/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.12635282]

Can science justify philosophical materialism?

[Anonymous No.12635503]

nah. only I FUCKING LOVE SCIENCE crowd thinks science nullifies metaphysical philosophy

[Anonymous No.12635512]

>>12635282
Science can't justify materialism. Science is predicated on empiricism and logic, and so arguably is based on materialism.
However, I don't think any non-materialist viewpoint is adequately justified either. And at least science makes testable predictions and can be verified, unlike a large number of non-materialist based viewpoints.

[Anonymous No.12635539]

>>12635512
>at least science makes testable predictions and can be verified
>at least science is science

and? how steeped (or not) are you in the subject of consciousness?

[Anonymous No.12635549]

>>12635512
We only evolved to survive. How can you scientifically verify that science can be trusted to explain anything other than what we need to "know" to survive?

[Anonymous No.12635553]

>>12635539
>>12635539
>and? how steeped (or not) are you in the subject of consciousness?
Well I have a degree with a specialization in neuroscience. And my masters is in neuroscience.
So if by "steeped in the subject of consciousness" you mean legitimate study, then very. If you mean mysticism and other occult garbage, then almost not at all.

[Anonymous No.12635556]

>>12635553
>thinks consciousness is physical phenomenon
you must be 18 to post here

[Anonymous No.12635558]

>>12635549
>>12635549
>How can you scientifically verify that science can be trusted to explain anything other than what we need to "know" to survive?
You can't verify science itself with science.
That's why I said "I don't think any non-materialist viewpoint is adequately justified either". The "either" means I don't think science is adequately justified.
Hope I answered your question

[Anonymous No.12635562]

>>12635556
>>thinks consciousness is physical phenomenon
>you must be 18 to post here
Believes in random nonsense for no good reason
Looks like you're the underaged one here kiddo.
Though if you think im below 18, then I must be a prodigy to have a masters

[Anonymous No.12635590]

>>12635562
>random nonsense
son, stop arguing. you must be 5ft to ride.

[Anonymous No.12635594]

>>12635590
What reason do you have to believe consciousness is not a product of physical material?
Your inability to understand the physicalist view point is not evidence for the non-physicalist view point

[Anonymous No.12635609]

>>12635594
internal reflection, which you either have not done enough of or you are a philosophical zombie who is incapable of doing so. you aren't even aware of the questions to ask, which is why you're not qualified to post in this thread

[Anonymous No.12635610]

>>12635609
>internal reflection, which you either have not done enough of or you are a philosophical zombie who is incapable of doing so. you aren't even aware of the questions to ask, which is why you're not qualified to post in this thread
Ah. So you a relying on your feelings. Pretty solid reasoning there kiddo. You must be a 200+ IQ genius. I look forward to seeing you become the worlds first trillionaire :)

[Anonymous No.12635624]

>>12635609
>Come to my conclusions or youre a zombie

[Anonymous No.12635628]

>>12635610
>feelings
you are so clueless it's actually cute. you have a lot of catching up to do, if actually possible. of course you don't know what that means. i'm only replying to you for the amusement of the lurkers. cheers!

[Anonymous No.12635629]

ask yourself what would be some tangible differences between materialism being true vs it being false. if you can't think of anything, the whole discussions is probably just some worthless language games

[Anonymous No.12635630]

>>12635628
>can't put his "feefees" into words
>thinks he is correct

also
>I'm only replying to you because i'm seething but want to pretend like I have won
FTFY

Honestly, you're not worth my time. But it's nice to know you have nothing to do with your time but reply to me :)
Also, mention me in your inevitable suicide note :)

[Anonymous No.12635646]

>>12635282
No, electromagnetism is far superior than matter

[Anonymous No.12635657]

>>12635609
That's what a philosophical zombie will say.

[Anonymous No.12635665]

>>12635503
Why would there be a need to "nullify" what says nothing to begin with?

[Anonymous No.12635671]

>>12635628
lurker here
you're a dumb fucking faggot

[Anonymous No.12635712]

>>12635503
>>12635539
>>12635549
>>12635629
unclamped

[Anonymous No.12635774]

>>12635512
I think what you mean to say is: science operates within the limits of materialism, but anything other than materialism is still possible.

Science measures how mechanisms work within spacetime; it says nothing about the root of existence, consciousness, or anything else like this.

[Anonymous No.12635791]

>>12635774
Based as fuck

[Anonymous No.12635915]

>>12635774
So true. This is the whole problem with trusting science completely. It is a good tool, but allowing yourself to totally tie your understanding of the world to science shuts off a lot of plausible alternate paths of knowledge/understanding. Who knows, it may be true that our consciousness can be computed by a computer, but it could also be possible that the evolution of our brains has exploited quirks in physical/spacetime properties that enhances our consciousness in ways that can't be predicted even after thousands of years of unabated scientific progress.

[Anonymous No.12635946]

>>12635282
Not with our present framework, no.

[Anonymous No.12636177]

>>12635915
Based demiurge

[Anonymous No.12636183]

>>12635282
▲
far

[Anonymous No.12637270]

consciousness isn't physical. materialists have a blind spot when it comes to this though and mock others for their "MUH INTERNETAL REFLECTION". its actually pretty sad because it makes me think they are zombies. in an age where you have videos on the basics of consciousness by such popularizers such as vscauce, highlighting the "what if your red is my green" problem, and you still have philosophical brainlets who just don't get it, you know there are zombies who walk among us.

[Anonymous No.12639157]

Consciousness is not a scientific subject. I think it's bizarre how so many science people try to claim the issue and explain it with "muh complex arrangements of blah blah blah". It is fundamentally subjective, untestable and externally unobservable. The only evidence of consciousness anywhere in the universe is one's own to themselves.

[Anonymous No.12639258]

>>12637270
>Why don't you agree with me? Don't you watch vsauce.
>Anyone who can't view a concept the way I do is a zombie.
>Bro it's simple just look inside yourself and you'll come to my conclusions
>>>/Reddit/

>subjective, untestable and externally unobservable.
If it's all subjective to you, stop making arguments for it's existence.

[Anonymous No.12639284]

>>12639258
BTFO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

kys retard

[Anonymous No.12639300]

>>12639284
Back to >>>/x/ brainlet

[Anonymous No.12639301]

>>12635282
Your body goes "uh oh" when you consume to much. There's evidence that conscious limiting (degrees of fasting for example) can help that,so yeah brudda.

[Anonymous No.12640105]

>>12635282
https://reducing-suffering.org/the-many-fallacies-of-dualism/

> The fundamental problem with dualism is that it doesn't accomplish anything except to complicate our theories. There are two possibilities.

> The first possibility is that the additional substance influences physical events—so-called interactionist dualism. In this case, the substance is not really extra-physical; it's just a different part of physics. The fact that both quarks and gluons exist is not dualism—these are just two types of physical substance. If there were some further, more mysterious force that also affected physical processes, we would say that it was part of physics too. If your dualism invokes a force that affects physics, I wouldn't call that dualism. Let's agree to call it physicalist monism and move on.

> The only other possibility is that the additional substance doesn't influence physical events. In this case, what is it supposed to accomplish? Why do I need an entirely separate non-physical thing if it doesn't contribute any extra explanation in the theory? This is called the "interaction problem." You might say that the extra substance explains why we have a sensation of "something more" than physical operations, but that's not right, because your verbal statements that "there's something more" are happening within physics, and if the extra stuff isn't affecting them, then physics by itself accounts for why you feel there's something more. But if physics itself explains why you feel there's something more, then nothing is added by assuming there is something more. That hypothesis is totally useless and amounts to "multiplying entities beyond necessity."

[Anonymous No.12640501]

>>12635282
Philosophically speaking no beliefs can be justified if materialism is true, including that materialism is true.

[Anonymous No.12640508]

>>12635282
>Can science justify philosophical materialism?
No and fuck off fedora.

[Anonymous No.12641140]

>>>/x/ is leaking

[Anonymous No.12641158]

>>12635282
Materialism is a lie.
Spiritual is truth.

[Anonymous No.12641383]

>>12641158
this

[Anonymous No.12641572]

>>12635282
>Can science justify philosophical materialism?
If it ever develop a functional Moravec Transfer non-materialist positions will be difficult to be hold.

[Anonymous No.12641582]

>>12641158
>>12641383

[Anonymous No.12641611]

>>12641582
When you have no arguments, you use sarcasm.

[Anonymous No.12641701]

>>12641611
A non-argument is responded with a non-argument. You could atleast have posted the Heisenberg quote (the issue of course that he was more a pantheist than a christian and that contemporary scientists like Paul Dirac were atheists and argued with him without ever coming to a conclusion) instead of a wojack post.

[Anonymous No.12641721]

>>12641611
When you have arguments, you can still use sarcasm.

[Anonymous No.12643023]

It's simple. Science can tells us the physical process that results in the conscious experience of redness, but it can't explain what redness itself actually is. There is a categorical difference between the redness and the process that triggers the redness. Unlike the process which triggers redness, redness itself is not physical, and does not exist within spacetime. There is literally zero empirical evidence for redness. The only evidence you have of redness, is your own direct experience. You ARE the transcendental redness, assuming you are even conscious, which cannot be known by anyone other than yourself.

[Anonymous No.12643354]

>>12635282
Nope. Read Hegel fag.

[Anonymous No.12644039]

>>12643023
this and this

[Anonymous No.12644075]

>>12643023
>The only evidence you have of redness, is your own direct experience. You ARE the transcendental redness, assuming you are even conscious, which cannot be known by anyone other than yourself.
If that "yourself" is undiscoverable by even me, then why should it matter?

[Anonymous No.12644080]

>>12641611
Was >>12641158 an argument?

[Anonymous No.12644127]

>>12644075
Really? Think about it for a little while. All meaning is in consciousness. Most people live their lives AS IF other people are conscious entities, whether they realize they do this or not. If nobody else was a conscious entity, I'd just do whatever the hell I wanted at everyone's expense because their apparent suffering wouldn't be real. I am a conscious entity, so I give everyone else the benefit of the doubt that they are too. We all, seemingly, are conscious entities giving everyone else the benefit of the doubt that they are too, hence moral and legal systems, the concept of justice, etc.

It might be a meaningless idea scientifically, which I maintain is true, but scientific questions are not the only important questions. You need to stop living in that box.

[Anonymous No.12644140]

>>12644127
I can check if I have a leg or not. I can check if I'm drunk or not. I can check if I have certain memories or not. I can check if I am thinking about all this stuff now.
I literally have no ways of checking if I have that consciousness thing or not. Actually that's not any different from anyone else.

[Anonymous No.12644145]

>>12644127
>If nobody else was a conscious entity, I'd just do whatever the hell I wanted at everyone's expense because their apparent suffering wouldn't be real.
Let's say you got the consciousness oracle which tells if someone had qualia or not. You then realize that your mother is a philosophical zombie, but your enemy is not. Who will you value and protect more then?

[Anonymous No.12644157]

>>12644145
Interesting idea, but the animal part of my brain would never be able to internalize that as truth over my own emotions and doubt about the oracle's legitimacy. It would never fly.

[Anonymous No.12644166]

>>12644140
If you read this...
>It's simple. Science can tells us the physical process that results in the conscious experience of redness, but it can't explain what redness itself actually is. There is a categorical difference between the redness and the process that triggers the redness. Unlike the process which triggers redness, redness itself is not physical, and does not exist within spacetime. There is literally zero empirical evidence for redness. The only evidence you have of redness, is your own direct experience. You ARE the transcendental redness, assuming you are even conscious, which cannot be known by anyone other than yourself.
...and it's not clicking, I don't know what to tell you, anon...

[Anonymous No.12644182]

>>12644166
Everything that I think or do is caused not by that transcendental entity. All the words you are reading now are not influenced by it. If it has zero influence on my life, then maybe I shouldn't care about it at all?

[Anonymous No.12644190]

>>12644182
You have on clue how much influence it might have, on yourself and the rest of the world. If you are a conscious entity, you have a degree of free will which affects your surroundings in potentially profound ways.

[Anonymous No.12644199]

>>12644190
If it influences me and the world a lot, then it's perfectly possible to scientifically test it and it is hardly transcendental.

[Anonymous No.12644207]

>>12644199
Nope, that's not a logical step granted a dualistic nature. Somehow, there is a transcendental experiences interacting with a physical matrix, the brain being the physical interface which informs the non-physical experiencer, and through which the non-physical influencer can influence physical choice on a quantum level.

[Anonymous No.12644208]

Matter/spirit dichotomy is not about reality, it's about the mood of the philosopher. If you talk about something and it feels rough, rude and mundane, it is matter. If it feels profound, shiny and enlightening, it's spirit.

[Anonymous No.12644210]

>>12644199
My wording was a little sloppy because I've been drinking.

[Anonymous No.12644212]

>>12644207
Quantum level influences the levels above it. If you put human and philosophical zombie in two boxes with some output, is there any way you can distinguish them?

[Anonymous No.12644213]

>>12644208
Meh.

[Anonymous No.12644214]

>>12644210
It's OK, drinking is a best way to chat about consciousness.

[Anonymous No.12644222]

>>12644214
But what I meant is:

Nonphysical experiencer (consciousness)

...is somehow connected (through the microtubules probably, but we don't know how)

to the brain. (physical interface)

...and conscious free will influences quantum brain states (again, we don't know how) which affect brain choice in the physical world.

So consciousness absolutely matters in the world, even though it's not testable or externally observable.

[Anonymous No.12645280]

>>12644212
I think it would be possible to detect free will. If we could look at the microtubules, which is where they think consciousness might be "connecting" through, and which are quantum mechanical in function... anyway, if we looked at them while presenting a person with a simple choice, or series of choices, and noticed activity that didn't follow the predictable outcomes according to physics, it would be apparent that some kind of outside force is affecting them.

[Anonymous No.12645305]

>>12644222
You have a problem of over-causation.

You have decided there's a non-physical experiencer, which through mysterious means causes things to happen in a physical brain. But all the things that happen in a brain seem to have plain old physical causes. So there's no need to imagine some external cause.

Until you can find neurons doing something that they have no physical cause for doing, there's no good reason to suppose there must be a whole extra layer of magic stuff that cause their action. Sorry, definitely not magic, it's "as yet unexplained quantum phenomena."

We are heavily predisposed to view our consciousness as separate from the physical world, so we keep trying to find excuses to believe that. But until there's strong evidence to reject it, we should accept the far simpler explanation that brains are networks of neurons that do cool stuff, with no help needed from non-physical entities.

[Anonymous No.12645311]

>>12645305
>Until you can find neurons doing something that they have no physical cause for doing, there's no good reason to suppose there must be a whole extra layer of magic stuff that cause their action. Sorry, definitely not magic, it's "as yet unexplained quantum phenomena."
See the post directly above yours.

>We are heavily predisposed to view our consciousness as separate from the physical world, so we keep trying to find excuses to believe that. But until there's strong evidence to reject it, we should accept the far simpler explanation that brains are networks of neurons that do cool stuff, with no help needed from non-physical entities.
The strong evidence is my own direct experience. If the nonphysical nature of my consciousness is an illusion, then what is it an illusion of? Do you see the problem with that? That applies to free will too. Free will is an illusion? An illusion.. of what? It's nonsensical. If free will didn't exist, there wouldn't exist a concept of it. If consciousness was physical, nobody would be calling it nonphysical. You either understand this, or you need to do some serious internal reflection.

[Anonymous No.12645316]

>>12645311
>The strong evidence is my own direct experience.

[Anonymous No.12645331]

>>12645311
>The strong evidence is my own direct experience.
Please explain how you "directly experience" something not having a physical cause? You seem to be confusing your lack of understanding for an experience.

>If the nonphysical nature of my consciousness is an illusion, then what is it an illusion of?
Of the brain? Your question doesn't make sense. You are aware that perceptions can be wrong, right? Not that this is even a perception, it's simply an abstract belief.

>Free will is an illusion? An illusion.. of what?
An illusion of conscious control. The conscious part of your mind thinks it's making decisions that have already been made in the unconscious.

>If free will didn't exist, there wouldn't exist a concept of it. If consciousness was physical, nobody would be calling it nonphysical.
Why?

[Anonymous No.12645348]

>>12645331
>Please explain how you "directly experience" something not having a physical cause?
I directly experience my own consciousness, obviously.

>You seem to be confusing your lack of understanding for an experience.
This is a nonsensical statement.

>An illusion of conscious control. The conscious part of your mind thinks it's making decisions that have already been made in the unconscious.
In other words "free will is an illusion of free will". Nice try. You need to do some homework on this subject.

>Why?
You really are clueless, no offense. I can't continue this any further with you. You can think I'm insane all you wish, but maybe... just maybe, you might be humble and take some time to reflect on the transcendental nature of your own consciousness. You just might discover some things. Cheers.

[Anonymous No.12645351]

>>12644208
I suppose some of tis is true, this is your weakest point:

>If you talk about something and it feels rough, rude and mundane, it is matter.

I think you are trying to describe the profane, and the divine. The shiny, profound and enlightening is enspirited with the powers and glory of the divine realms. The profane is merely your day to day, doldrum life. The divine can become the profane.

[Anonymous No.12645365]

>>12645311
>See the post directly above yours.
I completely agree. If we saw neurons popping off with no physically explainable cause then it would be reasonable to start looking for weird explanations. But that's a big if.

>The strong evidence is my own direct experience.
We don't have direct experience of our neuronal activity. You can't see a neuron firing for no physically explainable reason. What you do have is direct experience of being a person who believes themselves to have free will.

>Free will is an illusion?
Very likely. Inevitably depending on what "free will" means. I have free will in the sense that I can decide what to do with with my life. I decide which apple to pick up and eat. Those decisions are decisions of will, and they are made more or less freely.

But in all those cases it is very likely that the full chain of causation could - with careful enough measurement - be picked apart. My claim is that every stage of that chain would be a physical event caused by physical properties. It's a hard claim to prove definitively because huge numbers of neurons and neurotransmitters and many other factors will have contributed in some way to my hand reaching for a particular apple.

If you want to claim that we have free will in the sense that we have some non-physical input into that chain of events then you need to show physical things (like neurons) being affected by non-physical causes. This is a harder claim to support because it's assuming the world works in a way that's significantly different from how our best knowledge shows it to work.

It comes back to the same point. Show a neuron doing something which has no physical cause, and then we can start considering "non-physical observers", or souls, or whatever.

> If free will didn't exist, there wouldn't exist a concept of it.
If God didn't exist, there wouldn't exist a concept of Him.

Humans make up simplifying concepts all the time.

[Anonymous No.12645374]

>>12645348
>I directly experience my own consciousness, obviously.
OK, and how is that evidence for it being nonphysical?

>This is a nonsensical statement.
How so?

>In other words "free will is an illusion of free will".
No, that's not what I said. Try reading it again.

>You really are clueless, no offense. I can't continue this any further with you.
It sounds like you have no clue what you're taking about. Reflect further on this.

[Anonymous No.12645389]

>>12635282
no

[Anonymous No.12645595]

Vzno

[Anonymous No.12645762]

>>12645316

[Anonymous No.12646700]

no

[Anonymous No.12647297]

>>12635282
Lasers are expensive.

[Anonymous No.12647341]

>>12647297
cool

[Anonymous No.12648688]

>>12647297
Dear God.

[Autolycus No.12648936]

>>12645305
>>12645331
You presuppose a classic ontology. Clearly when I think of a bone, it is not a physical bone. It's an abstraction. Are abstractions concrete-physical? Does truth have a physical cause? A bit of matter at a simple location? The process of relations brings about the mental state, not the matter.
>[…] apart from any essential reference of the relations of [a] bit of matter to other regions of space […] there is no element whatever which possesses this character of simple location. [… Instead,] I hold that by a process of constructive abstraction we can arrive at abstractions which are the simply located bits of material, and at other abstractions which are the minds included in the scientific scheme. Accordingly, the real error is an example of what I have termed: The Fallacy of Misplaced Concreteness. (Whitehead)
All actual entities have a measure of free will, however small it may be. a degree of novelty.
https://www.informationphilosopher.com/freedom/two-stage_models.html

[Anonymous No.12648980]

>>12648936
>Are abstractions concrete-physical?
Your thinking of them is concrete and physical. They don't exist outside that context. Please explain how you "experience" consciousness to be nonphysical.

>The process of relations brings about the mental state, not the matter.
Proof?

[Autolycus No.12649081]

>>12648980
>Your thinking of them is concrete and physical.
I'm thinking of them as mental. The abstract concepts don't exist outside the mind - they don't exist outside that context. That means they exist /outside/ concrete and physical context.
>Proof?
Circadian rhythms. Brainwaves. Heartbeat. Breath. Peripheral oscillators synchronized throughout the body. The body and brain are networks and nodes of flows. They are created by, for, and as processes. The nodes are not the mind or consciousness, the network is not conscious. Yet we are conscious - aware - as a direct result of concrete organization. We are concrete organisms, but not merely concrete. The organization of the body includes the mental state. This state is plainly non-physical. The illusory reality of fundamental fantasies, beliefs, and abstract concepts, simply are not physical. The experiencer is not bits of matter, that is not a reasonable relation - the players is not the character nor the processor. - This is not an arbitrary distinction, it is by good reason. Truth is an abstract concept, but we use it to define physical-concrete concepts. We must take care not to consider an abstract truth or belief as concrete in itself.
>There persists ... [a] fixed scientific cosmology which presupposes the ultimate fact of an irreducible brute matter, or material, spread through space in a flux of configurations. In itself such a material is senseless, valueless, purposeless. It just does what it does do, following a fixed routine imposed by external relations which do not spring from the nature of its being. It is this assumption that I call "scientific materialism." Also it is an assumption which I shall challenge as being entirely unsuited to the scientific situation at which we have now arrived. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_North_Whitehead#Whitehead's_conception_of_reality

[Anonymous No.12649086]

>>12648980
You treat "experiencing consciousness" as if it's some kind of external objective that we look at. I AM consciousness. I AM redness, blueness, all colors, all smells, all experiences. So when I say something like "my own direct experience tells me consciousness isn't physical", what I mean is that there is a kind of feedback loop enabled in my brain that allows it to understand the transcendental nature of my own consciousness, the actual thing that I truly am. If my consciousness were not transcendental, it would be literally impossible for me to tell you that it is. Internalize that, seriously. This is a very important concept to understand. If consciousness were just the process of physical workings of a brain, the brain would never BE ABLE to invent a concept about a non-physical transcendentalism. Concepts of non-physical cannot come from purely physical brains. You might as well tell me a universe of robots could come up with the concept of free will. See the problem...

[Anonymous No.12649110]

>>12635282
No

[Anonymous No.12649323]

>>12649081
>I'm thinking of them as mental.
Mental is physical whether you think about it like that or not.

>The abstract concepts don't exist outside the mind - they don't exist outside that context. That means they exist /outside/ concrete and physical context.
No it means the opposite.

>Circadian rhythms. Brainwaves. Heartbeat. Breath. Peripheral oscillators synchronized throughout the body. The body and brain are networks and nodes of flows.
All purely physical. Try again.

>The nodes are not the mind or consciousness, the network is not conscious.
Insofar as consciousness and mind exist, they are.

>The illusory reality of fundamental fantasies, beliefs, and abstract concepts, simply are not physical.
Right, because they don't exist in and of themselves.

>The experiencer is not bits of matter, that is not a reasonable relation
It is both reasonable and the only answer which can be observed.

>Truth is an abstract concept, but we use it to define physical-concrete concepts.
Definitions are abstract too. The definition isn't the thing itself. So what is your point?

[Anonymous No.12649357]

>>12649086
>You treat "experiencing consciousness" as if it's some kind of external objective that we look at.
Where did I do that?

>I AM consciousness. I AM redness, blueness, all colors, all smells, all experiences.
That's nice, but how does it respond to what I said?

>what I mean is that there is a kind of feedback loop enabled in my brain that allows it to understand the transcendental nature of my own consciousness, the actual thing that I truly am.
That's not a perception, it's a belief. Understand the difference?

>If my consciousness were not transcendental, it would be literally impossible for me to tell you that it is.
Why?

>Internalize that, seriously.
No.

>If consciousness were just the process of physical workings of a brain, the brain would never BE ABLE to invent a concept about a non-physical transcendentalism.
Why?

>Concepts of non-physical cannot come from purely physical brains.
Why?

>You might as well tell me a universe of robots could come up with the concept of free will.
They have!

[Anonymous No.12649508]

>>12649357
>>Concepts of non-physical cannot come from purely physical brains.
>Why?

You are not qualified to speak authoritatively on this subject until you understand this.

[Autolycus No.12649654]

>>12649323
>Mental is physical whether you think about it like that or not.
Actual entities are dipolar. The physical and mental poles are aspects of every real being(actual entities), but are not real beings themselves.
>No it means the opposite.
You're claiming abstract concepts are physical. Truth is physical? Obviously not, it's abstract.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(fallacy)#Fallacy_of_misplaced_concreteness

[Anonymous No.12649681]

>>12635503
fpbp

[Anonymous No.12650217]

>>12649508
It sounds like you don't understand it, since you've repeatedly failed to explain it.

[Anonymous No.12650233]

>>12649654
>The physical and mental poles are aspects of every real being(actual entities), but are not real beings themselves.
Proof?

>You're claiming abstract concepts are physical.
No, I'm saying abstract concepts don't exist outside a physical context.

[Anonymous No.12650466]

>>12650233
>muh emperical evidence and proof

are you aware of how many philosophical assumptions you have to make that you cannot prove before you can even do science? jesus christ this board is filled with pseuds

[Anonymous No.12650762]

>>12635915
This image is cute because it implies with enough money alone you can reach enlightenment.

[Anonymous No.12650889]

>>12650466
So we can just say shit and not give any evidence? OK, you're wrong. End of discussion. Wow, I never knew philosophy as practiced by geniuses like you could be so easy.

[Anonymous No.12651048]

>>12650466
I'm "doing science" right now, how are you going to stop me, armchair faggot?

[Anonymous No.12651053]

>>12651048
Low IQ post.

[Autolycus No.12651065]

>>12650889
We can state and use reason to find the evident good, as the basic good are reasons with no further reason. Those are the kind of philosophical assumptions underlying science. Identical to the mere presupposition of classic ontology which you're currently standing upon.

>>12651048
You're "doing ideology" right now because you're sentimental. I'd recommend trying to take the whole evidence into account.

[Anonymous No.12651118]

>>12651065
>We can state and use reason to find the evident good, as the basic good are reasons with no further reason.
No such thing. The only self-evident thing about reality is reality itself, which needs to be understood by using evidence. It's almost cute that you think your idiotic beliefs are self-evident and don't need to be proven. Too delusional to be cute though.

[Anonymous No.12651137]

>>12650466
why are you even wasting your time with this person? it seems like they are simply refusing to acknowledge anything you have to say?

[Anonymous No.12651144]

>>12651137
lol, for fun. i don't argue with blind people in hopes of convincing them. it's just weekend fun and games

[Anonymous No.12651193]

>>12651118
new to this thread.

i suggest you read up on some philosophy of science and constructivism.
one of the main concerns with your empirical viewpoint is that we, as supposedly sentient humans, half-collectively and presumptuously decided that there are strict limitations to how we must observe reality. this is probably what anon meant by “assumptions”. so you should ask yourself if humans in all their capacities are reliable enough to decide how this infinitely complex universe should be observed and if we are even doing it correctly.
this folds into things such as absolute truth, where you will quickly find that potentially outdated empiricism falls severely short in our efforts to find “truth”

[Autolycus No.12651197]

>>12651118
You don't understand what self-evident means.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence#Intellectual_evidence_(the_evident)

>Finnis, Grisez and Boyle point out that what is self-evident cannot be verified by experience, nor derived from any previous knowledge, nor inferred from any basic truth through a middle ground. Immediately they point out that the first principles are evident per se nota, known only through the knowledge of the meanings of the terms, and clarify that "This does not mean that they are mere linguistic clarifications, nor that they are intuitions-insights unrelated to data. Rather, it means that these truths are known (nota) without any middle term (per se), by understanding what is signified by their terms." Then when speaking specifically about the practical principles, they point out that they are not intuitions without contents, but their data come from the object to which natural human dispositions tend, that motivate human behavior and guide actions. Those goods to which humans primarily tend, which cannot be "reduced" to another good (it is to say, that they are not means to an end), they are considered "evident": "as the basic good are reasons with no further reasons".

Those goods to which humans primarily tend, which cannot be "reduced" to another good (it is to say, that they are not means to an end), they are considered "evident": "as the basic good are reasons with no further reasons".

[Anonymous No.12651204]

>>12635556
Its far easier to imagine consciousness as some mystical spirit. It takes real deep thinking to come to a conclusion that consciousness can be matter.

[Anonymous No.12651215]

>>12651204
it's easy to say the sky is simply blue. its far more difficult to show how somehow against all sense that it is actually not blue. wow! im so smart!!

[Anonymous No.12651218]

>>12651144
good point.

fuckin hell i wish stem majors were required to take some epistemology courses these days. all of our undergrads are literal robots.

[Anonymous No.12651230]

>>12651218
it's hilarious encountering all of these I FUCKING LOVE SCIENCE tards and their nonexistent understanding of philosophy. most of them think philosophy is some kind of outdated practice. an idea they got jerking off to Nigger Degrasse Tyson's big black cock pop-sci shitspews. the average /sci/poster no matter how articulate they appear are class A pseuds clueless about the entire philosophical groundwork that must exist for the scientific disciplin to even have meaning

[Anonymous No.12651231]

>>12651215
Indeed, considering that the sky is not blue would in fact indicate higher intelligence. It seems you have not considered it though...

[Anonymous No.12651236]

>>12651231
for most of the day the sky is what we agree to be "blue". quit pretending to be smarter than you are. you sound like a turd

[Anonymous No.12651244]

>>12651236
You just made idealism something that depends on people agreeing with it to make it true.

[Anonymous No.12651246]

>>12651244
low iq post

[Anonymous No.12651253]

>>12651230
it’s probably just the demographics of this board. interactions between academic interests and socio-ethnic background. makes me shoot myself in the foot every time i come back here lol.

[Anonymous No.12651265]

>>12651246
low iq post

[Anonymous No.12651268]

F
Ns

[Anonymous No.12651296]

>>12651193
The only one here assuming they understand how the universe works is the person I'm replying to, who claims mental phenomena are nonphysical and fundamental but won't provide any reasoning or evidence besides "I think it, therefore it must be true."

>this folds into things such as absolute truth, where you will quickly find that potentially outdated empiricism falls severely short in our efforts to find “truth”
I never claimed anything about truth.

[Anonymous No.12651305]

>>12651197
That really has nothing to do with what you're replying to, I suggest you read it again. I'm talking about reality, not abstractions. Your claims about consciousness and free will are nonsensical, let alone self-evident.

[Anonymous No.12651339]

I love how smug the armchair pseudo-philosophers in this thread are while spouting complete garbage.

[Anonymous No.12651343]

>>12651339
philosophy has always been about shitposting memes at each other

[Anonymous No.12651354]

>>12651305
>>12651339
>>12651343
Samefag

[Anonymous No.12651373]

>>12651296
thanks for bringing me up to speed.
i merely commented on our yearning for proof or evidence in the stricter sense of the term. you can see that i used “our efforts” instead of “your efforts”, indicating my interest in the idea instead of your beliefs.

anyways, both sides of the coin fall short in suggesting the existence of a physical or non-physical mind. at this stage it is firmly up to your beliefs and devotions. although, if you go looking for grounding evidence, you will find little. it’s just up to us to decide with the information we currently have regarding what the mind truly is.

book suggestion: from the knowledge argument to mental substance: resurrecting the mind

[Autolycus No.12651381]

>>12651296
Abstractions are nonphysical by definition. That is true by meaning of the words. Without this distinction you grossly conflate the concrete and abstract, a fallacy of misplaced concreteness. The reason to avoid that, and for attributing dipolarity of actuality entities, is that it's the most practical method for mapping and understanding processes. Science is a process.

>The primary qualities are the essential qualities of substances whose spatio-temporal relationships constitute nature. … The occurrences of nature are in some way apprehended by minds … But the mind in apprehending also experiences sensations which, properly speaking, are qualities of the mind alone. These sensations are projected by the mind so as to clothe appropriate bodies in external nature. Thus the bodies are perceived as with qualities which in reality do not belong to them, qualities which in fact are purely the offspring of the mind. Thus nature gets credit which should in truth be reserved for ourselves: the rose for its scent: the nightingale for his song: and the sun for his radiance. The poets are entirely mistaken. They should address their lyrics to themselves, and should turn them into odes of self-congratulation on the excellency of the human mind. Nature is a dull affair, soundless, scentless, colourless; merely the hurrying of material, endlessly, meaninglessly.

>The enormous success of the scientific abstractions has foisted onto philosophy the task of accepting them as the most concrete rendering of fact. Thereby, modern philosophy has been ruined. It has oscillated in a complex manner between three extremes. There are the dualists, who accept matter and mind as on an equal basis, and the two varieties of monists, those who put mind inside matter, and those who put matter inside mind. But this juggling with abstractions can never overcome the inherent confusion introduced by the ascription of misplaced concreteness to the scientific scheme. (Whitehead)

[Autolycus No.12651392]

>>12651305
Your conflation has everything to do with what I'm replying to.

>nonsense
>Every age produces people with clear logical intellects, and with the most praiseworthy grip of the importance of some sphere of human experience, who have elaborated, or inherited, a scheme of thought which exactly fits those experiences which claim their interest. Such people are apt resolutely to ignore, or to explain away, all evidence which confuses their scheme with contradictory instances. What they cannot fit in is for them nonsense. An unflinching determination to take the whole evidence into account is the only method of preservation against the fluctuating extremes of fashionable opinion. This advice seems so easy, and is in fact so difficult to follow.

>philosophy
>I hold that philosophy is the critic of abstractions. Its function is the double one, first of harmonising them by assigning to them their right relative status as abstractions, and secondly of completing them by direct comparison with more concrete intuitions of the universe, and thereby promoting the formation of more complete schemes of thought. It is in respect to this comparison that the testimony of great poets is of such importance. Their survival is evidence that they express deep intuitions of mankind penetrating into what is universal in concrete fact. Philosophy is not one among the sciences with its own little scheme of abstractions which it works away at perfecting and improving. It is the survey of the sciences, with the special object of their harmony, and of their completion. It brings to this task, not only the evidence of the separate sciences, but also its own appeal to concrete experience. (Whitehead)

[Anonymous No.12651541]

>>12651381
>Abstractions are nonphysical by definition.
Please point out where I said anything about abstractions on that post. You're not very good at reading.

>Without this distinction you grossly conflate the concrete and abstract, a fallacy of misplaced concreteness.
Where did I do that? You're delusional.

>The reason to avoid that, and for attributing dipolarity of actuality entities, is that it's the most practical method for mapping and understanding processes.
I don't see anything practical about it. In your quote, the idea that the mind is separate from nature serves no practical purpose other than to write a counterintuitive perspective.

What is the misplaced concreteness?

[Anonymous No.12651542]

>>12651392
What conflation?

[Autolycus No.12651958]

>>12651541
>Definitions are abstract too.
Applying concreteness to abstractions of physicality is just as erroneous as applying concreteness to the mental itself. Consciousness isn't anything transcendental or mystic, merely a subjective form of intellectual feeling. One can consider mind and brain as the same ontological thing observed from fundamentally different viewpoints, but the subjective viewpoint cannot be reduced to the other.
>Mental is physical
It is as true to say that the mental is physical, as it is to say that the physical is mental.
>All purely physical. Try again.
All processual. Not purely physical, as the mental state is included in organization of the body. The only significance of 'physicality' is denoting it from the abstract and non-physical, since substance is merely a type of process.
>To say that every unit-event [i.e. something that happens to these supposedly experiencing entities]... has a mental aspect means that it has a degree—however slight in the most elementary events—of spontaneity or self-determination. Although the event’s physical pole is given to it, its mentality is its capacity to decide precisely what to make of its given foundation. Its physicality is its relation to past actuality; its mentality involves its prehension of ideality or possibility, through which it escapes total determination by the past
The mental aspect and free will are evidenced by, and to account for, quantum mechanics.

>It’s obvious how a statement such as “Consciousness does not exist” involves a performative contradiction, but a statement such as “Consciousness is merely an epiphenomenon” runs afoul of performative consistency, too. If the uttered statement means what the speaker intended, then it must be conceded that her mind has had an effect on her body. If the statement was affirmed because the speaker thought it was true, then she must have had the freedom to let herself be motivated by an ideal such as truth.

[Anonymous No.12652108]

>>12635512
>Science is predicated on empiricism and logic
huh no, science is a rationalism so it rejects empiricism

[Anonymous No.12652109]

>only matter exists
>whatever exists is matter

[Anonymous No.12652347]

>>12651958
>>Definitions are abstract too.
That's not in the post you're replying to and doesn't say abstractions are physical.

>One can consider mind and brain as the same ontological thing observed from fundamentally different viewpoints, but the subjective viewpoint cannot be reduced to the other.
Other what?

>Consciousness isn't anything transcendental or mystic, merely a subjective form of intellectual feeling.
This clarifies nothing.

>It is as true to say that the mental is physical, as it is to say that the physical is mental.
No, it's not. The physical subsumes the mental.

>All processual. Not purely physical, as the mental state is included in organization of the body.
Insofar as the mental state exists, it's physical. You're the only one conflating abstractions with the concrete.

>since substance is merely a type of process.
Proof?

>The mental aspect and free will are evidenced by, and to account for, quantum mechanics.
LOL. You keep digging yourself into a bigger pseudoscientific hole. QM has nothing to do with mental states or free will. Explain how ideation counters determinism, and how lack of determinism implies free will.

>If the uttered statement means what the speaker intended, then it must be conceded that her mind has had an effect on her body.
The author is incorrectly conflating mind with consciousness. Consciousness being an epiphenomenon is completely consistent with the mind affecting the body.

>If the statement was affirmed because the speaker thought it was true, then she must have had the freedom to let herself be motivated by an ideal such as truth.
LOL, or she is forced to think it was true and to say a true thing. This is illogical nonsense desperately striving to reach a preconceived conclusion.

[Anonymous No.12652357]

>>12652109
Matter, energy, fields, spacetime

If you know of something else, then show it. Ah but you won't, because you just expect everyone to accept your gospel.

[Autolycus No.12652445]

>>12652347
>Other what?
Viewpoint.
>No, it's not. The physical subsumes the mental.
Both are subsumed by process. This conflation is entirely arbitrary. It does nothing, there is no reason behind it. So long as the body exists, it's mental.
>Proof?
>The fundamental concepts are activity and process. … The notion of self-sufficient isolation is not exemplified in modern physics. There are no essentially self-contained activities within limited regions. … Nature is a theatre for the interrelations of activities. All things change, the activities and their interrelations. … In the place of the procession of [spatial] forms (of externally related bits of matter, modern physics) has substituted the notion of the forms of process. It has thus swept away space and matter, and has substituted the study of the internal relations within a complex state of activity. (Whitehead)
Where as the presupposition of a classic ontology, unsuited to our scientific position, is an entirely false notion in itself. It's well proven itself to be left behind.
>"In fact, science conceived as restricting itself to the sensationalist methodology can find neither efficient nor final causality. It can find no creativity in Nature; it finds mere rules of succession” ... “The reason for this blindness lies in the fact that such science only deals with half of the evidence provided by human experience”
The significant contributions and invaluable role provided by Processism has already solidified it's place in the sciences.
>QM has nothing to do with mental states or free will
https://www.informationphilosopher.com/freedom/two-stage_models.html
>In 1931, Nobel prize-winning physicist Compton championed the idea of human freedom based on quantum uncertainty and invented the notion of amplification of microscopic quantum events to bring chance into the macroscopic world.

[Anonymous No.12652744]

>>12652445
>Viewpoint.
Which is?

>Both are subsumed by process.
How?

>This conflation is entirely arbitrary.
Which conflation?

>So long as the body exists, it's mental.
Gibberish.

>>The fundamental concepts are activity and process.
That's a nice religious doctrine, but how are abstract concepts proof of what reality is made up of?

>It has thus swept away space and matter
This is news to physicists.

>The significant contributions and invaluable role provided by Processism
Such as?

>>In 1931, Nobel prize-winning physicist Compton championed the idea of human freedom based on quantum uncertainty and invented the notion of amplification of microscopic quantum events to bring chance into the macroscopic world.
OK, and? QM has nothing to do with mental states and lack of determinism doesn't imply free will.

Explain how ideation counters determinism, and how lack of determinism implies free will.

[Anonymous No.12652773]

It is quite simple, anons. Science is fundamentally based on assumptions such as logic, collecting and interpreting data, rationality, etc. You CANNOT justify that these things are valid with a purely materialist framework. Science presupposes metaphysics.
Atheists are shallow, boring thinkers. If you deny God and metaphysical truths, then by your own admission, anything that you say is meaningless, worthless, subjective, arbitrary nonense.

[Autolycus No.12652922]

>>12652347
>Which is?
Objective.
>How
Change and time.
>Which conflation?
Mental as physical.
>That's a nice religious doctrine, but how are abstract concepts proof of what reality is made up of?
Exactly. The abstract presupposition of classical ontology doesn't prove anything, it's not concrete. This is where we use human reason - which allows man to act, goods - to decide appropriate concepts. A classical ontology let us establish a theory of knowledge, but we're not restricted to the limitations of scientific rationalism. I propose scientific pragmatism which can take the whole evidence of human experience into account.
>Explain how ideation counters determinism, and how lack of determinism implies free will.
The ultimate abstract principle of actual existence for Whitehead is creativity. Creativity is a term coined by Whitehead to show a power in the world that allows the presence of an actual entity, a new actual entity, and multiple actual entities. Creativity is the principle of novelty. It is manifest in what can be called 'singular causality'. This term may be contrasted with the term 'nomic causality'. An example of singular causation is that I woke this morning because my alarm clock rang. An example of nomic causation is that alarm clocks generally wake people in the morning. Aristotle recognizes singular causality as efficient causality. For Whitehead, there are many contributory singular causes for an event. A further contributory singular cause of my being awoken by my alarm clock this morning was that I was lying asleep near it till it rang.
>First we know that our experiences of free action contain both indeterminism and rationality...Second we know that quantum indeterminacy is the only form of indeterminism that is indisputably established as a fact of nature...it follows that quantum mechanics must enter into the explanation of consciousness." (John Searle)

[Anonymous No.12652965]

>>12652773
>You CANNOT justify that these things are valid with a purely materialist framework.
I'm not aware of anything that "validates" logic or rationality. They seem to be the way the world works. If they seemed not to be then we would be useless for science. Your post is pointless.

>Atheists are shallow, boring thinkers.
Ah, your agenda becomes clear. It's the classic theist canard where you attempt to elevate your arbitrary religious dogma by pointing out that achieve can't do X, while failing to show that your religion can do X.

>If you deny God and metaphysical truths, then by your own admission, anything that you say is meaningless, worthless, subjective, arbitrary nonense.
LOL "If you don't subscribe to my meaningless, worthless, subjective, arbitrary nonense, then by your own admission, anything that you say is meaningless, worthless, subjective, arbitrary nonense."

No, finding correlations between a model and reality is the only non-arbitrary thing we can do. Your attempts to drag science down into your morass of nonsense will fail every single time as long as you ignore this.

[Autolycus No.12652994]

>Such as?
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/process-philosophy/#HistCont
>>12652965
The cumulative case will show a naturalistic theism, like that of Process Philosophy, to be more probable than something like atheism.
>All of the arguments are phases of one ‘global’ argument, that the properly formulated theistically religious view of life and reality is the most intelligible, self-consistent, and satisfactory one that can be conceived. (Hartshorne)

[Anonymous No.12653003]

>>12652922
>Objective.
Who said anything about subjective or objective?

>Change and time.
That doesn't explain anything. Change doesn't subsume what changes.

>Mental as physical.
Not arbitrary, we know the mental is a product of the brain.

>Exactly.
So Whitehead is wrong and your quote proves nothing.

>The ultimate abstract principle of actual existence for Whitehead is creativity.
I don't care. Answer the question.

>>it follows that quantum mechanics must enter into the explanation of consciousness
It doesn't follow.

[Anonymous No.12653018]

>>12652994
>https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/process-philosophy/#HistCont
This just lists more metaphysics. Zero significant contributions to science.

>The cumulative case will show a naturalistic theism, like that of Process Philosophy, to be more probable than something like atheism.
Sure it will, schizo.

[Anonymous No.12653036]

>>12641158
Scientists are Agnostic Atheists not Agnostic Theists.

[Anonymous No.12653039]

>>12635282
>science
>materialism
Kek! What a stupid combination.

[Anonymous No.12653080]

>>12652965
>They seem to be the way the world works. If they seemed not to be then we would be useless for science.
>"seem to be"
You proved my point that materialists just use baseless assumptions with no grounding in metaphysics to justify your science in the first place. You cannot prove what is right or wrong or what those words even mean as a materialist. You have no basis in Truth. I could say something nonsensical like "2+2=73 green &is like 4.30d1plasma" and you would have no way of proving me wrong because YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT TRUTH IS.

[Autolycus No.12653112]

>>12653003
>Who said anything about subjective or objective?
"Consciousness isn't anything transcendental or mystic, merely a subjective form of intellectual feeling. One can consider mind and brain as the same ontological thing observed from fundamentally different viewpoints, but the subjective viewpoint cannot be reduced to the other."
>Change doesn't subsume what changes.
Change subsumes both concepts under the singular category of process.
>Not arbitrary, we know the mental is a product of the brain.
Both are products of organism. There is reason for dipolarity, and for the mental state resulting from organization of process relations. It purposefully describes a character of the world, it is towards a good. For what /reason/ have you stated the facts of nature? What is the methodological purpose of that fact? If it's merely to reach coherence with some concept of 'concreteness', that concreteness is misplaced.
>So Whitehead is wrong and your quote proves nothing.
Quite the opposite.
>I don't care. Answer the question.
Lack of determinism directly implies a degree of self-determinism.
>"Evidence of randomly generated action — action that is distinct from reaction because it does not depend upon external stimuli — can be found in unicellular organisms. Take the way the bacterium Escherichia coli moves. It has a flagellum that can rotate around its longitudinal axis in either direction: one way drives the bacterium forward, the other causes it to tumble at random so that it ends up facing in a new direction ready for the next phase of forward motion. This 'random walk' can be modulated by sensory receptors, enabling the bacterium to find food and the right temperature."
>It doesn't follow.
If you can't follow, that's okay.
https://youtu.be/8uC35poq1Zs

[Anonymous No.12653131]

>>12635282
define materialism

[Anonymous No.12653798]

>>12653080
>You proved my point that materialists just use baseless assumptions with no grounding in metaphysics
Which baseless assumption? Logic and reason? Retard, no one cares that your made up religion claims to be a foundation. It's all the same crap. Logic, reason, math, etc. are used because they are useful, not because your fake God handed them down.

>You cannot prove what is right or wrong
Nether can you, the only difference is I never claimed to in the first place.

>You have no basis in Truth.
Correct, my basis is in reality, not some abstraction you can't touch.

>and you would have no way of proving me wrong
Right, because you're "not even wrong."

[Anonymous No.12653832]

>>12653798
>reality
You don't know what reality is. Your whole worldview reduces to nothing at all. You deny truth yet still act like you have the right to make statements, you hypocrite, you clown.

[Anonymous No.12653843]

>>12653798
>are used because they are useful
Useful for what? Prove that what they are used for is real.

[Anonymous No.12653848]

>>12653112
>but the subjective viewpoint cannot be reduced to the other."
Retard, I'm asking you how what you said is relevant to anything I said. I don't need you to repeat your irrelevant drivel back to me.

>Change subsumes both concepts under the singular category of process.
Jesus saves your soul from Original Sin.

>Both are products of organism.
And? Where does the mental subsume the organism?

>There is reason for dipolarity
The reason apparently is "because Whitehead said so."

>Lack of determinism directly implies a degree of self-determinism.
LOL, no. The lottery being random doesn't imply you have any control over it. It implies the opposite. You're spouting contradictory nonsense.

>This 'random walk' can be modulated by sensory receptors, enabling the bacterium to find food and the right temperature.
What does this have to do with free will? I guess robots and computers have a lot of free will because they use ravaging walks and RNGs. You're delusional.

[Anonymous No.12653863]

>>12653832
>You don't know what reality is.
At least I'm trying to find out, instead of just making it up like you.

>Your whole worldview reduces to nothing at all.
I'd rather it reduce to nothing at all than an arbitrary delusion.

>You deny truth
You make up "truth."

>yet still act like you have the right to make statements
Clearly I have more right than you.

>you hypocrite, you clown.
That's rich.

[Anonymous No.12653878]

>>12653843
>Useful for what
Look around you, everything.

>Prove that what they are used for is real.
Give me a specific example and I'll give you an experiment.

[Autolycus No.12653918]

>>12653843
>If we admit that the basic entities of our world are processes, we can generate better philosophical descriptions of all the kinds of entities and relationships we are committed to when we reason about our world in common sense and in science: from quantum entanglement to consciousness, from computation to feelings, from things to institutions, from organisms to societies, from traffic jams to climate change, from spacetime to beauty. Moreover, results in cognitive science, some philosophers have claimed, show that we need a process metaphysics in order to develop a naturalist theory of the mind and of normativity. These arguments form the background for the processist criticism of the focus on substance in Western philosophy. The bias towards substances seems to be rooted partly in the cognitive dispositions of speakers of Indo-European languages, and partly in theoretical habituation, as the traditional prioritization of static entities (substances, objects, states of affairs, static structures) at the beginning of Western metaphysics built on itself. In contrast, process philosophy shows fewer affinities to any particular language group and can allude to a rich tradition of reflection in many of the great schools of Eastern thought. As recently appeared, process philosophy also has an increasing practical dimension, since only if we re-visualize our world as a system of interactions can we come to grips, conceptually and ethically, with the new phenomena of artificial life, artificial intelligence, and artificial sociality, and investigate the exceptionality of human capacities and the scope of moral obligation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_philosophy#Legacy_and_applications

[Autolycus No.12653954]

>>12653832
Aye. Reality is our fundamental fantasies, as opposed to the Real.
>>12653848
Its far easier to imagine consciousness as some mystical spirit, or as mere matter, reducing to one or the other, than it is to actually take the whole evidence into account~
>Jesus saves your soul from Original Sin.
I do indeed.
>And? Where does the mental subsume the organism?
Wherever actual entities are prehending.
> doesn't imply you have any control over it
Free will is a degree of self-determination. It has nothing to do with control over external bodies~
>What does this have to do with free will?
They are moving by their own free will~
>I guess robots and computers
And puffs of smoke, yes~ Free will is inherent to the universe.

[Anonymous No.12654030]

>>12653954
>Its far easier to imagine
Irrelevant.

>than it is to actually take the whole evidence into account~
Which evidence? Your only "evidence" is your own belief/delusion. You have failed repeatedly to explain why the idea of free will can only exist if we have free will. It's because there is no explanation, you just claim whatever pops into your head.

>Wherever actual entities are prehending.
How?

>Free will is a degree of self-determination.
Indeterminism isn't self-determination.

>It has nothing to do with control over external bodies~
External and internal only have relevance in the context of causality. Why does it matter where a random factor is located? An external lottery is as undetermined by you as a lottery in your head, because it's not determined in the first place.

>They are moving by their own free will~
They don't have a will, let alone a free one.

>Free will is inherent to the universe.
Just like magic. Can't make something make sense? Just redefine it, say it's fundamental to the universe and you're done.

[Autolycus No.12654163]

>>12654030
>Which evidence?
That provided by the whole human experience.
>You have failed repeatedly to explain why the idea of free will can only exist if we have free will.
Is it not evident to you that 'the Sun can only exist only if the Sun exists'?
>Inherent in each actual entity is its respective dimension of time. Potentially, each Whiteheadean occasion of experience is causally consequential on every other occasion of experience that precedes it in time, and has as its causal consequences every other occasion of experience that follows it in time; thus it has been said that Whitehead's occasions of experience are 'all window', in contrast to Leibniz's 'windowless' monads. In time defined relative to it, each occasion of experience is causally influenced by prior occasions of experiences, and causally influences future occasions of experience. An occasion of experience consists of a process of prehending other occasions of experience, reacting to them. This is the process in process philosophy.

>Such process is never deterministic. Consequently, free will is essential and inherent to the universe

>How?
Cocreating future potentials for newness by prehending the completed experiences that constitute the past.
>Indeterminism isn't self-determination.
Cool. Self-determinism is evidenced in even unicellular organisms. They are not self-indetermining, and chance has nothing to do with Creativity~
>External and internal only have relevance in the context of causality.
They only have relevance in context of the self which is determining~
>An external lottery is as undetermined by you as a lottery in your head
Actual entities are self-determining, not other-determining~
>Just like magic.
Your ignorance is blinding. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(fallacy)#Fallacy_of_misplaced_concreteness

[Anonymous No.12654171]

>>12635512
logic is immaterial

[Anonymous No.12654177]

>>12635553
the fact that you group idealism with mysticism and occult garbage lol

typical scientism

[Anonymous No.12654953]

>>12654163
>Is it not evident to you that 'the Sun can only exist only if the Sun exists'?
There is an idea of unicorns, but no unicorns.

[Anonymous No.12655083]

>>12635282
Can materialism justify itself, you're asking. Well, where does the notion of justification arrive from in the first place? Does it arrive from said material world? And if so, does it "arrive" in a destination that is something immaterial? How can a destination be immaterial after all? Is our understanding itself physical? Is it all matter? Or does understanding itself, even as a physical process, require an immaterial referential, the metaphysical? The thing that recognises? If there is such a thing, it would necessarily be a non-thing by virtue of itself, so we can't speak of what it is other than to say what it isn't. That could go on for a while, however.

[Anonymous No.12655177]

>>12654163
>That provided by the whole human experience.
What does the whole human experience tell you about consciousness?

>Is it not evident to you that 'the Sun can only exist only if the Sun exists'?
It is. Now explain why the idea of free will can only exist if we have free will.

>Such process is never deterministic. Consequently, free will is essential and inherent to the universe
Doesn't follow.

>Cocreating future potentials for newness by prehending the completed experiences that constitute the past.
This is gibberish and doesn't explain how the mental subsumes the physical.

>Self-determinism is evidenced in even unicellular organisms.
Then show it.

>They are not self-indetermining, and chance has nothing to do with Creativity~
You're the only one who brought up such gibberish.

>They only have relevance in context of the self which is determining~
So first you say it's lack of determinism and now you're back to determinism, which is it?

>Your ignorance is blinding.
Your failure to justify your claims is pathetic.

[Anonymous No.12655181]

>>12654177
That's what the idealists have done to themselves in this thread. If the shoe fits...

[Autolycus No.12655302]

>>12655177
>What does the whole human experience tell you about consciousness?
That we are affected by a subjective form of intellectual feeling; that we have a subjective awareness which is affected by feelings, thus must have an aspect which is receptive to affect, which is traditionally called 'mental'. An entity is not merely the sum of it's relations, but also an evaluation and reaction to them~
>It is. Now explain why the idea of free will can only exist if we have free will.
The process of creation is never deterministic, and every actual entity has a degree of self-determination and novelty. This is evident by good of reason.
>"freedom is not just chance but, rather, the result of a subtle interplay between something almost random or haphazard, and something like a restrictive or selective control." - Popper
>"Just as indeterminism need not undermine rationality and voluntariness of choices, so indeterminism in and of itself need not undermine control and responsibility.' - Kane

>This is gibberish and doesn't explain how the mental subsumes the physical.
Abstraction directly subsumes the physical~
>So first you say it's lack of determinism and now you're back to determinism, which is it?
Lack of determinism. Abundance of self-determining actual entities~
>"A set of known physical conditions is not adequate to specify precisely what a forthcoming event will be. These conditions, insofar as they can be known, define instead a range of possible events from among which some particular event will occur. When one exercises freedom, by his act of choice he is himself adding a factor not supplied by the physical conditions and is thus himself determining what will occur. That he does so is known only to the person himself. From the outside one can see in his act only the working of physical law. It is the inner knowledge that he is in fact doing what he intends to do that tells the actor himself that he is free." - Compton

[Anonymous No.12656571]

The concept of nonphysical could not arise within a purely physical reality. We are nonphysical conscious entities therefore we naturally ponder the nonphysical. A robot devoid of consciousness could never think of the concept of consciousness, of course unless it were programmed by a conscious entity to ask such a question, in which it would not be genuine obviously.

[Anonymous No.12656647]

>>12656571
>The concept of nonphysical could not arise within a purely physical reality.
Why?

[Anonymous No.12656703]

>>12656647
Think about it. How could it? If materialism is true and all things are physical, how could a concept of nonphysicality exist? This isn't the same thing as imagining santa claus. Nonexistent objects or beings are synthesis of already existing physical reality. The concept of nonphysicality is categorical different.

[Anonymous No.12656712]

>>12655302
>That we are affected by a subjective form of intellectual feeling; that we have a subjective awareness which is affected by feelings, thus must have an aspect which is receptive to affect, which is traditionally called 'mental'. An entity is not merely the sum of it's relations, but also an evaluation and reaction to them~
None of this contradicts materialism.

>The process of creation is never deterministic
Why?

>every actual entity has a degree of self-determination and novelty
So why not just say every entity has free will? What is the point of claiming the idea of free will proves it? It seems you have no actual understanding of what you're parroting.

>>"freedom is not just chance but, rather, the result of a subtle interplay between something almost random or haphazard, and something like a restrictive or selective control."
This doesn't exist.

>Just as indeterminism need not undermine rationality and voluntariness of choices
But it does.

>Abstraction directly subsumes the physical~
Reification fallacy.

>Lack of determinism.
Then there's no self-determination. You keep repeating the same contradiction inherent to free will's incoherence. You can't have it both ways, conscious non-random control but nothing controls you. In reality, we know that decisions occur subconsciously before you experience making them. Your entire argument is based on a disproven illusion.

>When one exercises freedom, by his act of choice he is himself adding a factor not supplied by the physical conditions
This is a fantasy.

>It is the inner knowledge that he is in fact doing what he intends to do that tells the actor himself that he is free.
A delusion isn't knowledge.

[Anonymous No.12656723]

>>12656703
>just repeats himself to make it true
your brain on idealism

>Nonexistent objects or beings are synthesis of already existing physical reality
Indeed, including the concept of absence of things.

Nonphysicality is just when you apply this concept of absence, such as 'absence of oranges', not to a single fruit, but to the all of everything. You have now imagined something that is nothing using only real things.
Real things used:
1. Oranges in a location
2. The absence of oranges in a location
3. The entirety of the universe

[Anonymous No.12656754]

>>12656703
>How could it?
I'm asking you how you know it couldn't, that doesn't mean that I know it could.

>If materialism is true and all things are physical, how could a concept of nonphysicality exist?
Insofar as any concept exists, it exists physically in the brain. You're not answering the question.

>Nonexistent objects or beings are synthesis of already existing physical reality.
So which parts of physical reality are synthesized to make Santa's magic? And why do you think free will is not such a synthesis?

>The concept of nonphysicality is categorical different.
How? Magic is just as nonphysical as free will.

I doubt any actual philosopher believes this.

[Anonymous No.12656791]

>>12656712
All those who do not believe in free will are hypocrites.
If there is no free will, all rapists, all pedophiles, all wrongdoers should not be punished, as they bear no responsibility.
Your kid doing mistakes should not be punished for doing those, as he is not responsible.
Materialism and determinism are both lies.

[Anonymous No.12656879]

>>12656647
Can the concept of white arise in a white less universe? Whiteness is a nonphysical primary state of existence, which can't be intellectually invented, but must be experienced to know. In before "muh whiteness can be explained with just the right combination of words."

Apply this idea to consciousness and free will. The oy reason anyone ever discusses the nonphysical nature of these things in the first place is because they are indeed nonphysical.

[Anonymous No.12657262]

>>12656791
>If there is no free will, all rapists, all pedophiles, all wrongdoers should not be punished, as they bear no responsibility.
We are forced to make them bear responsibility, or not bear it.

>Your kid doing mistakes should not be punished for doing those, as he is not responsible.
We are forced to punish them or not punish them.

You have a child's level of thought on this.

[Anonymous No.12657284]

>>12657262
Utter failure at understanding and arguing.
There is no more good and evil with your determinism.
You must still be a young man. In ten years you will understand, don't sweat it.

[Anonymous No.12657300]

>>12656879
>Can the concept of white arise in a white less universe?
It depends what you mean by white, but yes. Impossible colors are a concept https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impossible_color

>Whiteness is a nonphysical primary state of existence
To the extent that whiteness exists, it's physical.

>which can't be intellectually invented
Because?

>Apply this idea to consciousness and free will
You're just saying "apply the idea that something has to exist to think about it to consciousness and free will" when that was what you were supposed to be illustrating in the first place. Philosophers don't just repeat something over and over when you ask them to explain it.

[Anonymous No.12657314]

>>12657284
>There is no more good and evil with your determinism.
Clearly there is since we are forced to judge certain things as "good" and "evil." I don't know what you think good and evil are beyond that. Do you think god handed them down? Then why do different people have different views of good and evil? Which one is the "correct" one? Please show us, oh prophet.

[Anonymous No.12657337]

>>12643023
>Science can tells us the physical process that results in the conscious experience of redness
>that results in

Science can't even tell us that. If there's no way to measure where physicalism ends and consciousness begins, there are no grounds for deducing a cause-and-effect relation. All we know is that something physical happens before we experience red.

[Anonymous No.12657361]

>>12657314
Good = God and spirituality.
Evil = Idols and materialism.

[Anonymous No.12657363]

>>12657337
>If there's no way to measure where physicalism ends and consciousness begins
There is no way to measure what doesn't exist.

[Anonymous No.12657368]

>>12657361
>God and spirituality.
Which one?

>Evil = Idols and materialism.
Why?

[Anonymous No.12657383]

>>12657361
>Evil = Idols = God = Good

[Anonymous No.12657425]

>>12635503
>>12635512
>>12649681
Materialism / physicalism are the correct metaphysical positions, as established by science.

Anybody who gets triggered by this should cope.

[Anonymous No.12657622]

>>12657300
Colors already exist, it's not the same, if all the creatures on the universe where deaf, would the concept of music exist?

[Anonymous No.12658110]

>>12657425
Can you make a physical description of what happens at the event horizon of a black hole? No? Then physicalism is a worthless position.

[Anonymous No.12658472]

>>12658110
You're stupid. Just because we don't yet know the physical properties of everything doesn't mean that physicalism is false.

[Anonymous No.12658477]

>>12657368
Most people worship gold, kill for money and to keep their comfort.
Truth tellers are people willing to go to jail and die for the truth(See how Holocaust non believers go to jail).

[Anonymous No.12658551]

>>12657622
>Colors already exist, it's not the same
Then why did you say to apply the same idea? There are plenty of things that don't exist that are conceptual. You have failed to explain why free will can't be conceptual.

>if all the creatures on the universe where deaf, would the concept of music exist?
I don't know, but what does this have to do with free will?

[Anonymous No.12658557]

>>12658472
Ah so you cannot make the physical description, physicalism is wrong then, oh and we get to have the description new questions will undoubtedly arise, so physicalism will remain wrong and pointless position forevermore.

[Anonymous No.12658682]

>>12658551
Then by the same logic would the concept of music exist in a world of deaf people? Answer that question

[Anonymous No.12658685]

>>12658110
>Can you make a physical description of what happens at the event horizon of a black hole?
Yes, why do you think we can't? The only thing that happens at the event horizon is that you move towards the black hole regardless of any other forces.

[Anonymous No.12658704]

>>12658682
>Then by the same logic would the concept of music exist in a world of deaf people?
See >>12658551

[Anonymous No.12658762]

>>12658685
>Yes, why do you think we can't?
Quantum gravity
>A cosmic event horizon is commonly accepted as a real event horizon, whereas the description of a local black hole event horizon given by general relativity is found to be incomplete and controversial.[2][3] When the conditions under which local event horizons occur are modeled using a more comprehensive picture of the way the Universe works, that includes both relativity and quantum mechanics, local event horizons are expected to have properties that are different from those predicted using general relativity alone.
You get nonsense results if you try to describe anything at the center of a black hole QM and GR stops working.

[Anonymous No.12658771]

>>12658557
We WILL be able to make a physical description once we have more knowledge.

In fact maybe we already can like this guy says - >>12658685

I'm not a scientist so I'm not aware of what our current knowledge of black holes is like.

[Anonymous No.12658813]

>>12658762
>You get nonsense results if you try to describe anything at the center of a black hole QM and GR stops working.
Just because our current theories are incomplete DOES NOT mean that physicalism is false.

[Anonymous No.12658820]

>>12658771
>I'm not a scientist so I'm not aware of what our current knowledge of black holes is like.
Is alright, have fun checking this out, at some point you will realise, "physicalism" just cannot ever be proven right.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_physics

[Anonymous No.12658917]

>>12658820
See: >>12658813
>Just because our current theories are incomplete DOES NOT mean that physicalism is false.

[Anonymous No.12658998]

>>12657300
>It depends what you mean by white, but yes. Impossible colors are a concept
Nope. You're taking an already existing concept of 'color' and saying "well we can imagine that there are some that we don't know about". That doesn't equate to physical beings in a physical universe just 'thinking up' a nonphysical concept. The accurate comparison would be to say "I myself have actually thought of a new color that nobody else has ever seen".

>To the extent that whiteness exists, it's physical.
And that extent would be?

>Philosophers don't just repeat something over and over when you ask them to explain it.
That's the problem though. There are only so many words one can use to try to force enlightenment on someone. After a while, you're stuck repeating yourself. See, because this is not a science. Because consciousness is not physical and is fundamentally subjective, untestable and unobservable externally, I can't even know that you are indeed a conscious entity, and that I'm not just spewing words at a zombie who 'thinks' he's conscious. You either get it or you don't, so to speak. I was instantly enlightened at age 12 when my father explained to me that when I look at the sky, the blue IS me, and not 'out there'. I didn't even have to try to understand what he meant.

If consciousness is physical and explainable, why don't you go ahead and tell me what the physical difference between red and blue are. Do not try to tell me that one is 750nm and the other is 450nm. Wavelengths are not redness. Brain process is not redness. Redness is a process-less state of being, which one's consciousness is triggered to become by the brain interface processes.

Again I say, tell me the physical difference between redness and blueness. If something doesn't click in your mind when thinking about this, there is nothing more I can say to you.

[Anonymous No.12659028]

>>12658704
It's not the same, you're are talking of a concept that already exist the colors, deaf people can't hear a sound so then how can they even fathom the idea of music?

[Anonymous No.12659042]

>>12658998
Not him but
>If consciousness is physical and explainable, why don't you go ahead and tell me what the physical difference between red and blue are. Do not try to tell me that one is 750nm and the other is 450nm.
But that's literally the answer.
>Again I say, tell me the physical difference between redness and blueness.
There will be some physical difference in the brain between a brain that is perceiving a blue thing and a brain that is perceiving a red thing.

[Anonymous No.12659061]

>>12659042
>But that's literally the answer.
Nope.
>Thinks the qualia of redness = process
You are not qualified to discuss this yet.

[Anonymous No.12659095]

>>12658917
It does not mean is right either. Worthless philosophical position.

[Anonymous No.12659115]

>>12658917
God of the gaps

[Anonymous No.12659197]

>>12635915
>our brains has exploited quirks in physical/spacetime properties that enhances our consciousness
Ah yes the famous new age conjuring that has no basis in anything, metaphysical, or in this case, material.
Please sod off.

[Anonymous No.12659214]

>>12635556
>increase pressure on the brainstem
>consciousness fades away
WOOOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAOOOOOOOOOOW

[Anonymous No.12659304]

>>12659061
>Nope.
It literally is the answer. You asked for the physical difference between red and blue. Red is light of around 620 - 750 nm in wavelength, and blue is light of around 450 - 495 nm in wavelength.

>You are not qualified
Ad hominem is not an argument. Thanks for conceding the argument.

>>12659095
It's the true philosophical position. Cope and seethe.

>>12659115
I'm not proposing any god.

[Anonymous No.12659337]

>>12659304
>It's the true philosophical position.
Can you describe everything "physical"? No? Is not "the true philosophical position" then.

[Anonymous No.12659361]

>>12658998
>Because consciousness is not physical and is fundamentally subjective, untestable and unobservable externally
t. doesnt believe in comas
> I was instantly enlightened at age 12 when my father explained to me that when I look at the sky, the blue IS me, and not 'out there'. I didn't even have to try to understand what he meant.
Ah so you suffer from youth trauma, yes you are stuck in a thinking pattern.
>You either get it or you don't,
You also admitted that you have 0 argument.
>If consciousness is physical and explainable, why don't you go ahead and tell me what the physical difference between red and blue are.
Your conflating 2 things with eachother, and then proceed to make a logical error.
> Redness is a process-less state of being,
which one's consciousness is triggered to become by the brain interface processes.
This is a non-sequitur.
>Again I say, tell me the physical difference between redness and blueness.
Yes there is one but you seem to think wavelenghts arent physical or that qualia disprove them.
Anyway colourblindess exists and is testable.

[Anonymous No.12659459]

>>12659337
Yes you can, everything can be explained in terms of physical descriptions.

It's true that physics is not complete yet, we don't have a theory of everything yet. We probably never will. But physics has managed to explain more and more things over time, while eliminating supernatural explanations.

So the evidence indicates extremely strongly that everything has a physical explanation.

Hence physicalism / materialism is correct.

[Anonymous No.12659613]

>>12635712
These pictures look really cool but what does meditation actually involve? Just sitting still? I'll go for a walk thanks.

[Anonymous No.12659774]

>>12635556
>>12651204
>>12651215
>>12651231
>>12651236
>>12651244
>>12651246
>>12651265
Consciousness is a physical phenomenon.

It is simply electrochemical activity in the brain.

[Anonymous No.12659785]

>>12659459
>It's true that physics is not complete yet
You said it yourself, physicalism is not correct because it relies on a magical "final theory" that doesn't even exist as of today.

[Anonymous No.12659799]

>>12659785
Wrong.

As I've said already, just because our understanding of physics is not yet complete DOES NOT MEAN that physicalism is false.

The fact that physics has eliminated all supernatural explanations and can explain almost everything in the observable universe indicates that everything is in fact physical.

It is only a matter of time until physics explains the things that are currently unexplained - at least, that's what the history of physics would suggest.

[Anonymous No.12659816]

>>12659799
>As I've said already, just because our understanding of physics is not yet complete DOES NOT MEAN that physicalism is false.
And this applies the other way, saying physicalism is correct is literally wishful thinking, and very dogmatic too.

[Anonymous No.12659835]

>>12659816
>And this applies the other way,
LMAO if it did none of you 'metaphysicians' have shown it so far.

[Anonymous No.12659852]

>>12659304
>It literally is the answer. You asked for the physical difference between red and blue. Red is light of around 620 - 750 nm in wavelength, and blue is light of around 450 - 495 nm in wavelength.
Aaaaaaaaand wrong again. This isn't even fun anymore.

I didn't ask you for the physical difference between the PROCESSES. I asked you for the physical difference between redNESS and blueNESS. The fact that you can't even see the difference between these two ideas means you cannot meaningfully participate in this discussion with me any longer.

>Ad hominem
I didn't make an ad hominem. Stating that you are not qualified is a commentary on your lack of ability to discuss this subject matter meaningfully. it isn't a personal attack on your character, which is what ad hominem means.

Throw your materialistic biases away and do some internal reflection on your own consciousness before approaching this subject again (assuming you are even conscious).

[Anonymous No.12659873]

>>12659816
It's not wishful thinking. Science has proven that it can explain nearly every known phenomenon in the universe, AND that it gets better over time with new discoveries and theories.

Physicalism is true. Cope and seethe.

>>12659852
>wrong
You asked for the physical difference between red and blue. I gave you what is literally the answer to that question. Red is light of around 620 - 750 nm in wavelength, and blue is light of around 450 - 495 nm in wavelength.

>Ad hominem
Ad hominem is not an argument. Thanks for conceding the argument to me.

[Anonymous No.12659875]

>>12659816
This picture is so deliciously based.

[Autolycus No.12659883]

>>12656712
>So why not just say every entity has free will?
That is what I'm saying~
.>Why?
Prehension. As explained. >>12654163
http://ppquimby.com/alan/prehen.htm
>Reification fallacy.
As is necissary when attempting to comprehend your reality~ They're both process, but you've reified the abstracted physical as concrete.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(fallacy)#Fallacy_of_misplaced_concreteness
>Then there's no self-determination.
>Random noise in the neurobiology of animals allows for the generation of alternative possibilities for action. In lower animals, this shows up as behavioral freedom. Animals are not causally predetermined by prior events going back in a causal chain to the origin of the universe. In higher animals, randomness can be consciously invoked to generate surprising new behaviors. In humans, creative new ideas can be critically evaluated and deliberated. On reflection, options can be rejected and sent back for “second thoughts” before a final responsible decision and action.

>When the indeterminism is limited to the early stage of a mental decision, the later decision itself can be described as adequately determined. This is called the two-stage model, first the “free” generation of ideas, then an adequately determinism evaluation and selection process we call “will." https://www.informationphilosopher.com/articles/STI-Springer-Doyle.pdf
>A delusion isn't knowledge.
Nor is a physical particle~
>>12643023
Exemplar. This is the evidence of human experience which scientific materialism simply ignores, and sufficient grounds for accepting the usefulness of a process view.
https://youtu.be/GFlzCOhjTtc

[Anonymous No.12659889]

>>12659875
>OLD GOOD NEW BAD
It's cringe.

The reason the modern guys are more confident in science is probably because science now is so much BETTER than it used to be.

We now have supercomputers in our pockets. Science has really proven its worth more than it ever did before.

[Anonymous No.12659907]

>>12659889
This is a low IQ post.

QM is the most rock solid and predictable scientific theory of all time, and it shattered Einstein's all-analog world into smithereens. Please have some self-respect and educate yourself a little bit. Our modern scientific discoveries pale in comparison to the game-changers of the previous two centuries. You are certifiably retarded.

[Anonymous No.12659924]

>>12659873
>Science has proven that it can explain nearly every known phenomenon in the universe
Dark energy and dark matter say otherwise.
>Physicalism is true. Cope and seethe.
Can you physically describe what happens at the centar of a black hole? No? Physicalism is false.

[Anonymous No.12659947]

>>12659924
>Can you physically describe what happens at the centar of a black hole? No? Physicalism is false.
Muh we will be able to describe it eventually.

[Anonymous No.12659949]

>>12659924
what has explained non physicalism? fuck yourself faggot

[Anonymous No.12659958]

>>12659949
What? Are you asking me to prove a negative or something

[Anonymous No.12659962]

>>12659958
try roping

[Anonymous No.12659970]

>>12659907
>low IQ
Ad hominem is not an argument. Thanks for conceding the argument to me.

>QM is the most rock solid and predictable scientific theory of all time, and it shattered Einstein's all-analog world into smithereens.
Proving the point that science is better now than it used to be. And science is also better due to what I said - supercomputers in our pockets.

>>12659924
>Dark energy and dark matter say otherwise.
Science has some idea of what these are, and our understanding will only increase with time.

>Can you physically describe what happens at the centar of a black hole?
Yes. Singularity. Next question.

>Physicalism is false
No, it is true. Cope and seethe.

What's your alternative? That a black hole is a supernatural event, maybe divinely created by God, and will always be impossibe to explain by science?

>>12659947
We already know that the centre of a black hole is a gravitational singularity, right? But yes, our explanation will get fuller with time.

[Anonymous No.12659984]

>>12659970
>QM is the most rock solid and predictable scientific theory of all time, and it shattered Einstein's all-analog world into smithereens.
>Proving the point that science is better now than it used to be.
Very low IQ.

[Anonymous No.12659987]

>>12659962
see>>12658820
You have a lot of study to do, hopefully one day you will realise playing the "i know everything" card doesn't work in science

[Anonymous No.12659994]

>>12659337
The question is not whether you can describe something, the question is whether you can describe something correctly. Your metaphysical gibberish can't.

[Anonymous No.12660006]

>>12659970
>Science has some idea of what these are, and our understanding will only increase with time.
No it has not, not even the Standard Model knows what to do with neither of them.
>Yes. Singularity. Next question.
Singularities are hypothetical, since there's no description of gravity at those scales.
>No, it is true. Cope and seethe.
See above.

[Anonymous No.12660016]

>>12659028
See >>12658551
Why do you keep repeating what I already replied to?

[Anonymous No.12660019]

>>12659970
>What's your alternative?
That's like saying String theory is correct because there is no alternatives. Not an argument really.

[Anonymous No.12660023]

>>12659984
Ad hominem is not an argument. Thanks for conceding the argument to me.

>>12660006
Science will get better and explain things better with time.

Physicalism is true.

What's your alternative? That a black hole is a supernatural phenomenon, maybe divinely created by God, and will always be impossibe to explain by science?

[Anonymous No.12660027]

>>12660023
>Science will get better and explain things better with time.
Correct
>Physicalism is true.
Incorrect
>What's your alternative?
see>>12660019

[Anonymous No.12660029]

>>12660019
I'm not arguing for string theory, I'm arguing for physicalism, which is true.

What is your alternative? You don't have one, do you?

[Anonymous No.12660034]

>>12658762
>You get nonsense results if you try to describe anything at the center of a black hole QM and GR stops working.
The event horizon is not the center of a black hole, and QM is describing different scales (subatomic) and different features (energy/information transfer) than my description.

[Anonymous No.12660047]

Here is what I don't understand about materialists:

Consciousness is obviously real, and obviously weird. Now, there is ZERO evidence that consciousness is either physical or nonphysical. I suppose it's impossible to have empirical evidence for a nonphysical thing in the first place, because, by definition, it is not reducible to physics. But again, in the other direction, we have zero evidence for it being physical... So why do materialists suspend their touted quest for truth so readily to assume that it is physical? If there is no evidence for its physicality, why assume that it's physical from the outset? It sounds like pure ideology, which is not in the scientific spirit. If consciousness is truly nonphysical, fundamental, irreducible to physics, are materialists willing to accept it after, say, 10,000 years of fruitless attempts to quantify it? I'm not so sure...

[Anonymous No.12660049]

>>12660029
> which is true.
No is not, you have no evidence.
>What is your alternative?
Alternative to what? To physicalism? Neutral monism.

[Anonymous No.12660062]

>>12660027
>Incorrect
Incorrect. Physicalism is true. Cope and seethe.

>>12660049
>evidence
The entirity of science is the evidence.

[Anonymous No.12660067]

>>12660047
>Now, there is ZERO evidence that consciousness is either physical or nonphysical
No, there's plenty of evidence that consciousness is physical. It's electrochemical processes in the brain.

[Anonymous No.12660087]

>>12660062
>The entirity of science is the evidence.
The entirity of science suggests the description of the center of a black hole is unknown, physicalism is false.

[Anonymous No.12660090]

>>12660067
Clearly, electrochemical processes exist in the brain, but what is the evidence that electrochemical processes in the brain cause subjective experience?

[Anonymous No.12660099]

>>12660062
>cope and seethe

[Anonymous No.12660105]

>>12660047
>If there is no evidence for its physicality, why assume that it's physical from the outset?
Everything else is physical and there is rationally no reason that i could not be physical, so why assume otherwise?

If you find out consciousness is some wierd super special unique thing produced by 'conscions' , that thing itself is just another wonderous facet of the universe, of matter.

materialism is not so much a position on what is but a position on how what is is known. The materialist starts at his feet, and looks up.

Monists of either type are not rejecting parts of reality selectively, they are simply saying all those other parts of reality dualists hold as something else are in fact just varied form of matter/idea.

To argue against either by bringing up distinct things that could exist to 'disprove' them is misunderstanding what is meant by the positions.

[Anonymous No.12660114]

>>12660087
The entirity of science suggests that we will uncover more about the nature of reality in time.

We will be able to describe the centre of a black hole, in physical terms, in time.

Physicalism is true.

As I've said multiple times now:
>Just because we don't yet know the physical properties of everything doesn't mean that physicalism is false.

>>12660090
When someone's electrochemical processes cease (or reduce in activity significantly), they stop having subjective experiences.

Evidence: comas.

>>12660099
Cope and seethe.

[Anonymous No.12660118]

>>12660105
You operate within the framework that physics is the root of all reality, when in fact, consciousness could equally be the root of all reality from which a physical matrix manifests. It makes more sense to me to trust my own intuition that my consciousness is nonphysical, and that the rest of the universe is a spawn within infinite consciousness, than that my consciousness is reducible to physical laws just because 'everything else is'.

[Anonymous No.12660132]

>>12660114
>When someone's electrochemical processes cease (or reduce in activity significantly), they stop having subjective experiences.

Evidence: comas.
This isn't evidence. You have no clue what their consciousness might be experiencing when they are braindead, likewise, when they are dead. Just because they might come out of the coma and not remember anything during their 'offline' time, doesn't mean they were truly offline. All that means is that memory is a brain phenomenon, not a property of raw consciousness. And if consciousness is not reducible to spacetime, then it is not governed by time, and thusly can bypass the 'time' it took for the brain to emerge out of 'offline' mode. The conscious entity, in effect, never ceased.

[Anonymous No.12660136]

>>12660114
>We will be able to describe the centre of a black hole, in physical terms, in time.
>Just because we don't yet know the physical properties of everything doesn't mean that physicalism is false.
In time when you get the physical descriptions, until then physicalism is forever false and merely a Belief.

[Anonymous No.12660141]

>>12660118
ultimately nothing is knowable. The correct position if you dont have to actually do anything at all will always be pure skepticism.

If we must consider things for the sake of action materialism makes the most sense to go with due to it being fully compliant with all apparently useful systems we have to work with.

[Anonymous No.12660143]

>>12660114
>cope and seethe

[Anonymous No.12660149]

>>12660118
>It makes more sense to me to trust my own intuition that my consciousness is nonphysical
Why would you assume your instincts are adapted to anything other than maximizing the reproduction of your genes?
Why would you assume consciousness is the root of reality when we have the evidence the universe existed for billions of years before consciousness did, and life has existed for only a couple of billion of years of that, and that life for the most part wasn't even conscious?

[Anonymous No.12660155]

>>12660141
>ultimately nothing is knowable
Is the truthhood of this statement knowable?

>The correct position if you dont have to actually do anything at all will always be pure skepticism.
Are you skeptical of your own assertion here?

>If we must consider things for the sake of action materialism makes the most sense to go with due to it being fully compliant with all apparently useful systems we have to work with.
Obviously all systems are material by definition. But IF consciousness truly doesn't fit into any material systems, then it doesn't matter if all other things do.

[Anonymous No.12660169]

>>12660149
>Why would you assume your instincts are adapted to anything other than maximizing the reproduction of your genes?
Why would you assume that the ability for you to think of and then type this sentence was adapted for anything other than maximizing the reproduction of your genes?

>Why would you assume consciousness is the root of reality when we have the evidence the universe existed for billions of years before consciousness did
Just because conscious entities are manifest on Earth doesn't mean all consciousness exists on Earth. Grand consciousness could be fundamental to all reality. Reality and all of its physical systems could be a pure invented of an almighty supergenius conscious entity from which all human consciousness comes.

[Anonymous No.12660170]

>>12660155
You aren't arguing towards anything. Your victory condition here seems to be convincing people that 'dualism doesnt have to not exist'

The combination of skepticism + practicing materialism defeats all of this however. Indeed, there is no reason to think any fantastical thing couldn't possibly be, but there is also no reason to act as if there is a reasonable chance they could be, if one must take action.

[Anonymous No.12660182]

>>12660132
>You have no clue what their consciousness might be experiencing when they are braindead
I said coma, not braindead.

Here's the evidence:
>Adria Gross was bitten by an insect... Her coma lasted for 10 hours. She has no recollection of anything that happened during those 10 hours, which she describes as “being asleep without dreaming.”
https://www.thehealthy.com/neurological/what-its-like-to-be-in-a-coma/

>>12660136
False. Physicalism is true because science has proven it true at every turn.

As I've said countless times now:
>Just because we don't yet know the physical properties of everything doesn't mean that physicalism is false.

>>12660143
Cope and seethe.

[Anonymous No.12660184]

>>12660182
>Physicalism is true because science has proven it true at every turn.
As I've said countless times now:
Can you physically describe what happens at the center of a black hole? No? Physicalism is false.

[Anonymous No.12660191]

>>12660170
You could tighten up your verbiage a bit...

My only point is: I am a conscious entity. I believe my consciousness is not physical, and there has been zero scientific evidence that contradicts my own intuition of this. So both sides being equal in amount of evidence, I trust my intuition of my own first person, direct experience.

By the way: how could a physical brain devoid of nonphysical consciousness concoct the idea that nonphysical consciousness is somehow interacting with it in the first place? Why would a machine come to the conclusion that it has a spiritual, non-machine component? Seems absurd by a purely materialistic worldview...

[Anonymous No.12660194]

>>12660169
>Why would you assume that the ability for you to think of and then type this sentence was adapted for anything other than maximizing the reproduction of your genes?
Intelligence =/= Instincts/Intuition you utter brainlet
>Grand consciousness could be fundamental to all reality.
And now you're just making up shit that is too complex for your intuition to have come up with, in an effort to put the square peg of your into intuition into the round hole that is reality.

[Anonymous No.12660196]

>>12660182
>Here's the evidence:
>Adria Gross was bitten by an insect... Her coma lasted for 10 hours. She has no recollection of anything that happened during those 10 hours, which she describes as “being asleep without dreaming.”

You either didn't read my elaboration on this point, or you flat out didn't process it.

[Anonymous No.12660205]

>>12660184
Physicalism claims that everything is ultimately explicable in terms of the entities that would feature in a *perfected physics*. No one believes that everything can be explained in terms of our current physics, because our current physics is incomplete. But the fact that our current physics is incomplete does not prove, as it would need to for you to conclude that physicalism is wrong, that there is something which is irreducible to the realm that physics discusses.

[Anonymous No.12660218]

>>12635282
define materialism.
Materials are an unexplained phenomenon, its just your subjective view of it that makes them into materials. Same with spiritual experience.
We dont know shit about the world, we are apes that learned to think just yesterday.

[Anonymous No.12660224]

>>12660194
>Why would you assume that the ability for you to think of and then type this sentence was adapted for anything other than maximizing the reproduction of your genes?
>Intelligence =/= Instincts/Intuition you utter brainlet
Lol, you tried.

>Grand consciousness could be fundamental to all reality.
>And now you're just making up shit that is too complex for your intuition to have come up with
There's nothing complex about what I said.

>in an effort to put the square peg of your into intuition into the round hole that is reality.
Well now you're just assuming intent. Kind of an embarrassing fallacy to make, I think. You'll get better. :)

[Anonymous No.12660231]

>>12660205
Yeah the magical ideal physics which doesn't exist. That's why physicalism will remain false ad infnitum.

[Anonymous No.12660235]

>>12660184
As I've said countless times now:
>Just because we don't yet know the physical properties of everything doesn't mean that physicalism is false.

Physicalism is true.

>>12660196
The rest of your post was nonsense.

I know that when I'm asleep, I'm not fully conscious. I have dreams, but they are not as vivid as real consciousness. And dreams don't last the entire night either.

Consciousness is a physical phenomenon. It is electrochemical processes in our brains.

[Anonymous No.12660237]

>>12660182
>Physicalism is true because science has proven it true at every turn.
This is like a fish proclaiming all things exist within water because everything in the ocean exists within water. All things in ocean = being inside of ocean. All things in within physics = existing in physics. This says nothing about what might exist outside of physics. To assert that consciousness must exist within physics because "the rest of physics exists within physics" is nonsensical and is putting ideology before truthseeking.

[Anonymous No.12660241]

>>12660205
This. Very good post.

>>12660218
I think it was a bit longer ago than yesterday.

>>12660231
Physicalism is true.

As I've said so many times I can't even count:
>Just because we don't yet know the physical properties of everything doesn't mean that physicalism is false.

You're basically saying that whales aren't whales PURELY BECAUSE we don't know everything there is to know about whales yet.

[Anonymous No.12660242]

>>12660235
>Physicalism is true.
Physicalism is false. see>>12660231

[Anonymous No.12660244]

>>12660235
>I can't comprehend what you said, so it's nonsense.

[Anonymous No.12660248]

>>12660237
>This is like a fish proclaiming all things exist within water because everything in the ocean exists within water.
We have evidence that things exist outside of water. We DON'T have evidence that nonphysical things exist.

>To assert that consciousness must exist within physics because "the rest of physics exists within physics"
No, the reason consciousness is physical is because of the evidence. If you destroy someone's brain (e.g. by shooting) then all evidence of conscious activity ceases. Same for people in comas.

[Anonymous No.12660250]

>>12660241
>You're basically saying that whales aren't whales PURELY BECAUSE we don't know everything there is to know about whales yet.
Biology =/= Physics
>Physicalism is true.
No is not.
Can you physically describe what happens at the center of a black hole? No? Physicalism is false.

[Anonymous No.12660254]

>>12660242
Physicalism is true. See: >>12658813

>>12660244
Sorry anon, it was nonsense.

[Anonymous No.12660260]

>>12660254
No is not, see>>12660250

[Anonymous No.12660262]

>>12660248
>We have evidence that things exist outside of water. We DON'T have evidence that nonphysical things exist.

The low IQ around here is so tiresome. Yes, WE have evidence for things outside of water. But it was an analogy. FISH do not 'have evidence' for things outside of water. And to proclaim that all things are physical because we have no evidence for nonphysical things is LIKE a fish proclaiming there is nothing that doesn't exist in water because all they experience is a world of water.

[Anonymous No.12660287]

>>12660250
>>12660260
>Biology
Biology is reducible to physics, like all science.

>Can you physically describe what happens at the center of a black hole?
See: >>12658813

Physicalism is true.

>>12660262
>IQ
Ad hominem is not an argument. Thanks for conceding the argument to me.

>FISH do not 'have evidence' for things outside of water.
They do when they're pulled of water by fishermen.

>to proclaim that all things are physical because we have no evidence for nonphysical things is LIKE a fish proclaiming there is nothing that doesn't exist in water because all they experience is a world of water.
The reason we know it's stupid to deny a world outside of water is BECAUSE WE HAVE EVIDENCE FOR A WORLD OUTSIDE WATER.

We don't have evidence for anything outside of the physical. Give me a call when we do.

[Anonymous No.12660294]

>>12660224
>Lol, you tried.
Intelligence allows you to act contrary to your instincts.
>There's nothing complex about what I said.
You don't know what complexity means. It has nothing to do with how difficult it is for an idiot like you to understand. It's number factors, and a physical + nonphysical realty is necessarily more complex than only a physical reality, considering the nonphysical reality can't be measured at all so it must be overlapping the material rather than replacing some functions.
>Well now you're just assuming intent.
Provide evidence for non-physical reality. You couldn't even begin to describe -how- it works. The only one committing a fallacy here is you.

[Anonymous No.12660299]

>>12660287
>Biology is reducible to physics, like all science.
Sure but making comparisons between a living organism and tangible being (whale) and a untangible region of spacetime (black holes) is pretty dumb.
>Physicalism is true.
See>>12659816 and>>12659785

[Anonymous No.12660305]

>>12660287
>We don't have evidence for anything outside of the physical. Give me a call when we do.
Not him but the center of black holes. Done.

[Anonymous No.12660333]

>>12660299
>whales
It's an example.

And yes I do think that physicalism is true because all of science so far shows that the world is explainable by physics.

>>12660305
They're physical. They operate according to the principles of gravity, which is a physical phenomenon.

[Anonymous No.12660346]

>>12660333
>It's an example.
A dumb example
>And yes I do think that physicalism is true because all of science so far shows that the world is explainable by physics.
Yeah that's belief, not science.
>They're physical. They operate according to the principles of gravity, which is a physical phenomenon.
Oh? Are they? Give me a physical description of the center of a black hole. You can't do it? Is not physical.

[Anonymous No.12660361]

>>12660346
>dumb example
Have another then. It's like saying god created fossils to deceive us, just because you don't know where the fossils came from.

>Yeah that's belief, not science.
All of science is belief. See Hume's problem of induction.

>Oh? Are they? Give me a physical description of the center of a black hole. You can't do it? Is not physical.
No anon, that doesn't follow. Again, that's like saying god created fossils to deceive us, just because you don't know where fossils come from.

[Anonymous No.12660382]

>>12660361
>It's like saying god created fossils to deceive us, just because you don't know where the fossils came from.
>All of science is belief
Was about to respond but then with this I know is time to stop this conversation
>Karl Popper, a philosopher of science, sought to solve the problem of induction.[23][24] He argued that science does not use induction, and induction is in fact a myth.[25] Instead, knowledge is created by conjecture and criticism.[26] The main role of observations and experiments in science, he argued, is in attempts to criticize and refute existing theories.[27]

[Anonymous No.12660384]

i just spent half an hour reading this whole thread and wow this board is filled with illogical pseuds

consciousness is nonphysical. anyone who disagrees is a zombie or a fuckwit or both. don't even respond to this if you're mad because i'm not going to read your fucking dumbass post

[Autolycus No.12660386]

>>12660155
>Is the truthhood of this statement knowable?
There is no whole truth, all truths are half-truths. As a universal we can know nothing, but each one of us can and must know what it is that affects us. The best we can do is endeavor to take the whole evidence into account. Nature has observable processes. Sense-awareness and thought are themselves processes as well as their termini in nature.
>Obviously all systems are material by definition.
Obviously a belief. That's some misplaced concreteness, dog.

My position is not idealist, dualist, or materialist. I put concreteness is none of those things, because they are abstractions. The only consistency is change.

>>12660346
>Yeah that's belief, not science.
brah

[Anonymous No.12660393]

>>12660384
Based

[Anonymous No.12660400]

>>12660237
Well, no, consciousness probably exists within physics because, if it isn't epiphenomenal, then it must have causal effects on physical objects (like our body). But as far as we can tell, physical events can be wholly explained by physical causes without remainder (if you describe the world-state in terms of physical entities, the laws of physics will get the future physical world-state, or maybe the probabilities for the future physical world-state all correct: we don't need to postulate irreducible mentality for explanation for how the physical world behaves). So either there is overdetermination (which seems ad hoc) or consciousness is in some way identical with physical events.

This is neutral between physicalism strictly and something like neutral monism, of course, but there's your reason for not being a dualist.

[Anonymous No.12660415]

>>12660382
>conjecture and criticism
A.k.a. induction. You pose a conjecture and you only run with it until convincing criticism appears.

Just like induction. You see 100 red apples and you conclude that all apples are red, until you see a green apple.

All of science is belief, like I said.

>>12660384
>>12660393
Consciousness is physical. Cope and seethe.

[Anonymous No.12660420]

>>12635282
No. But the problem comes from the fact that the axioms assumed and nessicary quality of evidence to "prove" such a thing is impossible to reach. Even if we had a unified field theory for everything it wouldn't be considered "enough" as the very argument is rigged from the start such that you can Russel's teapot non-physical reality into the mix and no one can actually refute it because there is nothing to refute. It's similar to the transition fossil thing where we were finding more and more transition states for humans and monkeys but each time it was declared that "there isn't evidence of a *real* transitory fossil, just two different ones" which only burned out when they ran out of copium and shut up to the wider world.

I think the better question is "do we need to?"

[Anonymous No.12660438]

The materialist starts with a materialist worldview framework and tries to fit consciousness and free will into it. They assume that these two things have to be physical phenomena from the outset. They will never succeed in their goal, no matter how much they might claim to the contrary. The very concepts of transcendental consciousness and free will prove their own existence. They would not arise within a purely mechanical universe devoid of conscious entities reflecting on their own transcendental nature. A mechanical brain devoid of a nonphysical conscious duality could never give rise to the concept of, let alone personally identify with, a nonphysical conscious entity.

[Anonymous No.12660448]

>>12660438
>They would not arise within a purely mechanical universe devoid of conscious entities
That's a pretty big assumption you slipped into there

[Anonymous No.12660467]

>>12660448
It wasn't an assumption.

[Anonymous No.12660476]

>>12660415
Philosophical garbage, the center of black holes are not physical, the end.

[Anonymous No.12660481]

>>12660467
>Assume cocnciousness is transcendental and isn't merely a perceptual trick
>Assuming free will
>Assuming mechanical means could not generate a transcendental experience
>Assuming mechanical means could not generate a cocnciousness
>Assuming a mechanically generated cocnciousness is incapable of imagining things that aren't real
>Assuming that something mechanically derived would not attempt to identify with non-mechanical things it imagined

Idk that seems like a lot of assumptions you just swept under the rug with "but I can feel my transcendental state and therefore that's objective reality for everything" which is basically just solipsism rebranded with people who only buy organic.

[Anonymous No.12660487]

>>12660438
Consciousness is physical because of all the scientific evidence that suggests such.

When someone is in a coma, there are no external or internal signs of consciousness in that person. No evidence, external (seen by others) or internal (experienced by the person themselves, based on reports of people who have survived comas).

>>12660476
>Ghosts are responsible for heating my home because I don't understand how my boiler works.
The centres of black holes are physical, the end.

[Anonymous No.12660504]

>>12660487
>Consciousness is physical because of all the scientific evidence that suggests such.
Nope. Not true. Consciousness is outside of scientific testability. The state of a comatose brain tells you nothing of the conscious entity. Just because the brain can't remember anything during its comatose period, doesn't mean the conscious entity wasn't existing in some other way, or even simply bypassing time altogether and popping back in instantaneously relative to spacetime.

[Anonymous No.12660509]

>>12660487
>The centres of black holes are physical, the end.
Wow they are physical? Describe them physically. Oh is the ideal magical wishful thinking future nonexisting physics. Then is not physical, until proven otherwise.

[Anonymous No.12660513]

>>12660504
There's also no way to prove there isn't a teapot thats piping hot and filled with the queens best tea in low earth orbit right now. What's your point?

[Anonymous No.12660518]

>>12660504
>Just because the brain can't remember anything during its comatose period, doesn't mean the conscious entity wasn't existing in some other way, or even simply bypassing time altogether and popping back in instantaneously relative to spacetime.
PRESENT EVIDENCE for your crackpot conspiracy theory.

You have none? Then there's no reason to believe it.

>>12660509
>Describe them physically
Gravitational singularity.

[Anonymous No.12660523]

>>12660513
Based Russellposter.

[Anonymous No.12660525]

>>12660513
My point is you assume the nature of consciousness by what you can see in the brain. People like me understand that consciousness is not physical. You and everyone like you are simply misunderstood or zombies. All the brain science in the world tells you nothing about consciousness itself. Have you halfwits even heard of the hard problem? The amount of sheer ignorance in this thread is utterly astounding.

[Anonymous No.12660528]

>>12660518
>conspiracy theory
>doesn't know what conspiracy means
I thought this board was a high IQ board until about two days ago. You are are certifiably brainlet as well as your buddies.

[Anonymous No.12660529]

>>12660518
>Gravitational singularity
Singularities are hypothetical. And thus the nonexistent description of them. Not physical.

[Anonymous No.12660538]

>>12660525
>Have you halfwits even heard of the hard problem?
It's not actually a problem.

[Anonymous No.12660541]

>>12660525
>People like me understand that cocnciousness is not physical
You mean to say assume here. The reason we disagree is because what I'm assuming has evidence and logical causal mechanisms while what you are assuming is predicated purely on innate subjective experience. It's pretty funny you bring up the idea of the hard problem while ignoring the fact that the originator of the qualia eventually turned against the idea.

[Anonymous No.12660543]

>>12660525
>zombies
Philosophical zombie will defend nonphysical consciousness with the same zeal as you.

[Anonymous No.12660550]

>>12660541
>the originator of the qualia eventually turned against the idea
The idea of qualia is thousands of years old.

[Anonymous No.12660557]

>>12660538
You have just disqualified yourself from any serious intellectual discussion regard this issue.

[Anonymous No.12660560]

>>12660528
Ad hominem is not an argument. Thanks for conceding the argument to me.

>>12660529
It's the best description we have of black holes at the moment. As science advances, our description will get better.

It is physical, because everything we've seen so far is physical. We've seen no evidence of nonphysical things.

Also we understand gravity, a physical phenomenon, and black holes adhere to the principles of gravity.

[Nice No.12660566]

If i want to study math and physics what would be good Epistemology book to start with?

[Anonymous No.12660567]

>>12660550
My apologies, the term qualia which was introduced in the 1800's by a man who eventually turned on the concept as he found it insufficient.
>>12660557
Please respond to >>12660481 I'm curious what you think

[Anonymous No.12660569]

>>12660557
It's not that discussion ITT is very serious or intellectual.

[Anonymous No.12660577]

>>12660567
You seem honest so I won't be an asshole. There's nothing I can say that will have any meaning to you beyond what I've already said. I might as well try to tell Stevie Wonder what yellow is. Please do some internal reflection, maybe even meditate. If you're not a zombie, your own transcendental nature will become apparent to you like a steam engine at full force.

[Anonymous No.12660584]

>>12660560
There is no description. Singularities are non existent because they hypothetical.
Is not physical because there is no physical description near the vicinity of black holes.
>we understand gravity
No we don't. Dark matter, dark energy and quantum gravity(black holes) all suggest we in fact do not. Not physical btw.

[Anonymous No.12660587]

>>12660577
I think you should first look up the meaning of the terms you use, o philosophical ghoul qualiaist.

[Anonymous No.12660588]

>>12660587
No need.

[Anonymous No.12660592]

>>12635503
fpbp

[Autolycus No.12660598]

>“The world is my idea:”—this is a truth which holds good for everything that lives and knows, though man alone can bring it into reflective and abstract consciousness. If he really does this, he has attained to philosophical wisdom. It then becomes clear and certain to him that what he knows is not a sun and an earth, but only an eye that sees a sun, a hand that feels an earth; that the world which surrounds him is there only as idea, i.e., only in relation to something else, the consciousness, which is himself. If any truth can be asserted a priori, it is this: for it is the expression of the most general form of all possible and thinkable experience: a form which is more general than time, or space, or causality, for they all presuppose it; and each of these is valid only for a particular class of ideas; whereas the antithesis of object and subject is the common form of all these classes, is that form under which alone any idea of whatever kind it may be, abstract or intuitive, pure or empirical, is possible and thinkable. No truth therefore is more certain, more independent of all others, and less in need of proof than this, that all that exists for knowledge, and therefore this whole world, is only object in relation to subject, perception of a perceiver, in a word, idea. This is obviously true of the past and the future, as well as of the present, of what is farthest off, as of what is near; for it is true of time and space themselves, in which alone these distinctions arise. All that in any way belongs or can belong to the world is inevitably thus conditioned through the subject, and exists only for the subject. The world is idea. (Schopenhauer, 'The World as Will and Representation)

Just food for thought. A perspective to consider. Evidence from human experience to be taken into account.

[Anonymous No.12660600]

>>12660584
>Singularities are non existent because they hypothetical
Black holes themselves were hypothetical at one point in time. Then science collected enough evidence to say that they really exist.

Black holes are physical. Cope.

[Anonymous No.12660604]

>>12660577
dude weed lmao

[Anonymous No.12660614]

>>12660577
There is a lot to unpack there. I was exposed to meditation practices and the "transcendental experience of the soul" from a young age in a non-theological context. What struck me was perhaps a perceptual difference, do you know ASMR? I am one of the lucky people who can induce that sensation on my body at will. This lead me to the problem of when reaching that "transcendental state" what is to say I'm not just doing that trick subconsciously as a function of the purely physical mental state I'm inhabiting. This lead to the honest and difficult process of evaluating my own experiences through both internal and external metrics and comparing them against one another to create a consistent internal framework.

I must say, arrogance practically drips from you. Perhaps it is a good idea to entertain the idea that you aren't special yeah?

[Anonymous No.12660615]

>>12660600
Black holes don't exist.

[Anonymous No.12660626]

>>12660614
And before you say it, when I mean "that trick" I'm referring to more than just a physical manifestation but a psychic aspect of the transcendental experience

[Anonymous No.12660642]

>>12660600
>black holes are physical
Good. Make a physical description of the center of a black hole. Oh you can't? Too bad, is not physical.

[Anonymous No.12660657]

>>12660642
Black holes are physical. Seethe.

[Anonymous No.12660670]

>>12660657
Excellent. Make a physical description of its center
Protip: is not physical

[Anonymous No.12660696]

>>12635503
Fpbp

[Anonymous No.12660724]

>>12660642
>Oh look a complex phenomena we can't describe fully yet
>Must be non-physical no other possibility

This is the same level of bait as "QM prices free will cause it's probabilistically described!!1!1!"

[Anonymous No.12660729]

>>12660724
Not the same person but just curious, are the laws of psychics physical?

[Anonymous No.12660875]

>>12660670
It is physical. Seethe.

>>12660696
Science DOES nullify metaphysics.

Physicalism is the only correct metaphysical position.

[Anonymous No.12660921]

>>12660729
The laws of physics are physical (in the sense relevant for physicalism).

[Anonymous No.12661039]

>>12635503
fpbp

[Anonymous No.12661042]

>>12635562
>i have a masters
>did i tell you i have a master degree?
>GUYS I HAVE A MASTER DEGREE HELOO
>IM RIGHT CAUSE THE INSTITUTIONs SAYS SO

The correct way to defend your argument is to defend your argument, not your ego. Try refuting points instead of appealing to this authority you've given yourself.

[Anonymous No.12661352]

>>12660090
>electrochemical processes in the brain cause subjective experience?
When you take otu Wernicke's area you cannont comprehend words, but still form them. Theres your subjective experience gone. How about an absence seizures, or what about a temporal lobe infacrt. You'll still see and have spacial recognition but are unable to recognize what you see.

[Anonymous No.12661389]

>>12660875
>It is physical. Seethe.
Where's the physical description then? Ah right, is not physical.
>Science DOES nullify metaphysics.
No it doesn't, science operates with the principle of causality, this implies that physica was caused, and thus metaphysics.
>Physicalism is the only correct metaphysical position.
No is not, give a physical description of the center of black hole. You can't? Physicalism is false and completely wrong.

[Anonymous No.12661391]

>>12660921
>The laws of physics are physical
No they are not, see>>12661389

[Anonymous No.12661441]

>>12661389
>Where's the physical description
HAHAHAHA WTF are you saying! You need a physical description for something to be physical!
Oh this shit is hilarious. Lets take your logic and apply it. Movement isn't physical until there is a physical description of it! Make sure to say this when someone swings a bat at your head.
Holy shit never have I laughed about such a brainlet take ever.

[Anonymous No.12661579]

>>12661441
> Movement isn't physical until there is a physical description of it
Of course retard, physics deals with the description of natural phenoma and their mechanics(motion/movement), read classical, quantum and relativistics mechanics, if something cannot be described by any of the aforementioned (which is the entire foundation of modern physics) then it lacks physical description and thus it is not physical.
Anyway, retard. Where's the physical description of the center of black holes?.

[Anonymous No.12661591]

>>12661579
>Anyway, retard. Where's the physical description of the center of black holes?.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLMiJQXsmkc
Anyway not being able to explain it =/ that there is nothing. Its such a retarded take. I can ask you right now how my room looks like and you wouldnt be able to answer. Does this mean physics isnt real now? To you it does.
Your argument about need a physical description for something to be physical is a tautology.

[Anonymous No.12661618]

>>12661591
>I can ask you right now how my room looks like and you wouldnt be able to answer.
Yes I can, pic related, all I need to do is apply the old classical mechanics to your room to describe almost everything happening in it, and to describe everything microscopic on it, quantum mechanics. What the fuck do you think a physical description is in physics?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics
> its motion and behavior through space and time, and the related entities of energy and force.[5]
>Your argument about need a physical description for something to be physical is a tautology.
No, is simpe empiricism.

[Autolycus No.12661654]

>>12661441
>You need a physical description for something to be physical!
No, but if something IS physical then you CAN give a physical description of it. I can ask you right now how your room looks and you WOULD be able to answer. Does that mean your room is physically real? Yes.

Can you describe the physical characteristics of 'physics' in same you describe your room?
What about the physical characteristics of 'physical'?
The shit in your room? Not abstract, physical. You can touch it. It's physical.
The concept of physicality? Abstract, not physical. You can't touch it. It's mental.

[Anonymous No.12661661]

>>12661618
Ah so you can describe my room without having any perception of it but physicists cant with a black hole. Now thats interesting...
You see your whole argument is based around your lack of comprehension.
Physics IS the description of natural phenomena so you stating: You'd need a physical descrpition(opposed to what? a telepathic or verbal, which can be written down) for something to be physical is nonsense.
It would either equate to a pink rainbow shitting unicorn being real, because I just gave a physical description. Or, and this is what I assume you meant: A desciption of the natural phenomena, as you said, empiricism.
Physics = description of natural phenomena = physical description
Thus your statement is a tautology.

[Anonymous No.12661681]

>>12661661
>Ah so you can describe my room without having any perception of it but physicists cant with a black hole. Now thats interesting...
>your lack of comprehension.
Yes, your lack of comprehension, you don't know shit about physics, all of your room is decribed and predicted by quantum mechanics and classical mechanics, since you live here on planet earth where those physical theories applies, at large distances you need general relativity, however general relativity breaksdow at the center of black holes. This is the problem of quantum gravity

[Anonymous No.12661714]

>>12661681
>all of your room is decribed and predicted by quantum mechanics
No its not. Quantum mechanics dont work on macro scale so they wouldnt predict anything.
>This is the problem of quantum gravity
Do you know what a physical description is? And if so how can you conflate that with a theory? Seriously you have no argument at all and its pathetic.
Let me break it down:
Gap in theory = unable to sufficiently explain why what is happening in the center of a black hole (We can still see the end result).
Physical descrpition = (to you) a description of the natural phenomena.
Because of this gap your logic goes like this:
Gap in theory of general relativity = All other parts are null (The obeservable mass, light curvature etc) = black holes arent physical seen here >>12660642)

Yet when I ask you to desribe my room, you'll say you can without making any attempt, you'll make generalising platitudes that is has to conform to kinetics etc (also wrong ones such as quantum mechanics) and you say this is suffiecient whilst at the same time not applying that criterium to black holes.
You want a super detailed explenation for the black hole(which is already given >>12661591) but not my room. The only conclusion is that you have no argument, dont actually believe what you say, or dont believe in a physical world, in which case I would advise you to jump from your window and test your unlivable theory.

[Anonymous No.12661803]

>>12661039
Fake quote

[Anonymous No.12661824]

>>12661654
>Can you describe the physical characteristics of 'physics' in same you describe your room?
To the extent that "physics" or any other concept exists, yes. They're a part of the brain.

[Anonymous No.12662010]

>>12661389
Physicalism is correct. Black holes are physical. Cope.

[Anonymous No.12662057]

>>12635712
>>12660592
>>12661039
Science DOES nullify metaphysical philosophy.

Physicalism / materialism is the only true metaphysical philosophy.

Cope.

>>12635774
>>12635791
Consciousness is physical. That's why people stop being conscious if you destroy their brains.

Cope.

[Anonymous No.12662541]

>>12661714
I couldn't care less about logic here, physics is empirical, not logical. If there is no physical theory that describes what goes on
and makes descriptions at the center of a blackhole then it is not physical until proven otherwise.

[Anonymous No.12662557]

>>12661714
>which is already given >>12661591
Bro you are fucking retarded, the dude never explains quantum gravity which is at the level current physical theories stop working. Not a description of what I'm asking.

[Anonymous No.12662562]

>>12662010
>Black holes are physical
Make a physical prediction and description of what happens at the center of a black hole. You can't? Is not physical

[Anonymous No.12662571]

>>12662057
>Science DOES nullify metaphysical philosophy.
No it doesn't see>>12661389

[Anonymous No.12662624]

>>12662562
>>12662571
>Just because we don't yet know the physical properties of everything doesn't mean that physicalism is false.

Physicalism is true. Cope.