If you believe in an afterlife

File: 78 KB, 917x917, IMG_20210525_141615_728.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

If you believe in an afterlife Anonymous Wed Jun 29 21:08:06 2022 No.14612362 [Reply] [Original]

Show evidence of it instead of giving a 500 paragraph philosophical argument against materialism.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 29 21:08:58 2022 No.14612366 >>14612362 just kill yourself if you want to find out

Anonymous Wed Jun 29 21:32:22 2022 No.14612453

>>14612362
I hope I get isekaid into a better world where I can raid dungeons as op archmage. But there probably won't be an afterlife. We'll simply cease to exist. I think it's for the better. Looking at my life in this world, I don't believe the afterlife would treat me any better.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 29 21:35:25 2022 No.14612464 >>14612362 We will probably respawn in an indeterminate time, if it happened once it can happen again, the timescale is irrelevant when you are dead, the reason why you can't remember past lives is because memories die with the body you inhabit

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 29 21:35:41 2022 No.14612465 >>14612362 (man with VR goggles on playing GTA): >if there is anything outside of GTA then show me a secret island or new unlockable car to prove it imagine asking a metaphysical question and not understanding what meta means on an elemental level.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 29 21:43:17 2022 No.14612491 >>14612465 This is just an unfalsifiable assertion though. Maybe there is a metaphysical aspect, but what leads one to believe it exists? Wouldn't there at least be indirect influence by the metaphysical on the physical seeing as they're intertwined?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 29 21:44:09 2022 No.14612494 >>14612362 >500 paragraph philosophical argument against materialism. Pfff. Materialism is self-refuting.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 29 21:45:30 2022 No.14612496 >>14612491 NTA but materialistic NPCs and other mechanical objects just don't perceive things that real people do and your question is moot.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 29 21:45:55 2022 No.14612501 >>14612465 so anything with meta in the front should be ignored as outside the scope of reality. gotcha.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 29 21:50:24 2022 No.14612518 >>14612501 Refusing to add "meta" at the front doesn't absolve your materialistic religion from being pure metaphysics.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 29 21:53:52 2022 No.14612522 >>14612496 Are you implying qualia is what shows there is a metaphysical aspect to reality?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 29 21:55:00 2022 No.14612524 >>14612522 No, but it's nice that you immediately go on to expose that you're still angry about qualia, as if to prove that you're an NPC. :^)

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 29 21:57:05 2022 No.14612532 >>14612522 I mean, don't get me wrong, qualia strongly undermine the metaphysics of your materialistic religion, but that's not an argument in favor of some other kind of metaphysics; only another nail in the coffin of yours.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 29 21:57:53 2022 No.14612536 File: 309 KB, 1200x748, 1630312498763.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14612362

Anonymous Wed Jun 29 22:01:35 2022 No.14612547

>>14612491
>Maybe there is a metaphysical aspect, but what leads one to believe it exists?
people reflect on their lives, recognize that it is a story of struggling, growing and overcoming and deduce from that that there could be an end goal to the "training". most people go from there and attempt to become better people, since (lack of) morality is where all the pain and confusion comes from.

Anonymous Wed Jun 29 22:03:01 2022 No.14612556
File: 181 KB, 1108x1009, no_death.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14612362
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_EgSBeB1Bs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YRYxZuYACg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Uz6anwm47g
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-UG-Xx6maY

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 29 22:04:02 2022 No.14612558 >>14612524 What do people perceive then according to you that implies something beyond the physical? I only assumed qualia because that's normally where these arguments go.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 29 22:05:49 2022 No.14612566 >>14612556 Interesting theory. My condolences for his loss, hope his theory holds up and he returns.

Anonymous Wed Jun 29 22:06:08 2022 No.14612568

>>14612558
>What do people perceive then according to you that implies something beyond the physical?
I didn't say anything about anything being "beyond the physical". "Physical" is not a real category to begin with. It really looks like your programming is struggling to deal with posts outside of whatever 4 templates your handler could conceive of.

Anonymous Wed Jun 29 22:10:44 2022 No.14612583

>>14612522
not him, but it absolutely does. here is the thing: my consciousness is capable of creating and envisioning things that reality fails to create. I can dream up practically anything i want and see it before my inner eye. reality, on the other hand, is extremely limited - that makes consciousness a bigger set than the set of things within reality. why then, if the material world around me is small, bland and limited, would I assume that the brain that consciousness (!) tells me exists is creating an infinitely bigger set than itself and not the obvious truth: that my unlimited consciousness is dreaming up this "brain"-pattern. why would the small create the big and not the other way around?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 29 22:14:17 2022 No.14612596 >>14612568 What exactly are you implying then? What do you perceive as being indicative of life after death? What gave you knowledge that you're in the GTA simulation so to speak.

Anonymous Wed Jun 29 22:14:58 2022 No.14612598

>>14612583
>I can dream up practically anything i want
>reality, on the other hand, is extremely limited
>that makes consciousness a bigger set than the set of things within reality
Cringe. I can play games on my computer with internal rules that violate physics in any way I want. Reality, on the other hand, is extremely limited. Therefore vidya are a bigger set than reality, therefore my computer is supernatural.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 29 22:17:28 2022 No.14612607 >>14612583 If I chop off your hand, can you dream of it being back and fully functional? If so, would I see it as fully functional as well?

Anonymous Wed Jun 29 22:17:47 2022 No.14612608

>>14612596
>What do you perceive as being indicative of life after death?
That's besides the point. The bottom line is that t's not an issue of having or lacking empirical evidence, but of what you make of the evidence. You lack some faculties that most normal people have, so patterns that are easily perceptible and deeply meaningful to others are imperceptible to you. Some people have eyes but can't recognize faces. Same thing goes for you.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 29 22:28:21 2022 No.14612637 >>14612608 >it's not an issue of having or lacking emperical evidence >it's what you make of the evidence What evidence?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 29 22:39:42 2022 No.14612663 >>14612362 >show evidence of the thing you believe Are you not familiar with how faith works?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 29 22:42:08 2022 No.14612667 >>14612494 How so?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 29 22:43:51 2022 No.14612674 >>14612663 Are you not familiar with how a con works?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 29 22:46:15 2022 No.14612678 >>14612674 >con I am not putting money into the consciousness donation plate every week so what's the con?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 29 22:50:09 2022 No.14612687 >>14612362 Imagine having any faith in materialism. Like, alien mind control nanobots???? Hello??? Even modern CGI is very realistic. Imagine how advanced it could become literally indistinguishable from reality, potentially even on atomic level.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 29 22:50:24 2022 No.14612689 >>14612678 >I'm not personally giving money so there is no con Wow, brilliant logic. You're just collateral stupidity to the con.

Anonymous Wed Jun 29 22:50:43 2022 No.14612690

>>14612663
I am. Some anti-materialist arguments are quite compelling, I'll admit. My issue is mainly that I'm still uncertain if those arguments can be made to jump to life persisting after death. It does raise a lot of questions that I feel occam's razor kind of overshadows. Do conscious animals get to experience it? Is it rebirth or eternal peace? How does evolution and abiogenesis play a role? I know about NDE's and such but what part is the brain doing that and what part is disembodied consciousness I'm not sure.

Anonymous Wed Jun 29 22:54:04 2022 No.14612699

>>14612689
You want me to run around and stopped retards from getting robbed? Why is that on me? I am just an anon who believes a thing.
>>14612690
>I'm still uncertain if those arguments can be made to jump to life persisting after death.
There is no certainty. We can make inferences based on the implications of the math or the philosophical conclusions from understanding qualia but that's about it. There are also a couple of /x/ things I am keeping an eye on for shits and giggles.

Anonymous Wed Jun 29 23:04:46 2022 No.14612731

>>14612699
I'm not even a materialist if I'm completely honest. I'm on the fence and can only find a shitton of materialist and physicalist interperetations of consciousness being related to the mind. I simply wanted to see if anyone here could provide decent evidence of the alternatives and if it implies life after death in a strong way. In short, I don't know and simply wanted to be presented with some evidence. Materialists will point to neural correlates of consciousness and such, I'm wondering what non-materialists would point to.

Anonymous Wed Jun 29 23:14:28 2022 No.14612754

>>14612731
>I'm wondering what non-materialists would point to.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wsjgtp9XZxo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0ZJk_2AmvM&t=2s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reYdQYZ9Rj4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxYbA1pt8LA
And the notion that it's possible to separate a self from ego and not immediately die. Also, qualia (taste of chocolate, color red and so on)

This is what I point to. Very open to being btfo'd. if you can, do it.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 29 23:19:47 2022 No.14612764 >>14612699 >You want me to run around and stopped retards from getting robbed? No, I want you to stop being stupid. Unfortunately, we can't always get what we want.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 29 23:20:28 2022 No.14612765 >>14612764 >>14612754 Sure, address this and you'll get what you want.

Anonymous Wed Jun 29 23:23:03 2022 No.14612771
File: 23 KB, 608x406, dont-worry-be-happy-video-1537980357-608x406.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Why would I need to go against materialism to posit an afterlife? Give it the most cursory thought and an afterlife, maybe not an ideal one, is perfectly compatible with materialism.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 29 23:24:18 2022 No.14612775 >>14612765 Nothing to address. Three irrelevant videos and one schizo. Make a cogent argument.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 29 23:24:28 2022 No.14612776 >>14612771 My favorite part is how there was no example.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 29 23:25:34 2022 No.14612778 >>14612775 >measurement problem >answer to measurement problem >irrelevant videos Okay, opinion discarded. Thanks for playing.

Anonymous Wed Jun 29 23:34:22 2022 No.14612796

>>14612776
And I appreciate your inability to think!

Okay, nuts and bolts materialism, you are a pattern of chemical energy. So forget the chemicals, forget the meat, focus on the pattern. Brains die, no longer runs you.exe.

Now, what does it mean for the pattern ongoing? Well it certainly has run out of time (from our perspective), but what does reemergence of the pattern that is your consciousness entail?

Is it a copy? Sure, maybe. But now think of this. I just invented the brain freezing machine. I have paused all metabolic action in your brain. Now I've taken it apart carefully into 3,000 pieces. I just sort of left them there on the desk. I'm very long-lived, so I decided to piece them back together, 10K years after I took them apart. Since we never destroyed the cells, when I used my un-freezing device, you, not a copy, but You would be expected to "wake-up?" No problems there.

Now imagine instead of reassembling the 3,000 "paused" bits of you, I made perfect copies of each piece, quark for quark, electron for electron, in identical stasis. When I reassemble that brain, you? Not you? Why not you? What changed between the two scenarios?

Anonymous Wed Jun 29 23:44:22 2022 No.14612816

>>14612796
> but what does reemergence of the pattern that is your consciousness entail?
If consciousness is physical when I measure something the wavefunction should collapse, it doesn't. Consciousness is not physical.
>When I reassemble that brain, you? Not you? Why not you? What changed between the two scenarios?
You can recreate a quark for quark meat popsicle that looks like me, not me. For that you need an observer that isn't physical like right now.

Anonymous Wed Jun 29 23:49:07 2022 No.14612830

>>14612816
I like that objection. My own objection to my own argument has to do with the possible impossibility of freezing the state, so that in our universe, the metabolic action can never truly be "paused."

I frankly don't see an afterlife in the traditional sense, but I do see a sort of phase transition. It doesn't mean much to our conscious selves as-is, but I can see ways the pattern can continue to evolve.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 29 23:52:43 2022 No.14612839 >>14612830 What do you think of near-death-experiences or out-of-body experiences? People report seeing and hearing things while "dead" in the environment. There's a lot of contention on how this happens though and if the person was "really dead".

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 29 23:55:42 2022 No.14612847 >>14612839 I don't think of them. Until your neuronal architecture suffers metabolic collapse, you're not dead. They're meaningless to me. Maybe a good indicator of what it feels like to get supremely rekt and live, that's about it.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 00:02:57 2022 No.14612864 >>14612847 I think there were a few were the brain wasn't outputting any activity at the time of the experience. Granted, that isn't the same as neuronal breakdown but it is curious, same with terminal lucidity.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 01:20:02 2022 No.14613028 >>14612864 There are some in the AWARE study where they said "but there was no brain activity so they should have experienced nothing," which obviously there was because there was something to bring back and talk to.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 01:20:58 2022 No.14613032 >>14612778 >no cogent argument >just vague reference to measurement problem Opinion discarded. Thanks for playing.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 01:21:25 2022 No.14613034 >>14612847 >I shall simply dismiss any information which does not confirm my beliefs

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 01:25:06 2022 No.14613045 >>14613034 Is that what I did? I didn't answer as to the validity of a study where no necrosis has taken place in central processing areas? Are you sure? Read it again.

Anonymous Thu Jun 30 01:25:28 2022 No.14613049

>>14612547
That's the optimistic take. The alternative is that we live in a shitty world where shitty things happen and people cope with that by inventing other worlds or a divine creator/conductor to assuage the anguish of nonsensical and semi random loss.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 01:26:43 2022 No.14613053 >>14613045 Not the same anon fren

Anonymous Thu Jun 30 01:36:24 2022 No.14613077

I'm pretty sure life is a simulation, and it wouldn't make any sense for it to oversimulate so it is probably just me. So it is either a test (maybe I'm some kind of AI in training) or an amusement (I chose to enter) either way I assume there will be some kind of afterlife of some sort, but it doesn't really change how I live my current one

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 01:44:09 2022 No.14613106 File: 44 KB, 409x554, gottem.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14613032 Okay chief, thanks for the update.

Anonymous Thu Jun 30 02:03:00 2022 No.14613142
File: 66 KB, 839x1200, 1650143316514.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14612362
wants materialist evidence for the non-material.
This is the state of materialistic thinking in relation to the spiritual in the human being and hardly surprising.
Go find the evidence yourself. The evidence is in the the experience within the human being itself when higher faculties are developed safely through a path of initiation that leads to an experience of external spiritual realities. Certainly not for everyone. Good luck anon :)

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 03:12:10 2022 No.14613289 >>14612816 >If consciousness is physical when I measure something the wavefunction should collapse Any physical interaction can cause wavefunction to collapse. Consciousness is irrelevant.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 03:14:11 2022 No.14613292 File: 53 KB, 403x448, cvbbmwwe4rzz.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14613106 >still no cogent argument Okay buddy, thanks for the update.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 03:14:35 2022 No.14613294 >>14613289 >Any physical interaction can cause wavefunction to collapse The fact is that it's not collapsing when an observer measures something. What information can you extract from that interaction, anon?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 03:15:39 2022 No.14613296 >>14613292 Cool an echo.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 03:16:02 2022 No.14613298 >>14613142 He just said evidence. Are you saying all evidence is material? OK, thanks for proving his point.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 03:17:04 2022 No.14613300 >>14613294 >The fact is that it's not collapsing when an observer measures something. When? QM says the opposite.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 03:18:04 2022 No.14613302 >>14613296 Nope, not a cogent argument. Try again. Use your words like a big boy.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 03:18:17 2022 No.14613304 >>14613300 No it doesn't. That's the problem part in measurement problem. If it did what it's supposed to there would be no problem to speak of.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 03:31:06 2022 No.14613337 >>14613304 But that's wrong, you fucking retard. Measurements always find the system in a definte state. The measurement problem is why this occurs.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 03:32:14 2022 No.14613339 >>14613337 >Measurements always find the system in a definte state So Schrödinger is wrong. Got it. Thanks man.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 03:56:39 2022 No.14613372 File: 486 KB, 750x938, 1603753739023.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14612362 >You need to prove the supernatural with natural science bro, otherwise I will downvote you retard alert

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 03:58:14 2022 No.14613374 >>14612362 persistent similarities in NDE reports

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 04:53:30 2022 No.14613454 >>14612362 Any near death experiences study

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 04:55:58 2022 No.14613456 >>14613374 >>14613454 They should be called "bad injury experiences." Don't give them the credit of being death. Its simply not death.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 06:06:04 2022 No.14613562 File: 1.45 MB, 498x431, thanks-obvious[1].gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14613456 >near death >Its simply not death.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 10:08:28 2022 No.14613946 I can Just don't wanna Sorry I just don't care enough really don't care Oops Sorrrryyyyyy

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 10:11:18 2022 No.14613953 >>14612464 If memories die, then you die as well, they are the only thing to make you you (unless you believe in a soul), so saying "you don't die but your memories do" is a total nonsensical non-sequitur.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 10:15:06 2022 No.14613963 >>14612366 fpbp

Anonymous Thu Jun 30 10:22:59 2022 No.14613983

When you die, how long can you wait for resurrection of some kind?
>Infinite time
Hence, if resurrection is possible, it will happen.

According to current knowledge of physics it is possible. If you want to discredit afterlife, you need to prove physics wrong. Good luck.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 10:26:49 2022 No.14613995 >>14613983 Retard-tier take. Your fantasies of resurrection are as bogus as your idea of self, but the sad part is that they're not even congruent with each other.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 10:29:06 2022 No.14614001 >>14613995 your screech contains no logical arguments, retard.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 10:31:01 2022 No.14614005 >>14614001 Your screech (>>14613983) contains no arguments, retard, but my point stands solid and unchallenged. You will not refute it in your next post and prove your intellectual inferiority by replying. :^)

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 11:17:16 2022 No.14614113 >>14613339 Where did Schrodinger say anything to the contrary? Maybe you just have no idea what you're talking about.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 11:18:14 2022 No.14614116 >>14613456 >no heartbeat >no brain activity >bad injury???

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 11:18:17 2022 No.14614117 >>14613372 >You need to prove the supernatural ftfy, umb schizo.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 11:19:38 2022 No.14614119 >>14613374 How is that not just evidence of similar brains reacting to similar stimuli? What about the dissimilarities coincidentally based on culture?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 11:22:05 2022 No.14614122 >>14612362 something created this wacky predetermined clown world how the fuck can you sit back and think about it and say there is no after life?

Anonymous Thu Jun 30 11:28:45 2022 No.14614127

>>14614119
well people do not just have a NDE they have one and are fully healed 2 weeks later from heart failure. also all the NDE i have watched they all say the same thing god/loved one told me my mission was not done yet i have to go back. sounds like a simulation to me.

Anonymous Thu Jun 30 11:43:37 2022 No.14614145

>>14614127
>well people do not just have a NDE they have one and are fully healed 2 weeks later from heart failure
Some people die and some people recover. Do you have any statistical correlation or did you just cherrypick?

>also all the NDE i have watched
And what you have watched is a representative sample across the world and across different beliefs? Or is this just selection bias?

>all say the same thing god/loved one
In the US they are angels or loved ones. In India they are messengers of the gods of death. You are confusing interpretation with experience. Also, you're ignoring all the distressing negative NDEs that have been reported and the ones that don't have any mystical interpretations.

>sounds like a simulation to me.
Sounds like a hallucination induced by extreme conditions.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 11:51:53 2022 No.14614159 >>14612362 There couldn't be any, as only the dead person could verify it. And then they can't communicate the result or lack thereof.

Anonymous Thu Jun 30 12:19:08 2022 No.14614202

>>14612362
When it comes to the afterlife, there are a number of things that people believe in. For some, they believe in reincarnation, where they will be reborn into another life. Others believe in the idea of an afterlife where they will go to a different place, such as heaven or hell. And then there are those who don’t believe in an afterlife at all.
When it comes to reincarnation, the main piece of evidence that people use to support this belief is the fact that they have had past lives. They will often have memories of things that they have never experienced in this life. Some people will also have talents or abilities that they cannot explain. For example, they may be able to speak a foreign language fluently without ever having learned it.
As for the belief in an afterlife where you go to a different place, the main evidence for this is people’s Near Death Experiences (NDEs). There have been many cases of people who have died and then been revived. They often report having seen a light or a tunnel. Some people also claim to have met deceased relatives or religious figures.
(post cont.)

Anonymous Thu Jun 30 12:20:09 2022 No.14614204

>>14614202
The main argumnt against materialism is that it does not explain what happens to consciousness after death. Materialism is the belief that everything is made of matter and that there is nothing else. This means that when a person dies, their consciousness dies with them. This does not explain how people can have memories of past lives or have NDEs.
There are a number of theories that try to explain how consciousness could survive death. One theory is that consciousness is a separate entity from the body and that it is not bound by the laws of physics. This means that it could continue to exist after the body has died. Another theory is that consciousness is just a product of the brain and that it dies when the brain dies. However, there is evidence that suggests that the brain does not produce consciousness. For example, people with brain damage can still be conscious.
It is also worth noting that there is no scientific evidence for or against the existence of an afterlife. This is because it is not something that can be measured or observed. The only way to know for sure is to experience it yourself.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 12:24:46 2022 No.14614211 >>14612362 Afterlife = nonsensical concept. Once you die, your brain stops functioning, so there is no more "after" or "you". This is obvious but it has to be said on nu-/sci/ which has been overrun by schizos

Anonymous Thu Jun 30 12:29:05 2022 No.14614217

>>14612362
They are comfy delusions because those people would be unable to face the harsh, cold truth of reality. They wouldn't be able to function without those so you'll never be able to help them see things as they are. It's not a big deal, it a good thing for them.
Every answer will boil down to "just open your eyes, it's obvious there's more to our existences than that" you will obviously get no evidence. There's isn't any.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 12:29:20 2022 No.14614219 >>14612362 After you given evidence that it doesn't exist.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 12:31:32 2022 No.14614223 File: 163 KB, 700x990, 7D564B41-1CF3-4389-A306-A0E464662C8D.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14612453 >archmage NGMI Isekai is reserved for warriorchads who will cleave down hordes of enemies and kill three men in a single blow.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 12:33:41 2022 No.14614229 File: 29 KB, 500x565, 3523432.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14614217 >t. Don't you feel a little embarrassed regurgitating these kindergarten cliches?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 12:36:48 2022 No.14614233 >>14614229 Looks like you were upset by some simple scientific facts.

Anonymous Thu Jun 30 12:38:30 2022 No.14614239

>>14614233
Your religion has nothing to do with any scientific facts. The "hars, cold truth of reality" is that your opinions don't stem from any kind of rationality of valiance, but from mental illness vacuity and lack of basic humanity. Genuinely intellectual positions on this issue simply do not exist.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 12:41:01 2022 No.14614244 >>14614219 That's not how burden of proof works

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 12:41:49 2022 No.14614245 >>14614239 >I-I'll call it a religion! h-haha, uno reverse card a-amirite? Any more pathetic displays of your hatred of science?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 12:42:28 2022 No.14614247 >>14614244 There is no burden of proof on anyone to show you evidence of anything. You're disabled.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 12:43:31 2022 No.14614249 >>14614245 You are severely mentally ill if you believe anything you vomited here >>14614217 is "science". You "people" are a cult.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 12:44:51 2022 No.14614252 >>14614249 That post wasn't made by me, sweaty

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 12:46:39 2022 No.14614253 >>14614252 Okay. That only makes you look even more deranged.

Anonymous Thu Jun 30 12:47:56 2022 No.14614254

>>14614217
I was hoping for something more compelling, but most of what I've gotten from this thread is "It's a feeling I can't prove and you're an NPC for thinking it doesn't mean anything." It can be summed up as "materialism is wrong because it doesn't explain my subjective experience" which, while maybe true for now, doesn't make it immediately obvious that a jump to the conclusion of an afterlife can be made from this.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 12:48:42 2022 No.14614258 >>14614253 Of course you think basic science is deranged.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 12:49:27 2022 No.14614260 >>14614258 Hope you're trolling. Your posts are pure psychosis.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 12:50:28 2022 No.14614264 >>14614254 >>14612608 nails it and you can't refute it.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 12:52:05 2022 No.14614267 >>14614260 Is this the first time you've come out of whatever echo chamber you were in till now? You're surprised to see basic materialism on a science board? Lol. Fuck off back to >>>/x/ or wherever you're from retard.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 12:53:40 2022 No.14614270 >>14614267 You are mentally ill and nothing ITT is "science". Materialism is a discarded 19th century religious dogma.

Anonymous Thu Jun 30 12:54:12 2022 No.14614272

>>14614204
Ok at least there's some progress here. Materialists will say NDE's are simply a byproduct of a dying brain, however. A hallucination, if you will. What would you provide to counter this assertion?

As for claims of past lives, some cases are intriguing but that doesn't explain why most people don't remember their former life. Or how this process is done and in what way, or how it squares with an afterlife. How do we know their claims aren't a function of coincidence and confabulation?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 12:54:59 2022 No.14614278 >>14614270 See >>14614245

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 12:56:11 2022 No.14614281 >>14614278 Sorry. Materialism was so incongruent with scientific reality it was roundly rejected by the scientific community and replaced with the intentionally vacuous concept of "physicalism".

Anonymous Thu Jun 30 12:56:56 2022 No.14614284

>>14614272
I don't think there's any one answer that can definitively counter the materialist assertion that NDEs are simply a byproduct of a dying brain. However, there are a few things that can be said in response.

First, it's worth noting that many people who have had NDEs report having experiences that are very different from what they would expect to experience if they were simply hallucinating. For example, some people report seeing deceased loved ones or religious figures, or having very vivid and realistic experiences of other places. If NDEs were simply hallucinations, it's hard to explain why they would be so specific and detailed.

Second, there are also cases of people who have had NDEs who were later revived and were able to report on their experiences while they were technically "dead." This suggests that their experiences were not simply the product of their imagination, but were actually occurring in some kind of objective reality.

Finally, it's worth noting that the vast majority of people who have NDEs report having positive experiences, even though they are technically dying. If NDEs were simply the product of a dying brain, it's hard to explain why they would so often be positive and uplifting, rather than negative and frightening.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 12:57:39 2022 No.14614287 >>14614281 Any sane person will treat materialism and physicalism as equivalent. Only schizos like you would think there's some real difference between the two.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 12:58:27 2022 No.14614291 >>14614287 >Any sane person will treat materialism and physicalism as equivalent. Only uneducated retards like you treat them as equivalent due to their absolute ignorance of what these concepts are and how they came to be.

Anonymous Thu Jun 30 12:58:36 2022 No.14614292

>>14614264
What is there to refute? I'm asking for something to show why one believes in such a thing. I'm willing to believe it too if someone can make a compelling argument with some evidence, literally any at all. How do you know that I don't experience this stuff too and just don't recognise it?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 13:00:42 2022 No.14614297 >>14614291 >t-they're really very different and one of them was even proved to be wrong!! t-trust me bro

Anonymous Thu Jun 30 13:01:07 2022 No.14614299

>>14614292
>I'm asking for something to show why
Your request is nonsensical as specifically demonstrated by that post, which you cannot refute.If the vast majority of humans that ever lived are able to perceive something in the sense inputs they receive from the world, that you can't see and fathom, the problem is you, and no one can prove anything to you because you lack the necessarily faculties to interpret the reality you're in in an adequate or at least in a human manner.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 13:02:07 2022 No.14614303 >>14614297 Call me back when you finish highschool, summer stinker. Your lack of education is not my problem.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 13:03:28 2022 No.14614308 >>14614303 I accept your concession. Now back to >>>/x/ with you.

Anonymous Thu Jun 30 13:04:09 2022 No.14614310

>>14614202
>They will often have memories of things that they have never experienced in this life.
That's called imagination.

>For example, they may be able to speak a foreign language fluently without ever having learned it.
Proof?

>>14614204
The main argumnt against materialism is that it does not explain what happens to consciousness after death.
Sure it does. The brain diesso consciousness ceases. Ridiculous lie.

>This does not explain how people can have memories of past lives
No need to explain what isn't actually true in the first place.

>or have NDEs.
It actually explains this very well. Loss of oxygen or damage in certain parts of the brain creates similar effects reported in NDEs.

>This is because it is not something that can be measured or observed.
Then your belief in it is just arbitrary nonsense.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 13:05:07 2022 No.14614313 >>14614308 Meds now.

Anonymous Thu Jun 30 13:10:36 2022 No.14614326

>>14614299
Yes. I can't refute something when there isn't anything to refute. All you're telling me is that I'm a broken machine that can't see the reality of an afterlife and just asserting it's there and real. You're basically telling me that "it's a feeling you have". I have this feeling too, but I'm not sure to attribute it to monkey brain not wanting to die, or evidence of continuing beyond the grave. I'm asking genuine questions here, don't get mad at me for being curious.

Anonymous Thu Jun 30 13:11:30 2022 No.14614328

>>14614310
>Sure it does. The brain diesso consciousness ceases. Ridiculous lie.
This is not necessarily true. There is evidence that suggests that the brain does not produce consciousness. For example, people with brain damage can still be conscious.

>No need to explain what isn't actually true in the first place.
This is a valid point. If there is no evidence to support the existence of reincarnation or an afterlife, then there is no need to try and explain it.

>It actually explains this very well. Loss of oxygen or damage in certain parts of the brain creates similar effects reported in NDEs.
This is a possible explanation, but it does not explain all cases of NDEs. There are some people who have had NDEs who have not had any brain damage.

>Then your belief in it is just arbitrary nonsense.
This may be true, but it is not possible to know for sure. The only way to know for sure is to experience it yourself.

Anonymous Thu Jun 30 13:15:42 2022 No.14614335

>>14614326
>All you're telling me is that I'm a broken machine
All the evidence points to it, and you cannot refute it, which invalidates your inquiry to prove something to you.

> You're basically telling me that "it's a feeling you have".
No, that's not what I'm telling you. I'm telling you that you're like a face-blind person demanding that I prove to you that there are different faces, and telling me it's just a feeling I have because I can't show you empirical evidence that there are humanly meaningful differences between faces, and it's not like looking at two different rocks. Anyway, I accept your concession, and your inability to even comprehend what I'm saying just proves me right.

Anonymous Thu Jun 30 13:16:23 2022 No.14614338

>>14614310
I think I know of where he gets the past lives thing from https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual-studies/who-we-are/history-of-dops/dr-ian-stevenson/
To at least give this guy credit, he did try to rule out as many possibilities of fraud as possible and admitted he had no explanation for how it worked. Not that this seals the deal on anon's behalf, you can look into criticisms of his work.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 13:17:20 2022 No.14614343 >>14614326 >don't get mad at me for being curious. He gets mad because he can't give a proper answer. This is quite common among religious fanatics.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 13:19:41 2022 No.14614348 >>14614343 You're the only religious fanatics ITT, ironically enough.

Anonymous Thu Jun 30 13:26:50 2022 No.14614377

>>14613953
>If memories die, then you die as well
How come? If you take some drugs or drink, you may completely forget who you are for some time, but there's still you.
>"you don't die but your memories do" is a total nonsensical non-sequitur
At least look up what "non-sequitur" means.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 13:30:44 2022 No.14614394 >>14614377 >but there's still you. No, if my temporal connection to all the past instances of me is completely severed, ti will be the same as death in terms of the personal experience of "me". The "you" is in the continuity.

Anonymous Thu Jun 30 13:30:51 2022 No.14614395

>>14614335
What evidence proves I'm broken? I've already stated I'm not a full on materialist and am open to interperetation and arguments. You keep making arguments about qualia, implying I'm just blind to reality. People with face blindness can be helped and shown differences between faces in other ways. How about this; why do you trust your qualia? How do you know those faces are different?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 13:33:55 2022 No.14614398 >>14612362 There is no direct evidence. There is strong evidence for what I believe for what is verifiable so I trust in what the source says about the things that aren't verifiable

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 13:35:14 2022 No.14614403 >>14614398 Indirect evidence is fine by me. Could you share it please?

Anonymous Thu Jun 30 13:39:08 2022 No.14614418

>>14614113
Maybe, from what I understand we should physically see the wavefunction oscillate until a measurement is made and then a wave function collapses. That's not what we see, however, as pointed out we see a system in definite state and don't observe any collapse occur only a deterministic outcome. That would mean we should be able to predict an absolute outcome not a probability of an outcome taking place, no?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 13:44:20 2022 No.14614447 File: 47 KB, 645x729, 8d6.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14614229 >kindergarten cliches >believes in the oldest ancient goat herder cliches in the book

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 13:45:37 2022 No.14614453 >>14614247 You're right, you can fall to give evidence and your bullshit will be rightly called out as the bullshit it is. Don't whine, you brought this on yourself.

Anonymous Thu Jun 30 13:47:07 2022 No.14614461

>>14614395
>What evidence proves I'm broken?
This question is answered in the very post you're replying to.

>You keep making arguments about qualia,
I never made a single argument about qualia. I'm getting a strong impression that you're a poorly trained GPT bot. The level of your responses is truly abysmal.

>why do you trust your qualia?
That's all we have and if you distrust your sense perceptions, you should probably start taking your meds again.

>How do you know those faces are different?
I simply see that they are different.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 13:48:08 2022 No.14614465 >>14614447 >>14614453 Daily reminder that your 19th century corporate-manufactured "philosophy" is dying out as we speak, even in the small minority of societies where it is considered acceptable.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 13:51:06 2022 No.14614472 >>14614461 You must also believe the sun and moon are the same size because they look the same size from the earth.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 13:54:22 2022 No.14614479 >>14614461 Discerning the differences between faces from someone's internal experience is a part of qualia, is it not? Replace faces with color, same deal.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 13:55:23 2022 No.14614481 >>14614472 What does your schizophrenic reply have to do with my post? Are you legit a bot?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 13:55:52 2022 No.14614482 >>14612362 Why would another dimension operate on the same mathematical rules as this one exactly?

Anonymous Thu Jun 30 13:57:10 2022 No.14614486

>>14614479
>Discerning the differences between faces from someone's internal experience is a part of qualia, is it not?
Mindless machines can discern between faces. I don't know. It looks like my simple points are incomprehensible to you entirely because you keep flying off on irrelevan tangets.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 14:01:26 2022 No.14614502 >>14614486 So I'm an NPC who can't discern between faces but mindless machines can? Can machines get a afterlife?

Anonymous Thu Jun 30 14:02:32 2022 No.14614506

>>14614284
>First, it's worth noting that many people who have had NDEs report having experiences that are very different from what they would expect to experience if they were simply hallucinating.
Why would we expect their hallucinations to match their expectations? Pure nonsense.

>If NDEs were simply hallucinations, it's hard to explain why they would be so specific and detailed.
Some hallucinations are specific and detailed.

>This suggests that their experiences were not simply the product of their imagination, but were actually occurring in some kind of objective reality.
You're conflating two different things. The parts that correspond to what was going on in the hospital room of course occurred in objective reality and are simply evidence that technically dead =/= no brain function.

>If NDEs were simply the product of a dying brain, it's hard to explain why they would so often be positive and uplifting, rather than negative and frightening.
What percentage of hallucinations involving damage to the temporal lobe are negative?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 14:02:33 2022 No.14614507 >>14614481 I'm sorry you're too low IQ to realize how low IQ you are. You cannot be helped

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 14:03:04 2022 No.14614510 >>14614482 Maybe? But what points to consciousness existing there?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 14:04:05 2022 No.14614514 >>14614486 Mindless machines can discern between hashes via a function created by an intelligence who observes the universe through qualia.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 14:04:46 2022 No.14614517 >>14614502 You're an NPC who can't grasp the concept of an analogy. This is cracking me up now. It's seriously hard to believe you are human.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 14:06:31 2022 No.14614527 >>14614517 I think you don't know what qualia is.

Anonymous Thu Jun 30 14:06:32 2022 No.14614528

>>14614507
You cannot comprehend what you read, but keep sharting out mentally ill replies, I guess. I have no actual interest in having discussions with "people" like you; I just think it's educational for others to see the intellectual level of "people" who still defend dead 19th century metaphysical dogmas.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 14:07:42 2022 No.14614534 >>14614527 LOL. I think I understand qualia better than you, you actual bot. My point wasn't about qualia, and regardless, you've just shown your inability to grasp an analogy. What does this tell me about you?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 14:09:11 2022 No.14614537 >>14614528 You're literally defending one of the first dogmas to become outdated you dumbfuck

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 14:09:13 2022 No.14614538 >>14614514 NNs can learn what a face is just from images of faces. In any case, your post is completely irrelevant. The lack of comprehension from your cult is comical.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 14:10:15 2022 No.14614543 >>14614537 I'm not defending anything at all. I'm just pointing out that you are mentally deficient in a variety of ways, and you keep proving me right evey time, as if on cue.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 14:12:28 2022 No.14614548 >>14614538 The way a NN perceives an image is a series of letters and numbers we know as hash, friend.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 14:13:16 2022 No.14614549 >>14614534 You can "see" the differences faces, but say I can't. What's that a difference in? You can see the difference between colors, but say I'm blind. What is that a difference in? Perception is part of it, but what does that fundamentally imply?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 14:13:17 2022 No.14614551 >>14614543 You're having an episode. Take your meds and let the adults discuss this.

Anonymous Thu Jun 30 14:15:01 2022 No.14614559

>>14614328
>This is not necessarily true.
Noon sequitur. You said materialism doesn't explain what happens to consciousness. It clearly does.

>There is evidence that suggests that the brain does not produce consciousness. For example, people with brain damage can still be conscious.
Why would non-specific "damage" cause the brain to not produce consciousness? I can damage plenty of machines that will still function or partially function. There is no logic in your arguments.

>There are some people who have had NDEs who have not had any brain damage.
I didn't just say brain damage, I also said lack of oxygen, which is the effect of dying. If the brain is not in an extreme condition then it's not an NDE in the first place.

>This may be true, but it is not possible to know for sure.
Yeah, that's why it's arbitrary.

>The only way to know for sure is to experience it yourself.
No, experiencing a hallucination doesn't give you knowledge. You're confusing an interpretation of an experience with the experience itself.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 14:15:09 2022 No.14614562 >>14614548 >a bitmap is a hash Just kill yourself already.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 14:16:20 2022 No.14614566 >>14614549 >What's that a difference in? Some kind of deficiency in processing sense inputs.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 14:17:08 2022 No.14614569 >>14614562 A bitmap? Like an array of colored pixels where a color is represented by a series of letters and numbers?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 14:17:20 2022 No.14614570 >>14614551 Glad you've just realized you're sperging off at imaginary boogeymen in your head, but nothing you shart out will help you save face now. gb2r.

Anonymous Thu Jun 30 14:18:34 2022 No.14614573

>>14614569
No one calls a bitmap a "hash", you imbeciling mouth breather, not that it matters what you call it. Not that any of it has anything to do with my point in any case. This is just gold. Thanks for showing so clearly that materialists truly are subhuman and intellectually disabled.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 14:21:14 2022 No.14614581 >>14614573 You're not engaging with the subject matter at any depth relevant to a discussion displaying understanding of said subject matter. You're just mad on the internet and have nowhere to go because you've painted yourself into a corner.

Anonymous Thu Jun 30 14:21:29 2022 No.14614582
File: 125 KB, 1109x1080, IMG_20210813_111617_589.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>OP makes thread
>hopes people can show any evidence of an afterlife at all
>"WELL UM, ACTUALLY, IT'S REAL BUT YOU CAN'T KNOW THAT BECAUSE IT'S METAPHYSICAL BUT I KNOW IT'S REAL BECAUSE I CAN PERCEIVE IT"
>can you provide us with anything showing it is? Description, indirect evidence?
>"NO"

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 14:23:18 2022 No.14614588 >>14614581 What do you think the subject matter even is? Why are you rambling about "hashes"? What does it have to do with my posts? You are legitimately disabled.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 14:24:31 2022 No.14614591 >>14614566 Can I build a machine that can go to the afterlife?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 14:24:46 2022 No.14614592 >>14614582 >screeching at imaginary strawmen in your head over points no one made >being this mad Just take the L and walk away.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 14:25:47 2022 No.14614599 >>14614591 No. GPT, please stop posting.You just can't seem to comprehend analogies. This is seriously embarrassing.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 14:27:13 2022 No.14614608 >>14614599 I'm genuinely curious. Can I build a robot that can perceive the reality of the afterlife? If not, why?

Anonymous Thu Jun 30 14:27:42 2022 No.14614615

>>14614588
You are attacking a point anon made about an entity being able to discern faces via qualia by pointing out a mindless machine can do the same implying quality is of no consequence in the matter. I've replied to that challenge by pointing out that the mindless machine can only discern between a combination of letters and numbers not faces. From that point the chimp out has commenced leading us down this rabbithole where we both understand you're mad and have no point you can defend outside of hurling insults.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 14:28:07 2022 No.14614618 >>14614608 No and this has nothing to do with anything ITT except your irrational spergouts, so I have no interest to engage in it any further.

Anonymous Thu Jun 30 14:29:29 2022 No.14614624

>>14614615
>implying quality is of no consequence in the matter.
Which is objectively and demonstrably true, since machines can discern faces without experiencing anything.

>mindless machine can only discern between a combination of letters and numbers not faces
Holy shit, you actual mouth-breathing...

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 14:30:38 2022 No.14614631 >>14614624 And now we're looping. We'll, you have fun with that.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 14:31:53 2022 No.14614635 >>14614631 >uhhh it's not faces it's uhhh numbers mmmkayyy?? What a mentally ill cretin.

Anonymous Thu Jun 30 14:34:13 2022 No.14614639

>>14614418
>Maybe, from what I understand we should physically see the wavefunction oscillate until a measurement is made and then a wave function collapses.
How would we see that? I don't think you understand anything about QM, you're just parroting some quantum woo you heard. None of this has anything to do with consciousness.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 14:36:20 2022 No.14614647 File: 490 KB, 449x401, Girls.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14614465 >MY BULLSHIT IS BELIEVED BY LOTS OF IDIOTS ALL OVER THE WORLD REEEEEEEEEE Oh man, this is hilarious.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 14:36:27 2022 No.14614648 File: 2.97 MB, 540x960, 1656261545992.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14612362 Higher dimensions

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 14:37:53 2022 No.14614653 >>14614639 We can't. Therefore we can't see the measurement only the outcome. That's the problem We can go as far as to make a leap in logic and claim oh this must be the outcome, but that's it we can't demonstrate further.

Anonymous Thu Jun 30 14:38:27 2022 No.14614659

>>14614618
It does though. If the afterlife is metaphysical then how are you, a physical entity, capable of knowing the metaphysical exists? Can I build a machine that derives this revelation? If not, why? You say it comes from some aspect of perception that you refuse to elaborate on, but I want to know what that percept is. I don't know your philosophy however, so you could be someone that believes reality is entirely produced by the mind and nothing physical exists. In that case, just state what your position is on this in a concise manner.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 14:38:56 2022 No.14614661 >>14614647 Your religion is going extinct. Seethe.

Anonymous Thu Jun 30 14:43:59 2022 No.14614678

>>14614659
>Can I build a machine that derives this revelation?
No.

>If not, why?
No one knows how to specify exact criteria to define even simple everyday objects. Modern AI is "taught" by example, but again it is difficult to build an effective training set even for mundane discriminations, and the sort of sense I am talking about arises from looking at the bigger picture of life rather than any individual example, so it's not even compatible with the approach. You're spewing utter nonsense.

Anonymous Thu Jun 30 14:45:53 2022 No.14614681

>>14614635
Yes. It's numbers. Electricity oscillating through wires, to be exact. Kind of like how your brain does it with neurons, but in the case of brains people acknowledge that there is this thing called qualia that differs from a machine. I don't think I've heard of someone making an argument for machines having qualia so that's a new one.

Anonymous Thu Jun 30 14:56:48 2022 No.14614707

>>14614559
There are NDE's with no heartbeat or brain activity where external information was gathered outside their senses. Pam Reynolds is one example of this. A case study of another lady named Maria also perceived information during her NDE and was able to correctly relay it as occuring during the time of her death.

Anonymous Thu Jun 30 14:59:15 2022 No.14614716

>>14614681
>Yes. It's numbers.
That makes no difference for the purpose of my point, you actual drooler. How many more times do I need to point it out? Differentiating between faces and pictures of faces is the same thing in the context of the point I was making.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 14:59:52 2022 No.14614720 >>14614653 >We can't. What understanding led you to believe we would?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 15:00:52 2022 No.14614724 >>14614661 I don't have any religion. Why do religious retards project their superstitions into others and then use it as an insult? You're only insulting yourself.

Anonymous Thu Jun 30 15:03:19 2022 No.14614736

>>14614720
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
Listen man, if someone rolls on a claim and goes I have calculated and have proof of 30 fps video and as evidence of that they present to you a power point slideshow and that's sufficient for you, that's great. More power to you.

Anonymous Thu Jun 30 15:05:13 2022 No.14614745

>>14614716
It wouldn't matter if it was a picture of a face or not. People with face blindness can't tell the difference in either case. The way a machine discerns the difference between faces is different from how a brain does it, at least that's how someone like you should interperet this. Are you saying the brain computates reality like a machine?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 15:05:55 2022 No.14614747 >>14614724 >I don't have any religion. And yet you're seething over its extinction. :^(

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 15:06:26 2022 No.14614748 File: 571 KB, 1250x400, GoodLuck.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14612362 Try: Another Dimension

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 15:07:40 2022 No.14614754 >>14614745 Yeah, I'm convinced you're an actual bot at this point. Your inability to comprehend what you're reading and to respond cogently is too great.

Anonymous Thu Jun 30 15:14:29 2022 No.14614771

>>14614707
>Pam Reynolds is one example of this.
Wrong.

>Critics say that the amount of time which Reynolds was "flatlined" is generally misrepresented and suggest that her NDE occurred while under general anaesthesia when the brain was still active, hours before Reynolds underwent hypothermic cardiac arrest.[7][8][9]

>Anesthesiologist Gerald Woerlee analyzed the case, and concluded that Reynolds' ability to perceive events during her surgery was the result of "anesthesia awareness".[10]

>According to the psychologist Chris French:

>Woerlee, an anesthesiologist with many years of clinical experience, has considered this case in detail and remains unconvinced of the need for a paranormal explanation... [He] draws attention to the fact that Reynolds could only give a report of her experience some time after she recovered from the anesthetic as she was still intubated when she regained consciousness. This would provide some opportunity for her to associate and elaborate upon the sensations she had experienced during the operation with her existing knowledge and expectations. The fact that she described the small pneumatic saw used in the operation also does not impress Woerlee. As he points out, the saw sounds like and, to some extent, looks like the pneumatic drills used by dentists.[2]

Anonymous Thu Jun 30 15:16:01 2022 No.14614773

>>14614506
>The parts that correspond to what was going on in the hospital room of course occurred in objective reality and are simply evidence that technically dead =/= no brain function.
What about the OOBE type situations where the (near-)dead will recount seeing occurrences within the operating theatre without any way they could have known this.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 15:16:34 2022 No.14614774 >>14614736 OK, so you have nothing. Thanks for clearing that up.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 15:17:35 2022 No.14614775 >>14614747 No, I welcome the extinction of your religion.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 15:17:35 2022 No.14614776 >>14614774 All you have is faith, my guy.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 15:20:14 2022 No.14614787 >>14614773 The only scientific studies that looked at OBEs in the operating room found several but none reported any information about objects that were out of sight. So the evidence is the opposite of what you claim.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 15:21:15 2022 No.14614791 >>14614776 More projection. Yawn.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 15:22:53 2022 No.14614797 >>14614791 >can't show evidence of the claim he makes >projection Okay.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 15:23:00 2022 No.14614798 >>14614775 What's my religion, you mentally ill muppet? I just wanna know what delusion you're stuck in.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 15:24:21 2022 No.14614801 >>14614787 >objects that were out of sight Out of sight from whom? The patient should have their eyes taped shut.

Anonymous Thu Jun 30 15:24:47 2022 No.14614806

>>14614754
I'm convinced you don't actually have any argument to give for the purpose of the thread. Why are you here then? The thread was made in request of evidence. Any. Direct, indirect, good, piss poor, doesn't matter. An argument can be made from it. Why come here, get mad at people asking for evidence if you believe it can't be done nor explain why? All you've done so far is just ad hominem. Some anons were willing to hear you out, but you don't seem interested in sharing how you know these things other than some reference to your perception of reality.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 15:28:17 2022 No.14614812 >>14612362 If you believe in materialism, give a good argument in its favor instead of pointing out that there are bad arguments for a single alternative.

Anonymous Thu Jun 30 15:30:59 2022 No.14614818

>>14614806
>you don't actually have any argument
My argument was that if you simply lack the faculties to notice some meaningful patterns in the data, no one can prove to you that they exist, and if it seems like everyone else but you sees something that you don't, the problem is you. This argument still stands completely unchallenged.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 15:31:35 2022 No.14614822 >>14614812 >give a good argument in its favor The laws of physics apply to everything and can in principle explain everything. There's plenty of evidence for this statement, and 'materialism' trivially follows from it.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 15:32:22 2022 No.14614823 >>14614822 >The laws of physics apply to everything and can in principle explain everything Absolutely vacuous statement since no one knows what the "laws of physics" ultimately are, and what phenomena they allow for.

Anonymous Thu Jun 30 15:34:53 2022 No.14614831

>>14612667
Produce a proof that materialism is correct or even an argument that it’s correct. Now, neither a proof nor an argument is strictly speaking a material object, so if materialism is correct neither exists and if either exists materialism is false.

To conclude let me just point out that to a materialist materialism doesn’t exist either.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 15:35:31 2022 No.14614834 >>14614818 What patterns in the data then? Break it down for me if I'm such a dum dum.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 15:35:33 2022 No.14614835 >>14614823 String theory could for example be the laws of physics and once it's understood, everything else can be derived from it in principle. You will not be able to prove without doubt that they're the 'final' explanation but that's irrelevant

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 15:36:06 2022 No.14614838 >>14614834 LOL. This is some seriously unbelievable shit.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 15:36:26 2022 No.14614842 >>14614797 Which claim? You're the only one with no evidence. More projection.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 15:37:10 2022 No.14614846 >>14614822 >imagine everything is physical >claim there’s nothing that isn’t physical >declare victory What definition of physical and everything are you basing your claim on?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 15:37:15 2022 No.14614848 >>14614835 It's pretty relevant that babby's kindergarten physics are probably not the ultimate laws of the universe, because it renders the statement "everything follows the laws of physics" to be a zero information shart.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 15:37:26 2022 No.14614849 >>14614787 To be fair, the AWARE studies that had the OBE's were cases that occured with the object not in the room IIRC.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 15:38:53 2022 No.14614854 >>14614798 >What's my religion It's one of the religions that tells you you aren't going to really die, that there's an afterlife. But you are and there isn't. Get over it.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 15:39:32 2022 No.14614855 >>14614846 Whatever the theory tells you is real/physical is real/physical >>14614848 Wtf are you talking about? Try to be more coherent next time.

Anonymous Thu Jun 30 15:40:38 2022 No.14614858

>>14614801
>Out of sight from whom?
From the patient. Objects were put on a shelf where the patient would see them if they actually had an OBE and viewed the OR from above. A few people reported OBEs but none were able to offshoot the object. Because it's just a hallucination.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 15:41:14 2022 No.14614861 >>14614855 >conveniently forgetting that you need to decide what “everything” is Is the number 5 physical? Is your personal identity physical?

Anonymous Thu Jun 30 15:42:41 2022 No.14614866

>>14614842
The claim that an entity is in superposition until measured then it's locked in a deterministic position once an observer measures it. All I can see or measure is a deterministic outcome and no oscillation. Your defense is you're not supposed to see the oscillation, but trust me bro I've done lots of mental gymnastics at university. To that I respond with no thanks I don't want to join your religion and then you say I have no evidence and that I am projecting which I am currently finding a tiresome looping we're doing. I am not convinced by a pinky promise and until I see actual physical evidence of a wavefunction collapse no amount of you talking down to me is going to convince me otherwise. I hope this helps.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 15:42:45 2022 No.14614868 >>14614812 Every successful scientific theory so far has been materialistic. What more evidence do you need?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 15:43:42 2022 No.14614873 >>14614855 Is the correctness of materialism itself described by a physical law? That sounds more like philosophy.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 15:43:55 2022 No.14614874 >>14614861 What's the point of these questions?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 15:46:53 2022 No.14614887 >>14614873 How you define correctness is philosophy but the fact that the universe might be string theoretic would not be philosophical.

Anonymous Thu Jun 30 15:51:53 2022 No.14614896

>>14614868
You’re confusing two senses of the word. Some (not all) scientific theories successfully restrict themselves to the physical, but they don’t make metaphysical claims about whether or not something else exists. They’re physical theories, not successful theories of physicalism.

Mathematics underpins much of that success and doesn’t concern the physical at all.

A reasonable physicalist needs to give some argument why some things don’t exist. You didn’t.

Anonymous Thu Jun 30 15:53:23 2022 No.14614902

>>14614771
Pam couldn't have heard anything at the time due to her ears being covered. On top of that, she reported the song "Hotel California" playing as the flatline in both brain and heart activity occured. Her sequence of reporting events was consistent with what the doctors were doing until the end of the operation.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 15:54:23 2022 No.14614907 >>14614838 Aren't patterns in the data a type of evidence?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 15:54:35 2022 No.14614908 File: 519 KB, 640x417, 1643609119381.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14612362

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 15:55:58 2022 No.14614916 >>14614874 Why are you in this thread if you don’t know what physicalism is? If the number 5 exists and is non-physical then physicalism is false—the same is true for the correctness of physicalism

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 15:58:46 2022 No.14614928 >>14614916 >If the number 5 exists and is non-physical This doesn't really mean anything, so your questions are pointless

Anonymous Thu Jun 30 16:05:34 2022 No.14614949

>>14614831
>Now, neither a proof nor an argument is strictly speaking a material object
Of course they are. They're electrons in your computer and neurons in your brain. You seem to be talking about abstractions independent from physicsl media, which strictly speaking don't exist.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 16:10:36 2022 No.14614962 >>14614854 >It's one of the religions that tells I don't follow any religion. Do you want to take your meds now?

Anonymous Thu Jun 30 16:15:07 2022 No.14614976

>>14614866
>The claim that an entity is in superposition until measured then it's locked in a deterministic position once an observer measures it.
Plenty of evidence, double slit experiment is the big one. Pick up a textbook instead of making a bunch of silly claims that you can't justify.

Anonymous Thu Jun 30 16:24:03 2022 No.14614997

>>14614896
>Some (not all) scientific theories successfully restrict themselves to the physical
All.

>but they don’t make metaphysical claims about whether or not something else exists.
They don't need to. The lack of successful theories that say they do exist speaks for itself.

>They’re physical theories, not successful theories of physicalism.
I didn't say they are, you're the only one who's confused. I said they're materialistic. That means they only refer to physical things. What proves materialism is their totality, not any specific theory.

>Mathematics underpins much of that success and doesn’t concern the physical at all.
Then why are there no successful non-materialistic theories? Just use math. LOL.

>A reasonable physicalist needs to give some argument why some things don’t exist.
No, the burden of proof is on you. I don't need to prove leprechauns don't exist, the one claiming they exist needs to provide evidence they exist. If you don't, then you're claim can be dismissed as easily as it was made.

Anonymous Thu Jun 30 16:46:12 2022 No.14615066

>>14614902
>Pam couldn't have heard anything at the time due to her ears being covered.
They were not covered, she had earphones in. You can hear sounds through earphones.

>On top of that, she reported the song "Hotel California" playing as the flatline in both brain and heart activity occured.
Wrong, it was actually at the point when the surgeons were closing her wounds.

https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc461684/m1/17/?q=California

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 16:47:39 2022 No.14615069 >>14614962 >I don't follow any religion. Believing for no reason that there is an afterlife is a religion. Cope more.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 16:48:50 2022 No.14615075 >>14614976 >, double slit experiment is the big one. Light behaves like a wavefunction until observed then it behaves like matter. Wow, much clarity. Thanks man.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 17:05:15 2022 No.14615109 >>14615075 >Light behaves like a wavefunction until observed then it behaves like matter. Not just light. Particles are in superposition when there is no information about which path they took.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 17:08:04 2022 No.14615119 >>14615075 >Light behaves like a wavefunction sometimes it behaves like a wavefunction, other times like a particle accelerator...

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 17:12:38 2022 No.14615129 >>14614223 >only 3 per blow NGMI

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 17:13:15 2022 No.14615132 >>14615069 I never even said I believe in an afterlife, and your opinions about "no reason" are irrelevant; even if it's for "no reason" you're still psychotic for calling people religious when they don't adhere to your own metaphysical dogma. lol

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 17:15:57 2022 No.14615136 >>14615132 >I never even said I believe in an afterlife But you do, otherwise you wouldn't be throwing a tantrum. LOL, you're afraid to admit it after projecting your religion into others as an insult.

Anonymous Thu Jun 30 17:23:38 2022 No.14615156

>>14614997
Math itself doesn't refer to the material, you fucking retard. You couldn't possibly be any more stupid.
>no, I mean there are no successful non-materialistic theories of the material
you should honestly hang yourself if you don't get it that this point

Anonymous Thu Jun 30 17:25:56 2022 No.14615165

>>14614928
Hahahahaha
Physicalism is a metaphysical question. If you don't want to talk about metaphysics you're in the wrong thread. How fucking stupid are you?

>only physical stuff exists because I'm too stupid to realize that there might be something else

Anonymous Thu Jun 30 17:32:23 2022 No.14615188

>>14614949
Uh huh, so your claims about materialism or physicalism also don't exist. You can point me at the physical medium, but then you're going to have to talk about how to interpret it to make your talking about it intelligible and--oops!--now you've got this hierarchy of stuff that you can reason about and you have to use to make the world intelligible and you even have to admit that it basically exists or appears to exist, but doesn't "strictly speaking" exist.

Or you can admit that non-physical entities might have non-physical existence and significance of some kind. Which sounds more reasonable and honest to you?

Anonymous Thu Jun 30 17:32:34 2022 No.14615190

>>14615156
>Math itself doesn't refer to the material, you fucking retard.
I didn't say it does, you fucking retard. Learn how to read. You said materialistic theories are successful because of math. Them non-materialist theories should be equally successful just by using Math.

>YOU JUST DON'T GET IT REEEEEEEE
Not an argument. I guess we're done here.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 17:35:42 2022 No.14615202 File: 56 KB, 621x702, ce8.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14615165 >5 exists >>that's meaningless >well it could exist, I don't have to prove anything Not him, but just stop posting.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 17:35:53 2022 No.14615205 >>14615190 Math itself is an equally successful theory that doesn't refer to the physical world. It makes no claims about the physical world and confines its claims to strictly non-physical entities. Did that make it through to you, yet?

Anonymous Thu Jun 30 17:39:00 2022 No.14615218

>>14615202
To claim that 5 existing is meaningless is just an assertion.

Here's the basic materialist take in this thread: "I can't imagine anything except the material existing, so I'm going identify existence with material existence"

It's no surprise that someone who doesn't even realize they've identified the two is angered and confused by a suggestion that they might not be the same thing, but "I'm confused" is not a convincing argument.

Anonymous Thu Jun 30 17:42:42 2022 No.14615237

>>14615188
>Uh huh, so your claims about materialism or physicalism also don't exist.
Of course they do. They're electrons in your computer and neurons in your brain. Can you not read?

>You can point me at the physical medium
Right, because that's what they are.

>but then you're going to have to talk about how to interpret it
Interpretreting it is also completely physical. It's just something your brain does. Your issue is that you assume abstractions exist in the first place and need to be explained. Your argument is circular.

>Or you can admit that non-physical entities might have non-physical existence and significance of some kind.
Leprechauns might exist, but I'll wait for your proof before believing it. Don't whine when no one takes your arbitrary bullshit seriously. It's only your fault you have no proof.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 17:44:52 2022 No.14615245 >>14615066 >earphones Yes, but they were also playing a 100 db sounds 11.3 times per second in order to monitor her brain activity. She didn't report hearing that however, but did recall comments made by the doctors.

Anonymous Thu Jun 30 18:26:55 2022 No.14615387

>>14615205
>Math itself is an equally successful theory that doesn't refer to the physical world.
Successful means that it successfully predicts reality. Why does no non-materialist theory successfully predict reality? Because reality is materialist.

>It makes no claims about the physical world and confines its claims to strictly non-physical entities
It doesn't make claims about entities (things that exist). It can be applied to entities if you add other assumptions or facts about reality to it. Are we talking about non-physical things that exist or non-physical things that you can imagine and describe with math? Please clarify.

Anonymous Thu Jun 30 18:31:05 2022 No.14615399

>>14615218
>To claim that 5 existing is meaningless is just an assertion.
No, it's a fact until you explain what you're trying to say.

>"I can't imagine anything except the material existing
I can easily imagine it, I just have no reason to believe that it does. You know the difference between imagination and reality, right? Apparently not. This entire thread is just you whining about your own inability to prove your beliefs.

Anonymous Thu Jun 30 18:36:41 2022 No.14615414

>>14615245
>Yes, but they were also playing a 100 db sounds 11.3 times per second in order to monitor her brain activity
Which still allows you to hear. You claimed she couldn't hear because her ears were covered. These misrepresentations and exaggerations are how religions get started.

https://www.neardth.com/failed-hearing-test.php

Anonymous Thu Jun 30 18:41:45 2022 No.14615433
File: 39 KB, 825x635, 1530630063472.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14614117
You didn't fix anything you just arbitrarily left out the crux of OP's issue you're coping over. My greentext was in fact correct in the context of OP, pic related is him and you if you don't grasp this.

Anonymous Thu Jun 30 18:46:24 2022 No.14615440

>>14615433
>You didn't fix anything you just arbitrarily left out the crux of OP's issue you're coping over.
No, I fixed your retarded strawman and revealed that you have no proof, otherwise you would have presented it instead of making up an excuse like "natural science."

Anonymous Thu Jun 30 18:51:48 2022 No.14615453

This thread has gone off the rails, poisoned by NDE and metaphysical bullshit.

I just want to state for the record; I am a physical reductionist. I believe strongly that consciousness emerges from neural activity, and that once my brain is destroyed, it will not support my concious awareness.

What I can not know, what no one can know, is if the pattern that is my concious awareness is substrate dependent, and the implications for my POV if it is not. This is the transporter problem. Its an open problem. We're not going to solve it here today, but it has tremendous implications towards the question of experience after death. "Nothingness" is an assumption. I hope that it is right, but the material answer will always be WE DO NOT KNOW.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 18:56:03 2022 No.14615463 >>14615453 All evidence says is substrate dependent. No reason to think it's not, just wishful thinking and superstition. No need to be 100% certain.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 18:56:51 2022 No.14615465 >>14615453 /thread

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 18:57:58 2022 No.14615469 >>14613953 The thing is we have no proof that consciousness resides in the brain or is a byproduct of it

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 19:06:50 2022 No.14615493 >>14615469 We do, brain damage effects consciousness and putting your brain in a Faraday cage doesn't. >but we don't know consciousness fairies don't exist!

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 19:08:28 2022 No.14615494 >>14615469 It can be altered by it though, via brain damage, drugs, etc. >inb4 radio-receiver argument If you sleep, why aren't you experiencing reality through this disembodied "radio wave" of consciounsess?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 19:19:48 2022 No.14615528 >>14615136 >But you do Medsnow? You're not even trying to hide the schizophrenia at this point.

Anonymous Thu Jun 30 19:24:05 2022 No.14615540
File: 568 KB, 800x472, 352434.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14615453
>I just want to state for the record; I am a physical reductionist. I believe strongly that consciousness emerges from neural activity
You're not a "physical" reductionist, since "physical" is not a real category; just a regular retarded reductionist in a world that defies and invalidates reductionism even from a purely scientific perspective.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 19:26:36 2022 No.14615549 >>14612362 No.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 19:27:41 2022 No.14615554 >>14612491 >Wouldn't there at least be indirect influence by the metaphysical on the physical seeing as they're intertwined? Yeah it’s called consciousness and reality. The so-called “physical” is shadows on the wall.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 19:28:52 2022 No.14615558 >>14612558 Perception is itself beyond the physical.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 19:30:03 2022 No.14615562 >>14615453 >I am a retarded NPC

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 19:38:52 2022 No.14615587 >>14614661 Actually, the nonreligious are declining as a total percentage of the world population.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 19:40:14 2022 No.14615588 >>14615528 You just proved me right. You're too scared to say what you believe. You BTFO yourself.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 19:41:00 2022 No.14615592 >>14615587 That's basically what I was telling him, GPT.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 19:41:14 2022 No.14615593 >>14615540 >a world that defies and invalidates reductionism even from a purely scientific perspective. How so?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 19:42:07 2022 No.14615595 >>14615588 I proved you right... by noticing that you're so psychotic you think you know what I believe better than I do? I guess I'm going to prove you even more right now by pointing out how utterly irredeemable you are.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 19:42:15 2022 No.14615596 >>14615554 Proof?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 19:43:16 2022 No.14615599 >>14615558 Proof?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 19:44:45 2022 No.14615606 File: 309 KB, 220x275, an_empirical_perspective_on_female_sex_organs.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14612362 half of this thread

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 19:45:40 2022 No.14615610 >>14615595 >I proved you right Yes, by throwing another tantrum instead of stating what you believe and why. Let me know when you're ready to join the adult table.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 19:45:42 2022 No.14615611 >>14615593 >How so? Reductionist models have zero predictive capacity even for trivial systems.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 19:47:36 2022 No.14615615 >>14615611 >Reductionist models have zero predictive capacity even for trivial systems. How would you even determine that's true?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 19:48:11 2022 No.14615617 >>14615599 Retard. What’s the atomic mass of the subjective sensation of pain?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 19:48:55 2022 No.14615624 >>14615610 I did state what I believe: I believe that you and your likes see a dead, mechanistic world because you are mentally deficient cattle and not fully human.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 19:49:59 2022 No.14615629 >>14615615 >How would you even determine that's true? What do you mean? It's indisputably true according to the very math behind your reductionist models.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 19:51:27 2022 No.14615633 >>14615617 Categorical error. What's the atomic mass of a flight? The sensation of pain is a physical action, not an object. Are you really this dumb?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 19:53:46 2022 No.14615638 >>14615624 That's just an inaccurate description of what someone else believes and some puerile insults. Presumably you believe something else, so explain.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 19:54:47 2022 No.14615643 >>14615629 >It's indisputably true according to the very math behind your reductionist models. Then show the math. Why are you avoiding the question if the answer is indisputable?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 19:58:37 2022 No.14615658 >>14615638 >That's just an inaccurate description of what someone else believes It's an accurate description of my stance ITT, which I have elaborated on at length, and all of my points stand undisputed.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 20:00:02 2022 No.14615662 >>14615643 You can't explain or predict anything if you actually start from the level of particles. What further explanation do you need? Are you still in highschool?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 20:01:31 2022 No.14615664 >>14615658 >It's an accurate description of my stance ITT It's an accurate description of your inaccurate stance. Thanks for admitting I'm right that you are afraid of stating what you believe and why. >all of my points stand undisputed. Like what.?

Anonymous Thu Jun 30 20:02:11 2022 No.14615667

>>14615633
>The sensation of pain is a physical action
Physical actions are objective, observable, measurable, and involve ultimately the mere movement of particles through space. Pain is a subjective sensation private to yourself that cannot be measured with standard scientific tools such as cameras, lasers, spectrometers, scales, or manometers. It involves subjective sensation rather than the mere movement of particles through space. If pain is a “physical action”, it is distinct from all other “physical actions” in it’s nature to a very queer degree.

All known physical phenomenon in the universe can be described, in a reductionist way, as particles bouncing about and sometimes colliding and sticking together, like rocks falling down a hill or the explosion of TNT. Do you genuinely believe that a certain type of bouncing about, colliding, and sticking together can cause something as bizarre and unprecedented as qualia? Why? How? You have no fucking idea.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 20:02:40 2022 No.14615670 >>14615662 >You can't explain or predict anything if you actually start from the level of particles Why not? You keep making these bald assertions with no reasoning.

Anonymous Thu Jun 30 20:06:26 2022 No.14615680

>>14615670
>Why not?
You can't even predict three idealized point masses under the influence of each other's gravity, let alone anything real. I know this point is lost on a retard like you, but basically none of science relies or depends on your reductionist drivel. Even most of physics is independent from it.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 20:09:13 2022 No.14615687 >>14615664 >Like what.? Like this >>14612608 >>14614299 >>14614335

Anonymous Thu Jun 30 20:09:39 2022 No.14615691

>>14615667
>Physical actions are objective, observable, measurable, and involve ultimately the mere movement of particles through space.
Physical sensations of pain are objective, measurable, and involve ultimately the mere movement of particles through space. You just need to measure brain activity in a specific way. You're confused because you're not actually talking about measuring pain, you're talking about experiencing someone else's pain, which can only be done through their brain, hence the subjectivity.

>All known physical phenomenon in the universe can be described, in a reductionist way, as particles bouncing about and sometimes colliding and sticking together, like rocks falling down a hill or the explosion of TNT.
Not really no, QM has moved beyond billiard ball interactions.

>Do you genuinely believe that a certain type of bouncing about, colliding, and sticking together can cause something as bizarre and unprecedented as qualia?
I genuinely believe consciousness is the the brain functioning. Doesn't sound so ridiculous when you accurately describe it.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 20:10:37 2022 No.14615695 >>14615691 >sensations are objective Squids are gaseous

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 20:13:08 2022 No.14615703 File: 18 KB, 600x800, 8cb.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >Physical sensations of pain are objective, measurable, and involve ultimately the mere movement of particles through space.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 20:14:02 2022 No.14615708 File: 31 KB, 600x535, 4channelRules.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14612362 I can prove reincarnation for sure >https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual-studies/publications/books/study-of-reincarnation/

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 20:15:03 2022 No.14615710 >>14615680 >You can't even predict three idealized point masses under the influence of each other's gravity Sure you can, numerically to whatever precision you want. You have no clue what you're talking about.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 20:15:48 2022 No.14615714 >>14615710 Yep, you never finished highschool. Thanks for playing.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 20:17:06 2022 No.14615718 See >>14612637 >>14614326 >>14614395 All of your points are disputed, and you continuously failed to support them. Just stop posting before you embarrass yourself further.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 20:17:56 2022 No.14615720 >>14615718 I accept your full concession.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 20:18:51 2022 No.14615724 >>14615695 Sensations are just brain activity. Brain activity is objectively observable. Cry more.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 20:19:52 2022 No.14615731 File: 63 KB, 680x940, 601.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14615724 >Sensations are just brain activity Prove your religious dogma. Protip: you can't.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 20:19:53 2022 No.14615732 File: 243 KB, 680x709, aaf.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14615703

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 20:23:37 2022 No.14615744 >>14615708 None of those books prove reincarnation, just gullibility and wishful thinking.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 20:23:37 2022 No.14615743 >>14615724 >Sensations are just brain activity Prove it, and explain the mechanism by which subjective experience is caused by atoms bouncing around.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 20:24:34 2022 No.14615746 >>14615743 It just is. It's a fact. Read Dennet and study neurology. Your so-called "consciousness" has been figured out.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 20:24:38 2022 No.14615747 >>14615714 So no explanation. As I predicted.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 20:25:00 2022 No.14615748 >>14615708 Books? Can I see a case study and a potential explanation? I was incredulous at first but the fact they argue for not making leading questions is surprising since that's what I was assuming.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 20:25:39 2022 No.14615749 >>14615720 Concession of what? That you lied about your points not being disputed?

Anonymous Thu Jun 30 20:27:42 2022 No.14615755

>>14615747
See >>14615680 and the proceed to kill yourself.
>inb4 your fantasy world where you have infinite computing power and infinite precision
Even in that fantasy alternate reality you're just wanking and making predictions about abstract bullshit in your head, never about reality.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 20:28:44 2022 No.14615758 >>14615749 >Concession of what? Concession of my point, that still stands undisputed, which you openly admit to by failing to dispute it and linking to 85 IQ posts that refute nothing.

Anonymous Thu Jun 30 20:30:53 2022 No.14615762

>>14615731
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2017.00008/full

Also, this is funny since the discussion stayed with me asking for proof for the claim "Perception is itself beyond the physical." But retards like you never have proof so you try to shift the burden to others.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 20:31:40 2022 No.14615764 >>14615744 To be fair, they don't say it's proof, they're much more careful than that.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 20:31:55 2022 No.14615765 >>14615743 >Prove it Sure, as soon as you prove "Perception is itself beyond the physical."

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 20:32:22 2022 No.14615768 >>14615762 Nothing in that study proves your religious dogma, or even sets out to do so. Take meds and try again.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 20:36:48 2022 No.14615783 >>14615746 Lol

Anonymous Thu Jun 30 20:37:37 2022 No.14615785

>>14615755
>See >>14615680 #
See >>14615710
You first claimed reductionist models have no predictive ability, now you're saying some models can't be solved analytically. LOL, do you even realize how much the goalposts have shifted or are you just delusional?

>Even in that fantasy alternate reality you're just wanking and making predictions about abstract bullshit in your head, never about reality.
Pure projection. Physical models successfully predict reality. You can't even try to predict anything.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 20:37:56 2022 No.14615787 >>14615765 Maybe you’re not conscious, which is why you believe it’s something “physical”.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 20:38:05 2022 No.14615789 >>14615783 Read https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2017.00008/full retard. It proves neural correlates, which is a scientific way of saying that "consciousness" is just particles.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 20:39:11 2022 No.14615792 >>14615785 >You first claimed reductionist models have no predictive ability Which stands completely undisputed. You lost the argument.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 20:40:24 2022 No.14615797 >>14615789 Neural correlates aren’t qualia.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 20:40:59 2022 No.14615801 >>14615797 Ok schizo. Magic isn't real. God isn't real. Consciousness is made of particles and I just proved it with a study.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 20:43:28 2022 No.14615805 >>14615801 Are you trolling? No one’s dumb enough to think neural correlates of qualia are qualia.

Anonymous Thu Jun 30 20:45:42 2022 No.14615810

>>14615805
Neural correlates show that your so-called "qualia" are correlated with brain activity, which scientifically proves that consciousness is particles. Why would there be a correlation otherwise? God isn't real. Trans women are real. Trump lost. Go back to /pol/, incel.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 20:46:30 2022 No.14615813 >>14615758 >Concession of my point I refuted your point, that's the opposite of concession. You couldn't even show one point that wasn't disputed.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 20:46:55 2022 No.14615816 >>14615810 Yeah, you’re trolling. You got me dude

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 20:51:39 2022 No.14615836 >>14615813 >i conceded your point That's right. Now you can go commit neck.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 20:52:51 2022 No.14615839 >>14615768 >Nothing in that study proves your religious dogma It's just one example among many of how stimuli are processed into sensations by the brain. Let me one when you have any evidence "Perception is itself beyond the physical."

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 20:53:13 2022 No.14615841 >>14615839 >It's just one example Of a study that has nothing to do with your claim. Medsnow.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 20:55:30 2022 No.14615848 >>14612362 Fatima, 1917 3 kids saw hell Hundreds of people saw the sun dance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_F%C3%A1tima

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 20:57:39 2022 No.14615857 >>14615810 It just tells us where the mechanistic parts are, it doesn't tell us why it feels that way.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 21:02:53 2022 No.14615873 >>14615787 Not an argument. Try again.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 21:07:24 2022 No.14615879 >>14615792 >Which stands completely undisputed LOL of course I dispute it. It stands completely unproven and is ridiculous on its face. Any reductive model in physics proves you wrong. >You lost the argument. More projection.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 21:09:35 2022 No.14615888 >>14615879 >I dispute it The only thing under dispute is your education.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 21:12:33 2022 No.14615896 >>14615836 >>i conceded your point Who are you quoting?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 21:14:34 2022 No.14615901 >>14615841 >Of a study that has nothing to do with your claim. I'm sorry you're illiterate. Let me know when you have any evidence "Perception is itself beyond the physical."

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 30 21:34:49 2022 No.14615940 >>14615708 The fuck? This is unironically a decent rabbithole to get into. Not that I wholeheartedly accept it but the fact it's a thing is weird as hell.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math