists don't realize they're just as indoctrinated and stubborn in their beliefs and retards who believe in souls.

>>4274682
This is the first time I ever post in this thread, what the fuck is your problem homie?

>>4274696
Projecting much?

>>4274697
>Physicalists

No one in this thread has claimed or implied to be such thing.

>>4274705

See: All the people who claim consciousness is a physical phenomena

kill all niggers kill all niggers kill all niggers kill all niggers
kill all niggers kill all niggers kill all niggers kill all niggers
kill all niggers kill all niggers kill all niggers kill all niggers
kill all niggers kill all niggers kill all niggers kill all niggers
kill all niggers kill all niggers kill all niggers kill all niggers
kill all niggers kill all niggers kill all niggers kill all niggers
kill all niggers kill all niggers kill all niggers kill all niggers
kill all niggers kill all niggers kill all niggers kill all niggers

Mind is primitive substance. The Physical is an emergent property of Mind.

>>4274712

Let's make out.

>>4274709
That does not implies physicalism.

>>4274690

I'm not talking about my feelings, I'm talking about things that I could not ever predict existing in the first place.

Like muons.

But Solipsism is logically unassailable. However I don't use it because it assumes too much and demonstrates nothing. It does't work.

>>4274713
meant to reference >>4274710

>>4274717

Solipsism doesn't assume that you have any power over the construction of your world.

>>4274715

That or dualism, but no one seriously believes in that nonsense.

Out of the THREE philosophy threads on the front page this one is the worst.
The anti-dualism troll really has potential to make people mad and he actually reminds me of the "logic" troll.
At least I've been long enough on 4chan to know that the only winning move is not to play.
Good luck with him, /sci/.

>>4274734
>GL
>calling others trolls

>>4274734

I'm OP, and I honestly didn't think that people on a science board would have an issue with assuming dualism to be false as a premise. It wasn't even the point of the fucking thread.

>>4274740

You are ignorant of philosophy since the 17th century. A distinction between mind and body doesn't mean to imply the existence of the soul past the decay of the body; it only means they can be conceived of as necessarily separate ontological categories.

The data contained in a feeling or a perception is not simply the physical data which causes it.

>>4274754

Did you even read the OP? I'm think both dualism AND physicalism are wrong. Mental monism is the only way to rationally explain the experience of consciousness.

>>4274754
He is not ignorant, he is trolling. Stop giving him attention.

>>4274758

>someone disagrees with me
>HURR THEY'RE TROLLING
>DIFFERENT OPINIONS ONLY EXIST TO MAKE ME UPSET

>>4274757
You have your beliefs, other people have other beliefs. Now fuck off.
This is a science board.

>>4274760
You are not satisfied with having your opinion/belief. You want to force it upon others.

>>4274761

How is using reason and analysis to explain reality not science?

>>4274764
Because science deals with things that are objectively quantifiable.

>>4274763

Are you... are you retarded or something? I've gone this whole thread without insulting anyone, but for fuck's sake, do you really think an attempt at rational argument is some sort of personal attack?

So far I've been called ignorant, and a troll, but NO ONE has actually explained why a physical explanation is more reasonable than a mental one.

>>4274764
Wow, now religion is science in your opinion?

>>4274769
No fucking shit is more reasonable. It is fucking philosophy and doesn't belong here.

>>4274771

No, religion is not philosophy. It is irrational.

>>4274768

Scientific propositions are the collective subjective interpretation of Mental qualia. Objectivity in the sense which implies a mind-independent reality is a nonsense concept.

>>4274769
That's because the thread was derailed by the DualismGuy that floods /sci/.

>>4274783

:(

I am so goddamn sick of people on this site being unable to have actual discussions. It's all trolls and insults and knee-jerk reactions.

>>4274783
1. This thread has no right to exist here.
2. There is no "dualism guy".
3. Your trolling is obstinate but lame.

>>4274775

why do you so readily assume that rationality is important/desirable

>>4274789

Because it is the primary means by which we orient ourselves in and understand our world.

>>4274792

maybe in post-enlightenment western society but to posit that as some sort of universal condition of humankind is kinda lulzy

>>4274795

What?

>Hey, jumping off of tall things kills me
>I guess I shouldn't do it

Rationality.

>>4274792

Religion heightens the feeling of power in man, so that he is more able to combat suffering and impose himself further on the world. The guy who came up with it deserves an award for his brilliance and rationality.

>>4274796
How do you know it kills you, unless you try it?
Isn't it kind of religious to trust an authority who tells you it was dangerous to jump off of tall buildings?

>>4274796

if everyone had had that attitude we would never have gotten parahutes

>>4274805

No. You can observe the effects of large drops on other objects and induct that you would be similarly damaged.

>>4274463
>If everything must be either matter, or mind, and you're conscious
Wait, where did you demonstrate that premise?

>isn't it more logical to conclude that all things are facets of consciousness rather than material?
Ha ha, no. However, you can consider all perceived things to be facets of consciousness.

The two are not the same.

>>4274806

>Hey, jumping off of tall things kills me
>I guess I shouldn't do it
>However, I have observed that air resistance can slow down the fall of an object
>If I increase my air resistance, I can fall at a slower rate

Or do you think a guy invented a parachute by accident?

>>4274810
Who tells you that induction is a viable concept?
You have been indoctrinated by self-proclaimed "scientists".

>>4274812

If not matter, or consciousness, then what is reality composed of?

>>4274819

Its track record.

>>4274821

My dick.

>>4274825
Throughout history a lot of nonsense has been recorded too.

>>4274827

But your dick is only a figment of your imagination. That's what I'm saying.

>>4274830
Say that again when you feel it deep inside you.

>>4274831

The pleasure too, would simply be inventions of the mind.

>>4274842
You are saying the pleasure of being cummed inside is an illusion?
This renders my whole life meaningless.

>>4274843
So your life consists of being cummed inside?

JUST STOP THIS BULLSHIT. The reality that you perceive is formulated by an organism (made of atoms in currently incomprehensible arrangements and patterns) called the brain. That is where our limited perception of reality takes place, THAT IS YOU. you are your brain and other parts of the nervous system.

Now what the fuck is this shit about dualism? again, one word: atoms.

A problem that exists is the lack of knowledge about the meaning of consciousness and where exactly it resides within the functions of the brain.

inb4 i just said it, it resides in the way the brain works. Well no shit. Gravity, how does it work? "well it is just the way it is, but its caused from a mass's distortion of space and time" me- "ok so how exactly does mass effect space time"

>>4274845
Yours doesn't?
Are you one of these sick heterosexuals?

>>4274847
>Now what the fuck is this shit about dualism? again, one word: atoms.

Now what the fuck is this shit about gravity? again, one word: ice cream

>>4274847
>you are your brain and other parts of the nervous system

Your computer is only hardware, there is no such thing as software.

>>4274853
ice cream isn't fundamental to understanding the meaning of gravity.

understanding atoms is necessary, however, to understand reality.

If all that exists in actually one thing, then it doesn't really make sense to differentiate between mind and matter.

What matters is how the contortions and patterns in that one thing interplay.

Calling that one thing physical makes more sense from our scope, because leaving consciousness currently unexplained gives us more information than leaving how the whole of physical reality in all its intricacies becomes apparent to some observer.

Fuck dualists, though. Fuck 'em hard.

>>4274856
>understanding atoms is necessary, however, to understand reality.

PHYSICAL reality is what you mean. Consciousness / soul is not part of it and therefore can't be understood in terms of physical atoms.

>>4274769
if the mental world exists, and the physical world does not, what is death?

>>4274867

The cessation of experiencing one particular ego.

>>4274867

The ceasing of mental experience. durf

>>4274463
First off you need to explain why you think experiencing consciousness is not experiencing the physical world?
Second if reality is just mind, why can I not control you?
Third, what is death?

Clearly we are matter.

>>4274874
Experiencing consciousness is not limited to experiencing the physical world. Thoughts can be unrelated to and separate from physical references or causes.

>>4274865

>Consciousness is not physical.

"SCIENTISTS HAVE EXORCISED THE GHOST FROM THE MACHINE NOT because they are mechanistic killjoys but because they have amassed evidence that every aspect of consciousness can be tied to the brain."
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1580394-2,00.html

The brain is physical, in the case you didn't know.

>soul

Not sure if troll.

>>4274880
What fucking irony that the article you posted says the exact opposite of your garbage post.

If consciousness is a result of the brain, and molecules create the brain, and quantum matter create the molecules, how does that create a consciousness?

"What is it that breathes fire into equations that provides a universe for them to describe?" -Stephen Hawking

Answer me that in a fulfilling manner and I will be very grateful, even if it is just your opinion.

>>4274886
No, it says we don't know everything about consciousness, not that there is evidence to suggest such thing exists outside of the physical world.

>>4274887

Particular arrangements of matter cause consciousness for the same reason there is a speed of light.

>>4274887

We do not know, simple as that bro?
It is a shame, but both you and I are not smart enough to come up with the answer.
Eventually people much smarter than us, may discover the answer, but probably not in our lifetimes. This is no reason to begin making things up without evidence.

>>4274874
>First off you need to explain why you think experiencing consciousness is not experiencing the physical world?
It is usually the same, however the experience of qualia is more primitive than the experience of an external reality. The idea of an external reality requires an interpretation of the qualia, so the physical world exists as concept.

>.. not control you?
Because you are not in control of the reality associated with your mind.

>Third, what is death?

The cessation of experiencing one particular ego.

>>4274895
Well yes and no. Incompleteness theorem comes into play here, but I've been reading about this kind of thing for a while now and I've come across two satisfactory conclusions.

1. Everything is sentient on its own level
or
2. Sentience can emerge from self reference

>>4274904

Can you autograph my book, Dr. Hoftstader?

>>4274902
With the answers that you are giving you are basically equating mind with matter to me.

For us to argue over whether everything is matter or mind, you need to explain exactly what is different between the two.

Because if the laws that govern them are the exact same, it does not matter which word we choose?

It seems like a whole bunch of pointless ramblings to me. We are all matter, when we die we die. If we still die being mind, then what is the difference?

>>4274886
Maybe you didn't read the article?

>Whatever the solutions to the Easy and Hard problems turn out to be, few scientists doubt that they will locate consciousness in the activity of the brain.

>>4274919
This was MY statement, retard.

>>4274916
I haven't finished reading it, does he also state the sentience is just on different levels? I know he does the self reference part of it.

>>4274923

Long story short, any system that maintains analogous structures to the outside world is bound to model itself, so consciousness scales with the complexity of the housing system.

Made me a vegetarian.

>>4274918

Doing philosophy doesn't change anything about the world or give you more power over the world. It simply changes how you think about the world and there can be value in that.

>>4274922
Huh? You said that consciousness isn't part of the physical reality, yet the article shows that all the studies regarding consciousness show that it's tied to the brain, a physical thing, and that talking about "souls" doesn't help at all.

>>4274931
So it seems I wasn't completely wrong then... Thanks bro. Anything else you think is cool that I should know?

>>4274942

Our minds basically exist for the same reason our computers work (symbol structures existing in physical systems with manipulations in the system being analogous to a shift in semantic content), which I think is hella neat.

<div class="math">\mathbf{Summary~of~thread:}</div>
Category mistake: people looking for a specific part of the brain that "makes consciousness", but in not finding it, claim that no such part of the brain exists-- necessitating the addition of a non-physical mind. The category mistake is that it is more likely true that the brain or the brain and the body as a whole produces consciousness, and that in looking at specific parts it is impossible to see how an entire consciousness is produced.

/thread

>>4274957
Hella neat indeed. It's weird learning that you will never know truth, and even weirder to realize that knowing absolute truth is never possible.

>>4274962

No, people are looking for an explanation of qualia, not how the brain works.

>>4274934
What I am asking is what is the difference between mind and matter?

I say reality is made up of matter.

Apparently OP thinks reality is made up of "mind".

What is the difference between my matter and his "mind"?

I feel the fact that he does not have a distinction between the two is causing him problems.

>>4274962

Describing mental experience as purely physical misses the point of the discussion. It's like saying that a novel is nothing more than the collections words on the pages.

The meaning of a novel can be mapped to a particular ordering of words, but the ordering is not the meaning of the text. These are separate entities.

>>4274922
>>4274936
No answer then? Do you still believe in the soul or what?

>>4274973
But we do know truth.

I know that if I fall off a building I will die. That is one truth. I know that if I take two steps in one direction I will be roughly two meters away from where I started. That is another truth.

How can you say we do not know truth?

Yes there are certain things we do not know, and maybe never will; but that does not mean we do not know anything.

>>4274981

He probably adopts some form of transcendental idealism. Mind would be the substance of the concepts we employ to help interpret our sensations. It avoids the epistemic problem of knowing things as the are and not as they appear, by suggesting that the thing-in-itself isn't necessary or fundamental.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendental_idealism

­

>>4274957
>Hella
/thread

>>4274994
But if you do not know everything, how can you say you know anything?

>>4274962
>>4274962
>>4274962
>>4274962

This. There is no reason to invoke non-physical things to explain consciousness.

sage

>>4275084

antisage

­sage

>>4275111

anti-sage

>>4274463
>If everything must be either matter, or mind, and you're conscious (thus directly experiencing mind), isn't it more logical to conclude that all things are facets of consciousness rather than material?

This doesn't lead well to falsifiable predictions. How does this offer better predictive power than the usual convention of a physical reality?

GOD DAMN YOU OP! YOUVE GOT ME QUESTIONING MY EXISTENCE AGAIN!

>>4274463
>conscious

A word with no actual meaning.

0/100

>>4274962
This seems fairly obvious. Anyone claiming the mind or anything in it doesn't come form the brain or the physical body is probably following some form of backwards sprituality.

>>4274980
Qualia are just how the brain organizes different forms of pleasure and pain. It seems fairly obvious.

>>4275128

It offers the same amount of predictive power by positing the existence of the physical world secondarily. It does offer more malleability in our fundamental assumptions leading to less dogmatic assertions about the the "true" nature of reality.

>>4275137

And a book is no more than the ordering of the words on its pages!

>>4275137

You're missing the point. Why there is an observer at all in your biological system? Why do you have the experience of consciousness if the sum of your existence are the machinations of your biochemistry?

>>4275137
>This seems fairly obvious.

It is, but sadly we still have people believing in "the soul" and dualism.

OK so get this, dualism is incorrect, but since we still have a cultural inclination towards metaphysics and spiritualism, let's do some mental contortions so we can convince ourselves of what is essentially dualism.

10/10 for getting lots of responses

>>4275137

Keep patting yourself on the back there, chief. You can have a nonphysical reality without having dualism.

>>4275151
We can. But we don't.

>>4275074
>>4275137
thanks guys for understanding my post

>>4274980
>>4274986
not understanding my post? I guess that makes me feel a little frustrated, but I really don't care if a bunch of stubborn retards miss the point, because you're all going to die anyways.

>this thread

>>4275157
No john, you don't understand your post.

>>4275157
Alternatively, maybe you are really bad at explaining what you think your point is.

>>4275140
So, no new predictions? Thus far, methodological naturalism seems like it's worked quite well thus far. And thus you seem to be pushing an agenda. You are the dogmatic one.

>>4275168
Well you see it's popular to believe in spirituality, therefore we should accept it as a scientific principle without evidence, instead demanding that its opponents prove that it doesn't exist.

>whyisthisthreadstillhere.jpg

>>4275176
>spirituality
I think you're being sarcastic, but I will vent anyway.

Ugg. I hate this. It's the most annoying moving goal post argument ever. There's the kinds of spirituality that one can observe, and the "magic" ones have been falsified. For the unobservable ones, you are an idiot claiming it to exist, because, by definition, it's unobservable, and thus you have no evidence about it.

>>4275182
>>4275176

Strawman circlejerk much? Since when was philosophy "spiritual"?

>>4275185
Honestly, what are you trying to say? I missed your point.

>>4275191

I was saying that no one is claiming to be spiritual, but you guys are pretending someone is and then bashing that fictional person to further your (fallacious) argument.

>>4275200
I think we're arguing over the word "spiritual".

I'll give you the short version. If someone has an empirical claim unsupported by evidence, then I will call him an idiot. If someone has an empirical claim contradicted by known evidence, then I will call him a huge fucking idiot.

This includes claims that god exists, dualism is true (whatever the fuck that even means), and other ambiguous claims that straddle the border between observable and falsifiable, vs not.

Hey guys.

I'm drinking again.

I'm probably gonna go pass out or cry myself to sleep or something soon. I just want you all to know that you're wonderful people and I enjoyed spending time with you. Anonymous members of 4chan... you're the only people I've ever really connected with.

I probably won't remember this in the morning, and you probably won't either. But I love you, /sci/. You're my best friend. Whatever you learned from this board, treasure it. Remember it forever. Become better for it. I guess what I learned is that... life is bittersweet. Although I guess I knew that already. No matter what unfortunate, unavoidable problems come your way, remember that there are good parts too. Happy feels, and friends that understand you. Learn to accept the bad and appreciate the good.

In the end, that's all you can really expect.

>>4275213
HAHAHA drunken ramblings on 4chan - how typical...

>>4275204

Empirical, eh?

"Cogito ergo sum." With that you can prove your mind exists.

Now prove a physical world exists outside of your mind. Good luck.

Which of us is more empirical, again?

>>4275220
>I think therefore I am.
Hidden is an implicit premise, "For all X, if X thinks, then X exists".

Here's my "implicit premise": A physical world is an incredibly useful model because of its predictive power. Slipping into casual usage of referring to a "real world" is for brevity only. Those who deny the "real world" usually have a hidden agenda that is unsupported by the evidence.

What is the equation for a square/rectangle?

>>4275232

The world doesn't have to be physical to be a useful model. Assuming the world is a facet of your mind does not alter its behavior.

We both reject dualism. And yet, you must admit, as a mind who can claim that you think, that you must exist to do so. So, if the mind exists, and a mental world doesn't alter the predictive power of the present model, why assume a superfluous objective physical reality?

>>4275232

Also, I should note that pigeon-holing your opponents and dismissing them offhand without hearing their argument is precisely what the "spiritual" you so detest do.

>>4275247
I fail to see how one would make a model of physics, etc., if you say "it's all in your head". Especially when I know that by altering my brain I can alter my mind. How would one model this in your "it's all mental" model?

>>4275275
Do you care to present arguments that we can discuss, or are you going to continue to object to what I consider to be quite reasonable positions to hold?

>>4275289
>I fail to see how one would make a model of physics, etc., if you say "it's all in your head". Especially when I know that by altering my brain I can alter my mind. How would one model this in your "it's all mental" model?
Okay, look at it like this.
You can prove deductively that your mind exists.
You cannot prove deductively that the physical world exists.

Knowing those two things, consider these:
The mind is a facet of the world.
The world is a facet of the mind.

Since you reject dualism, ONE of those two must be true. The former, however, is more rational to believe because you've already proved logically that a mind exists.

To make a model of physics, all that is required is testable predictions. If an imagined world follows certain rules unyieldingly, those rules can still be canonized into a model.

To answer your question about altering your brain to alter your mind, have you ever had a dream where you take drugs? Even if not, I'm sure you can imagine a dream in which your mental state changes because you dreamt you've taken a substance which you have not in reality.

>Do you care to present arguments that we can discuss, or are you going to continue to object to what I consider to be quite reasonable positions to hold?
...I just did. You responded to it.

>>4275289

We've come this far, at least concede if you aren't going to respond, you're the only one in this thread who even attempted an argument.

>>4275304
>Since you reject dualism, ONE of those two must be true. The former, however, is more rational to believe because you've already proved logically that a mind exists.
Nope.

>>4275357
Playing LoL now.

>>4275374

Which part do you object to, and why?

>>4275386
To judge whether one is more likely to be true is to judge probability. One can only judge probability given some information about truthness and falseness. You do not have the required information to judge between your two suppositions on probability in any conventional sense. Such a thing would at the very least require the equivalent of a physics that would allow us to make predictions. In other words, such a judgment of probability is a falsifiable prediction of sorts. As it cannot be falsified, I don't even recognize its meaningfulness.

>>4275390

It is rational to believe something for which there is evidence (that a mind exists).

It is not rational to believe something exists that can be explained by the thing which you DO have evidence for. The apparent world can be explained as a phenomena of the (proven) mind, so why assume a superfluous objective physical reality?

So, I misspoke. I should not have said MORE rational, because believing in physical reality is wholly irrational.

mfw /sci/ gets trolled by epistemology

>>4275411
>It is not rational to believe something exists that can be explained by the thing which you DO have evidence for. The apparent world can be explained as a phenomena of the (proven) mind, so why assume a superfluous objective physical reality?

Again, I'm not sure what we're arguing over. Do your ideas have any falsifiable predictions at all? Or any falsifiable predictions distinct from mine? If it's an empirical claim, which it is, which lacks falsifiable predictions, then I really don't care. It's meaningless.

>>4275430

We're arguing over metaphysics, which while quite useless, are worth thinking about.

I'd think a /sci/entist would be more interested in the NATURE OF ALL OF EXISTENCE and what we can reasonably conclude about it.

+ 202 posts and 4 image replies omitted. Click Reply to view.

I swear, this and deterministic vs random universe threads are ultimate troll grounds

11/10

>>4275445

I wasn't even trolling.

ba-dump

why is it one or the other, why is it not half way in between? just because you cannot explain consciousness with words dosent mean its something inherently mystical or mysterious and on the other hand just spouting that the brain can be explained entirely via neurological interactions is a load of shit to. Assuming that our senses are the be all and end all is just arrogant, something which cannot be observed currently dosent make it inherently false.

i implore you /sci/ read between the lines and realise that language isnt reality

>>4275445
As opposed to religion threads?

Monism (as consciousness) would help explain entanglement and wave-particle duality, interesting.

Husserl solved it. It just haven't been noticed widely. He just proposed transcendental ego which consitutes both scientificaly psychological counsciousness and scientifically physical brain.

>>4275638
Can you elaborate?

>>4275638

>transcendental

New Age/Idealist/Hack Detected.

>>4275692
pseudointellectual detected

>>4275698

>Impotentently insults instead of trying to defend his position

Confirmed for New Age/Idealist/Hack.

>>4275638
>transcendental ego
Empty words. How do you measure "ego" or "transcendental"? How do you define ego or transcendental in way which can be operationalised?

>>4275710
Ditto, seems were both just swimming in a big pile of shit, but can we trancend our own lazyness?

>>4274463
define: consciousness

and do attempt to keep it scientific, rather than phishing for unfalsifiables via question begging

>Implying a mind body problem with no evidence.
>Implying consciousness is direct and not delayed
>Implying Qualia are real

Implying so many implications here guys.
Why do we have to have this conversation daily, Why is it not enough that damaging your brain causes consciousness to be altered (significantly in some cases)
Why? WHY? why? Why? Why? WHY? why?

>thread posted: 19:29
>latest reply: 6:57

>mfw it has been on for 7,5 hours

>>4275750
>hurr I are retarded
>durr I can't read

>>4275750
see
>>4275304

>>4276572
>2012
>bumping this horrible troll thread

All my why.

>>4276582

Because I'm OP and not trolling, obv.

>>4275750
Motivated reasoning. If reality is counter to what we want to believe, then we tend to reject reality.

>>4276603

Actually, I'd prefer a physical reality. A reality of nothing except awareness and illusions is profoundly disturbing.

But I've provided an argument as for why it is more rational to believe it to be the case, and no one has yet offered a counter.

>>4276602
>not trolling
>says dualism is wrong

Fuck you.

10/10

I am mad.

>>4276631

What aspects of an entity (the mind) that both reacts to the physical world, and acts on the physical world, would make it nonphysical?

If the mind and the body can interact, they are of the same substance.

>>4276645
Are you really trying to revive this shitty troll?
Your crap has been refuted several times ITT.

>>4276650

Link me to it. No one has actually answered that question.

Or the one about why it is more reasonable to assume mental monism than physical. The best I've gotten on that front is that they have the same predictive power so it doesn't matter.

troll thread

pic related, it's OP

>mfw people have their ideas challenged and can't offer a response so they call me a troll instead

>mfw when the people that do respond just stop replying when they can't counter my argument

>mfw I'm responding to trolls to bump my thread in hopes of a serious response

OP is a successful troll, you've all been trolled hard XD

>>4276687
>mfw successful troll is successful
>mfw you ignore every counter argument
>mfw you keep repeating the same inane garbage over and over again
>mfw I am mad

>>4276694

>mfw I actually responded to all the stupid arguments

>mfw you're just giving me someone to respond to

>>4276708
FUCK YOU GODDAMN RETARDED PIECE OF SHIT TROLL IGNORING ALL ARGUMENTS, SPAMMING STUPID SHIT AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN.
IF I EVER WAS TO MEET YOU IRL, I WOULD SMASH YOUR FUCKING ASSHOLE FACE SO HARD, YOUR BLOOD WOULD SPLATTER ALL OVER THE FLOOR AND I WOULDN'T STOP UNTIL YOUR HEAD IS NOTHING MORE THAN A BLOODY MASS OF SLIME WHICH I WOULD URINATE ON.

I AM FUCKIN MAAAAAAADDDDD

RRRRRRRRAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGEEEEEEE

FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

>>4276627
You're trying to use scientific principles to examine something inherently unscientific and reach a conclusion which isn't really supported by anything except Occam's Razor and a load of premises which are not universally accepted. I don't think anyone's even brought up neutral monism.

That said, since your position of mental monism isn't falsifiable I suppose you can assume that the world is entirely composed of some kind of non-real mental substance since nobody could disprove it, just like you could assume that you are in fact God and you've caused this reality to come into being and you've simply erased your own memory of being God or some such. Your positing that this mental reality isn't necessarily controlled by the observer leads me to believe that the mental reality may be more or less the same as a physical reality anyway, since we don't know what the underlying "substance" of either of them is.

My philosophical position is one of practical materialism that assumes the universe is essentially a physical objective reality that I perceive because that's basically the default position I take whenever I do anything or think about the universe anyway and it's the only really useful one for my purposes. I can't deny mental monism like I can't deny solipsism but don't really see any value in it.

Never presume trolling. OP actually believes that he is a spirit floating in nothingness and is simply imagining the rest of the universe.

>>4276724

Thank you.

I actually tend to agree. The argument I make is really more an illustration the failure of logic than it is an earnest philosophical position.

We experience a physical world, regardless, so even if we were to assume it was an illusion of the mind we would, on a daily basis, have to treat the illusion as an actual reality. I think it is actually reasonable to assume the world is as it generally appears to be, since induction evolved much earlier than deduction. The world isn't discrete or axiomatic, and all formal systems complex enough to describe it are necessarily either unsound or incomplete.

So, yay science and induction in our continuous reality.

/thread

>>4276750

>244 posts later
are you fucking kidding me