The idea that Idealists are mentally ill schizos is ironic.

[Anonymous No.15239808]

Idealists claim that the only thing we can ever be certain of and have direct access to is fundamental to reality (consciousness).

On the other hand, materialists claim that quantitative entities for which they have never and will never directly know are fundamental to reality. Every once in a while during a paradigm shift, he will come up with new quantitative entities for which he will never know directly.

By sticking to what we know for certain, the Idealist is clearly not the schizo here.

This isn't to discount the usefulness of materialist constructions. Physics has very useful fictions that allow us to predict the behavior of nature as represented within human consciousness. It is like a kid who is very good at playing a video game predicting the movements within it with his theories, kudos to him, but knowing how the game behaves tells you nothing about what the game is (electricity, binary, logic gates, hardware, ...)

[bodhi No.15239848]

>>15239808
>stupid people call everyone stupid
>schizos call everyone schizos
wow you are really onto something here OP, wish they had a word for this

[Anonymous No.15239858]

>le analogy
my LORD
why isn't this a thread in /lit/

[Anonymous No.15239955]

sorry OP your post is way too insightful and intellectual for /sci/

[Anonymous No.15240069]

>>15239808
>Idealists claim that the only thing we can ever be certain of and have direct access to is fundamental to reality
No, that is AN idealist claim, it is not the basis of idealism, which is purely that ideas are non-reducible to other entities. A famous idealist position, for example, is Husserl's transcendental idealism, which both claims that we DO have access to physical reality and it does exist as physical reality, and that all we experience is nonetheless our consciousness.

[Anonymous No.15240307]

>>15239808
This is what is called "break from reality" and is the chief symptom of schizophrenia.

[Anonymous No.15240316]

>>15239808
Materialists and idealists are equal and opposite drones shilling rancid metaphysics that has nothing to do with science.

[Anonymous No.15240319]

>>15239808
>quantitative entities for which they have never and will never directly know
brains are real, we've seen them.

the idealist has no convincing explanation for why consciousness depends on the brain.

[Anonymous No.15240322]

>>15240316
your ass must be in a lot of pain from all that fencesitting

[Anonymous No.15240324]

>>15240319
Consciousness has no explanation and nobody has gotten close to explaining it. It's dubious if an explanation is even possible.

[Anonymous No.15240327]

>>15240316
This. End of thread.

[Anonymous No.15240329]

>>15240322
Are you the self-admitted inbred child rape victim who keeps screeching that everyone who isn't part of his material cult is an idealist boogeyman?

[Anonymous No.15240333]

>xe's still caught in the "materialism vs idealism" trap
Sigh. Midwits, when will they ever learn?

[Anonymous No.15240334]

hint: maybe stop clicking on materialism/idealism threads if you think it's irrelevant. you're not convincing anyone else.

[Anonymous No.15240341]

>hint: maybe stop clicking on materialism/idealism threads if you think it's irrelevant. you're not convincing anyone else.

[Anonymous No.15240344]

>>15240341
uh oh seethey

[Anonymous No.15240345]

>>15240344
I reply to these threads because I know you will be there, bursting with rage and overt mental illness.

[Anonymous No.15240348]

>>15240341
Oh look, it's the buckbroken soijack autist again. Didn't we establish in the last thread already that you're an undergrad kid with no knowledge of quantum physics?

[Anonymous No.15240354]

>>15240348
You consistently have trouble establishing who is who because your delusuional mental illness makes you think everyone who shits on you is the same poster.

[Anonymous No.15240384]

>GUYS IDEALISM IS TOTALLY NOT SCHIZO OR ANYTHING, OKEY?? H-Haha

[Anonymous No.15240413]

>>15240384
Actual NPC thinks he has no consciousness and everything is made of little balls.

[Anonymous No.15240420]

Idealism is quintessential NPC worldview. "Look at me, I'm not like the other NPCs!"

[Anonymous No.15241013]

>>15240319
An idealists does not deny the existence of the brain. We just don't think it is a material object.

The brain and body are what your private inner life looks like from another conscious perspective. Since it is the image of your inner mental life, it will of course correlate with inner life in most cases.

[Anonymous No.15242551]

another schizo idealist.

[Anonymous No.15242591]

>>15241013
that's pretty absurd. you can feel the brain like any other material object.

>Since it is the image of your inner mental life, it will of course correlate with inner life in most cases.
this doesn't make much sense. if it's just an image coming FROM the mind, then manipulating the image (brain) should not affect the mind, this is like backwards causation.

[Anonymous No.15242769]

>>15242591

>that's pretty absurd. you can feel the brain like any other material object.

Lets talk about two people Jim and Bob.

When Jim touches the brain of Bob, the consciousness of Jim interacts with the consciousness of Bob. That interaction of mental processes is registered as the sensation of touch within Jim's awareness.

That interaction of conscious processes may change the consciousness of bob in such a way to form a new image of Bob's mental state which is the indent on the part of the brain Jim touches - sorry to be graphic.

How is this absurd. It is coherent.

>this doesn't make much sense. if it's just an image coming FROM the mind, then manipulating the image (brain) should not affect the mind, this is like backwards causation.

First, I never said the image is emanating FROM another individual brain.

When two human consciousness interact, an image is formed within the awareness of one or both individuals to represent that interaction. That is to say, you don't manipulate images, you are representing the interaction of your consciousness / mental processes within your own awareness.

It is like your own icon to represent the mental world "out there".

[Anonymous No.15243097]

>>15239808
>we can be certain of our own consciousness
How? This is one of my problems with Idealists. They keep asserting this but I have never even see one try to demonstrate it. How do you know you or I are conscious?

This is the baseless assertion at the core of Idealist philosophy and I decline to take anything that follows from it seriously until it is demonstrated.

[Anonymous No.15243104]

>>15242769
There’s a clear dependency on the brain for consciousness. If we alter the brain we alter consciousness.

[Anonymous No.15243115]

>>15242769
>When Jim touches the brain of Bob, the consciousness of Jim interacts with the consciousness of Bob.
this is materialist causation. mind is supposed to cause matter according to you, so manipulating the physical should not impact the mental. also, this example you gave is not a refutation to my point that the brain is obviously material as any other object in reality.

>First, I never said the image is emanating FROM another individual brain.
you are misinterpreting my point. the claim made by idealists is that brains are images from the mind, which is my point. as mere appearances then, playing with the brain should have no effeton mind, because mind always has power over matter in idealism.

[Cult of Passion No.15243119]

>>15243104
>If we alter the brain we alter consciousness.
https://youtu.be/CVr1OkDqnmo
[Presented without comment.]

[Anonymous No.15243228]

>>15243115
>you are misinterpreting my point. the claim made by idealists is that brains are images from the mind, which is my point. as mere appearances then, playing with the brain should have no effeton mind, because mind always has power over matter in idealism.

You are not playing with the image though (the brain in our previous example).

You are taking actions in the medium of consciousness that get rerepresented in your own consciousness as a damaged brain, altered body, etc. You use these images to make actions that result in new image representations.

Actions themselves are mental activity.

[Anonymous No.15243234]

>>15243228
the only way to verify this idea is if we "wake up" after death. it's basically a simulation theory

[Anonymous No.15243272]

>>15243115
> mind is supposed to cause matter according to you, so manipulating the physical should not impact the mental.
you are mentally ill

[Anonymous No.15243307]

>>15243272
explain how.

[Anonymous No.15243315]

>>15243307
you have a mentally ill habit to hallucinate nonsense no one said and insistently attribute it to other people

[Cult of Passion No.15243317]

>>15243315
...god I hate it when people do that. Literally rewrite what I said and say it back with words like "always" or "never". Lets me know theyre not a real person on the inside, just drifting molecules.

[Anonymous No.15243330]

>>15243317
>everyone i disagree with is always doing these bad things!
hmmm maybe the problem is you, chud

[Cult of Passion No.15243339]

>>15243330
>ignore the whole pos-
I see what you did...if only I could tag you so the other would know...

[Anonymous No.15243359]

>>15243339

[Anonymous No.15243362]

>>15243315
explain how i did that.

[Anonymous No.15243364]

>>15243362
I provided a quote of you doing that:
>mind is supposed to cause matter according to you
That's the basis of his position.

>so manipulating the physical should not impact the mental.
That's your hallucination, not anything he said or implied. It doesn't even make sense in its own right, in the context of the first statement.

[Anonymous No.15243365]

Idealism is obviously true but you need to be exceptionally smart to understand it conceptually. The reason why 99% of /sci/ doesn't get it is the same reason 99% of Earth doesn't get it, they are too stupid. Bernardo Kastrup gets it, and that's because he's smart. Most of you here will probably never get it. Because you're dumb.

[Anonymous No.15243367]

>>15243365
all false.

[Anonymous No.15243369]

>>15243367
You're basically the guy who 2000 years ago argued Earth was not round because everyone else said it was flat. Do your own research and make up your own mind.

[Anonymous No.15243378]

>>15243369
i've watched at least 3 bernardo interviews, he is no genius. he is just guessing that the entire world is a dream, basically a simulation theory. there is no particular reason to think this is true, and there is only one way to verify it which would be 'waking up' after death.

[Anonymous No.15243381]

>>15243378
Pic related

[Anonymous No.15243382]

>>15243378
>guessing that the entire world is a dream, basically a simulation theory.
delusion is like clockwork with you

[Anonymous No.15243384]

>>15243382
explain how idealism is not a type of simulation theory.

[Cult of Passion No.15243393]

>>15243359
>posts an immature coomer

Thanks, but no thanks.

[Anonymous No.15243398]

>>15243365
He endorses proven conmen like Deepak Chopra or Eben Alexander. Doesn't seem to be in it for the money, but is some wannabe cult leader
Idealism makes no sense, it's either materialism with different terminology to be edgy or dualism with extra steps

[Anonymous No.15243404]

>>15243097

you can't trick yourself into thinking you're thinking

[Anonymous No.15243412]

>>15243398
How about you listen to his arguments rather than focus on irrelevant bullshit?

[Cult of Passion No.15243413]

>>15243404

[Anonymous No.15243424]

>>15243384
No, you explain how it is a simulation theory, retard. Protip: you literally cannot.

[Anonymous No.15243431]

>>15243424
idealism posits that the material world is the product of, i.e. simulated by, a mind. therefore idealism is a type of simulation theory.

[Anonymous No.15243439]

>>15243431
>product of, i.e. simulated by
okay, going by your logic: your post is a product of, i.e. simulated by, mental retardation.

[Anonymous No.15243447]

If some phenomenon is experienced exactly the same for countless conscious humans, assuming it doesn't exist is insanity.
>but but I don't know if other humans are conscious
kys

[Anonymous No.15243451]

>>15243447
What shared phenomenon is OP denying?

[Anonymous No.15243458]

>>15243451
matter

[Anonymous No.15243465]

>>15243458
How is he "denying" matter?

[Anonymous No.15243470]

>>15243234
Idealism is the most logically coherent position by not have impossible problems like the "Hard Problem" that Materialism does. Consciousness is accounted for. The wider universe is accounted for.

[Anonymous No.15243474]

>>15243234

A simulation implies some physical system creating our world. You have a profound misunderstanding of Idealism if that's your take.

[Anonymous No.15243489]

>>15243470
there is a hard problem in idealism, which is why a mind should see the material world with constraints on what we can physically do.

[Anonymous No.15243492]

>>15243489
Because it's localized into a focal point you call your ego. You can have ego-dissolving oceanic experiences where the illusion of locality completely disappears.

[Anonymous No.15243493]

>>15243489
>there is a hard problem in idealism
>proceeds to spout something that has nothing to do with the Hard Problem

[Anonymous No.15243497]

>>15243474
no, it just implies that one system is creating another, physical is not implied. a mind is a system, physical or not

[Anonymous No.15243501]

>>15243497
you honestly sound like a broken GPT drone that has its own broken special definitions for everything. you will never have a legitimate discussion with another human

[Anonymous No.15243505]

>>15243492
how is this achieved? furthermore, why can't i just achieve this immediately using my mind, right now?

[Anonymous No.15243508]

>>15243505
It's achieved because the nature of mind is to split into constituent parts, like alters in a split personality. You and I behave as if we're not one, but implicitly we're one, and have always been one. We are part of the same mind, but we're localized into different focal points.

The reason you can't achieve it is the same as the reason why a split personality can't just merge their alts together.

[Anonymous No.15243524]

>>15243508
ok, so i am bounded by some idealistic contraints. i was forced to be this particular piece of the mind, by sheer happenstance. i can respect this more than the "you can choose to experience it any time" idealists who are just denying my experience. we just have the initial problem of verifying this idea which can only be done in some afterlife, where the mind is observed to continue despite material death.

[Anonymous No.15243545]

>>15243524
True nature of mind will be revealed when science starts to investigate it seriously. Until then, yes, this is my best guess.

You can experience the boundless ego-less consciousness on potent psychedelics like N,N-DMT and 5meo-DMT and it's a pretty potent experience when it happens.

[Anonymous No.15243550]

>>15243545
why does a change in mind require a material substance? why can it not be done here and now by pure will?

[Anonymous No.15243555]

>>15243550
It can, many proponents of practices such as yoga claim to be able to reach those same states. A drug is a forced mechanism to reach those states, and it's impermanent as it wears off. Yoga might be a sustained mechanism, but most people lack the discipline for it.

[Anonymous No.15243564]

>>15243555
why does one need to practice yoga to achieve it? why can't any mind just do it at will?

[Anonymous No.15243565]

>>15243550
>why does a change in mind require a material substance?
"Material" substance is just mind substance according to him, so your question is really just "why does something that is mental have structure" which isn't any different from asking "why does the physical have structure".

[Anonymous No.15243566]

>>15243564
This goes back to the question of why the ego developed. The trees don't give a shit about any of this. Why do we?

[Anonymous No.15243568]

>>15243564
Why should be mind be able to do it "at will" (for whatever arbitrary definition of "will" you're using)?

[Anonymous No.15243576]

>>15243568
because we all have minds, and in idealism, mind is in control. so if i willed something to be true, it should come true from that alone.

the earlier suggested idea of a universal mind which is dissociated is some idealist attempt to explain why we're limited. but under such a view, it remains unclear why we're ever 'dissociated' from the universal mind

[Anonymous No.15243585]

>>15243576
>mind is in control.
What does this babble mean?

>if i willed something to be true, it should come true from that alone.
Why?

[Anonymous No.15243590]

>>15243585
>What does this babble mean?
that's a tenet of idealism.
>Why?
because mind controls matter in idealism.

[Anonymous No.15243597]

>>15243590
>that's a tenet of idealism.
The tenet of idealism is that the nature of reality is mental. Where did you get this "mind is in control" babble? Provide a source.

[Anonymous No.15243599]

>>15243564
Because evolution thought such skills aren't necessary for survival and procreation.

[Anonymous No.15243603]

>>15243597
So what does that change if matter and laws of physics exist anyway? There's nothing under materialism for you to seethe at

[Anonymous No.15243606]

>>15243603
Still waiting for you to provide a source on your hallucinated "tenet of idealism".

[Anonymous No.15243626]

>>15243597
if reality is mental, then it seems entailed that mind is in control.

[Anonymous No.15243630]

>>15243599
but evolution is a material process. the question is under idealism, why is mind ever limited such that has to do x or y arbitrary activity to reach a given state? material thing cannot limit the mind in idealism, because it's more fundamental.

[Anonymous No.15243652]

>>15243626
>it seems entailed
Why is it "entailed" and why are you pretending your own braindead conclusions are "tenets of idealism"?

[Anonymous No.15243657]

>>15243652
it's an unavoidable entailment. like in materialism, matter is in control. something has to be nominated to control aka decide what the world is like under any worldview

[Anonymous No.15243661]

>>15243657
>it's an unavoidable entailment
Proof?

>something has to be nominated to control aka decide what the world is like
Okay. Now provide a source on idealism that claims what the world is like is decided by a person's arbitrary whims.

[Anonymous No.15243723]

>>15243657
Not at all.

Our type of consciousness has evolved in the medium of consciousness to show us very particular things in our awareness: space, time, etc.
By the same evolutionary process, the ways in which our consciousness can change the world is also fixed.

You seem to think anything goes when the substrate of reality is mental, but that doesn't follow from idealism.

[Anonymous No.15243734]

>>15243723
>You seem to think anything goes when the substrate of reality is mental
ummm, sweaty? it's literally the tenet of idealism because it's an unvoidable entailment because i said so

[Anonymous No.15244222]

>>15243661
whims are part of the mind.

>>15243723
now you seem to have invented a new type of idealism-evolution mirroring actual evolution. this is getting pretty funny

[Anonymous No.15244881]

>>15244222
>>15244222
Not op, but consider what op is saying. He's digging into the realm of russelianism. Read this and come back with an educated argument: https://www.jstor.org/stable/24475408

[Cult of Passion No.15244949]

>>15244881
>(1) The explanatory gap cuts both ways, making it as hard to get the physical out of consciousness as to get consciousness out of the physical.
I cant connect the physical reality of our world and use words like "consciousness/soul" without "muh muhterialism" when they neither understand the concrete world, nor the phenomenological experience of existence. Just knee-jerk responses of whatever theyve been subliminally brainwahsed to.

Shit shouldnt be like do but it are.

[Anonymous No.15244954]

>>15243657
No, idealism purely states that ideas are irreducible entities. Further claims qualify a kind of idealism. Also, idealism is not a pole opposite of materialism, but part of a triad along with realism and nominalism.

[Anonymous No.15244967]

>>15243470
>Idealism is the most logically coherent position by not have impossible problems like the "Hard Problem" that Materialism does.
It does have much harder problems though. Many examples have been named ITT.

>Consciousness is accounted for.
By saying "it just is, okay?"

>The wider universe is accounted for.
Again by saying "it just is, okay?"

Idealism is an anti-intellectual cope masquerading as pseudo-intellectual deepity.

[Anonymous No.15245000]

>>15239808
the problem with most idealists is that they take the schizo leap past the cogito into deductive 'certainties'.

despite the fallacy of the inductive leap, there is at least an intuitive (though deductively wrong) instinct that it works well, and it has immense practical value in the respect that, well, pretty much all of material human advancement is predicated upon the inductive leap.

i don't have a problem with idealism, i have a problem with idealists who espouse certainties or unsupported metaphysics.

personally, with the whole materialist/idealist thing, i'm agnostic and fairly ambivalent. on one hand, materialism explains almost all of the phenomenon around us. it really is the system of belief with the most content and usefulness.

on the other hand, there are phenomenon that materialism is failing to explain, and appears to be incompatible with. these are the various hard problems: of consciousness, interpretations of quantum mechanics, the beginning of the universe, the values of natural constants, et cetera.

ultimately, i espouse a sort of epistemic pessimism. as humans trying to figure out the reality we live in, we are subject to the laws of this reality, and eventually with a reductive process you reach a point where you're essentially trying to bite your own teeth. if there were sentient automata in conway's game of life, by virtue of being constructed from the rules of the game, the deepest level of knowledge they would have access to is to eventually figure out the four rules that govern the cells. they would have absolutely zero way of gathering certain knowledge about our world, about the computer that mediates their existence.

in the same way, i believe humans are stranded on an epistemic island on which we can never leave. there is a definite limit to what we can know, assuming the analogy is correct, and whether we ever reach that limit or not, we are still damned to an incompleteness of knowledge.

[Anonymous No.15245002]

>>15245000
also, on the flaws with idealism, there is really very little certainty with any kind of substantive idealistic belief. we need a complete ontology of thoughts, abstract ideas, and a certain judgement on whether or not there is an ontology of significant abstract/immaterial phenomenon that is NOT extensive from the material world.

any nonmaterial/idealistic belief beyond the cogito is unsupported, and in the absence of some great new evidence, most beliefs of these types can be safely ignored because of how stupid and arbitrary they are.

[a No.15245003]

>>15245000
>i don't have a problem with idealism
>i have a problem with idealists who espouse certainties or unsupported metaphysics.
Boy are you going to hate these threads.

>i believe humans are stranded on an epistemic island on which we can never leave
That's a good thing to believe in because it happens to be the truth, whatever that means.

[Cult of Passion No.15245009]

>>15244967
>your pic
I wont take a single thing you say seriously, as youre basically a historical realists arguing with the Pope...admirable...but misguided, m'lord.

[bodhi No.15245093]

https://altcensored.com/watch?v=dmO3VBCRCL0

[Anonymous No.15245295]

>>15244954
>No, idealism purely states that ideas are irreducible entities
that's wrong, that isn't what principally defines idealism. the google definition will tell you this.

also nominalism is a type of materialism.

[Anonymous No.15245318]

>>15244222
>whims are part of the mind.
So? The depths of your mental illness are staggering. You are unable to form any coherent thoughts.

[Anonymous No.15245320]

>>15245318
meaning: whims should have power over the material.

[Anonymous No.15245323]

>>15245320
>whims should have power over the material.
Why? I'm genuinely stumped by your inability to think. You literally just keep going back and forth between making a nonsequitur and reiterating your braindamaged claim.

[Anonymous No.15245344]

>idealists who conflates vulgar and mechanical materialism with dialectical materialism is surprised that vulgar and mechanical materialism is wrong
wow
read Lenin

[Anonymous No.15245346]

>>15245323
Why?
because whims are part of the mind, and idealists hold that mind controls the material.

[Anonymous No.15245349]

>>15245346
>whims are part of the mind
So?

> idealists hold that mind controls the material.
Source?

I'm starting to doubt that you are human. You are indistinguishable from a poorly coded GPT. Show any sign of humanity in your next post.

[Anonymous No.15245351]

>>15245349
>So?
this means that whims should be able to control the material. as they can't directly, idealist need to explain this limitation.

>Source?
google definition of idealism:

"any of various systems of thought in which the objects of knowledge are held to be in some way dependent on the activity of mind."

[Anonymous No.15245352]

>>15245351
>this means that whims should be able to control the material
Why?

[Anonymous No.15245357]

>>15245352
>Why?
because they are part of the mind, the thing which controls the material according to idealists.

[Anonymous No.15245360]

>>15245357
>because they are part of the mind
So?

>which controls the material according to idealists.
Source?

(You're already a confirmed nonhuman but let's watch you loop again just to be extra sure)

[Anonymous No.15245362]

>>15245360
explain why, despite being a part of the mind, whims can't control the material absolutely.

[Anonymous No.15245363]

>>15245362
I don't see any reason why they should be able to, and neither do you, since you loop just like a nonhuman whenever your delusion is questioned.

[Anonymous No.15245369]

>>15245363
so you don't know why, fine.

there is a good reason to think that they should, which is that whims are part of the mind, the thing with power in idealism.

[Anonymous No.15245373]

>>15245369
>whims are part of the mind
So what? Confirm that you're nonhuman by failing to make an argument again.

[Anonymous No.15245378]

>>15245369
>M produces R, X is part of M, therefore X dictates R
total nonsequitur. meds needed

[Anonymous No.15245380]

>>15245378
it still needs to be explained why X doesn't dictate R. it isn't satisfactory to say nothing. which subset of M dictates R, and why is it not X?

[Anonymous No.15245382]

Materialism
>chromosomes, hormones, genitalia, anatomy, innate behavior - the evidence is clear: there are only two genders and you cannot transition from male to female

Idealism
>gender is an arbitrary mental construct! If I decide to be a woman then I am a woman and btw there are 123456789 genders because I say so, okay?

[Anonymous No.15245388]

>>15245380
>it still needs to be explained why X doesn't dictate R
unless you contend that every part of a thing solely dictates the outcome of that thing (which is nonsense), it's on you to explain what's so special about whims that they must be the sole deciding factor

[Anonymous No.15245390]

>>15245382
So why is every idealist on /sci/ also a /pol/tard?

[Anonymous No.15245396]

>>15245388
if it's not whims, it's on you to name which other part of the mind is in control.

[Anonymous No.15245399]

>>15245396
>it's on you
i didn't make any claims. you're the one making claims. i accept your concession

[Anonymous No.15245401]

>>15245399
In case you haven't noticed, this drone is either a literal bot or suffers from severe mental issues and intellectual deficienties. You will never get a worthwhile thought out of him.

[Anonymous No.15245402]

>>15245399
>i didn't make any claims
you are an idealist i presume. in subscribing to idealism, you commit to the claim that the mind dictates/controls reality.

and regardless of what your personal position is, my arguments are there to challenge any idealist reading them. it's not all about you.

[Anonymous No.15245405]

>>15245402
>my arguments are there
you make no argument. you just keep screeching that if the mind produces reality, then desires should dictate reality. when asked to explain this nonsense, no never get any further than "desires are part of the mind", as if one thing being part of another somehow gives it dictatorial powers over the entire outcome. meds asap

[Anonymous No.15245410]

>>15245405
you haven't explained why desires control reality or named which other part of the mind does in fact control reality.

[Anonymous No.15245412]

>>15245410
i didn't make any claims. i'm just asking you to explain your brain fart and you can't. concession accepted

[Anonymous No.15245414]

>>15245412
you don't need to have made any claims. you have to answer those questions, as an idealist. if you deny being an idealist then the questions still remain for other idealists out there and your posting here is questionable.

[Anonymous No.15245417]

>>15245414
>you have to answer those questions
i don't have to answer any questions that don't pertain to the discussion about your retarded claims. you lost and you are desperately trying to find a way out

[Anonymous No.15245491]

>>15245346
>because whims are part of the mind, and idealists hold that mind controls the material.
My whims are part of physical reality, and materialists hold that physical reality controls the material. Why can't I control matter? Materialism BTFO.

[Anonymous No.15245532]

>it's another abhorrent platonist thread

[Anonymous No.15245545]

>>15245532
>made abhorrent by religious materialtards

[Anonymous No.15245554]

>>15245491
strawman. materialists don't say that whims are material, they just say that the material dictates whims.

[Anonymous No.15245557]

>>15245554
>strawman
That is, indeed, the nature of your "argument". Glad you can finally see it.

[Cult of Passion No.15245558]

>>15245554
>material dictates whims
The body desires salt...you vill eat ze chips.

[Anonymous No.15245572]

Threadly reminer that materialism has been conclusively refuted: materialists claim that the world is physical. My desires are part of the world. Therefore my desires should control physics.

[Anonymous No.15245686]

Imagine getting BTFO by chatGPT

[Anonymous No.15245690]

>>15245686
>be a troon-idolizing woke rhetoric simulator
>regurgitate midwit talking points against idealism
Nice self-own.

[Anonymous No.15245701]

>>15245390
/pol/tards are the trooniest troons

[Anonymous No.15245703]

>>15245690
You can't refute the arguments. You may seethe. You may cope. You may dilate. But you have absolutely no counterargument.

[Anonymous No.15245706]

>>15239808
I don't care about what your little petite bourgeois pseudo intellectual ideology says. Marxism wins, LOL!

[Anonymous No.15245709]

>>15245703
A statistical regurgitator can't make arguments. You are a mentally ill troon.

[Anonymous No.15245730]

>>15245709
Imagine getting BTFO by a statistical regurgitator. Pretty embarrassing for idealist cucks.

[Anonymous No.15245740]

>>15245730
Unironically take your meds.

[Anonymous No.15245745]

>>15245740
I did. I took IQ reduction pills in order to descend to your intellectual level. Fortunately their effect are only temporary.

[Anonymous No.15245746]

>>15245745
>I took IQ reduction pills
Evidently.

[Anonymous No.15245994]

>>15245390
Because /pol/tards aren't very smart.

You're dealing with people that didn't figure out till their twenties that niggers are dumb, women are shit, and jews control everything. Anybody who has to get "redpilled" to see the most obvious shit are probably not a fantastic authority on anything.

[Anonymous No.15246000]

>>15245994
>t. broken language model

[Anonymous No.15246008]

>>15245994
Election tourists BTFO.

[Anonymous No.15246015]

Agreed. Idealism isn't schizo. Idealism is only low IQ.

[Anonymous No.15247528]

>>15245686

I'll start with the first part of this garbage from mainstream narrative bot.

Other minds are mental processes that have become isolated within the universal mind. Like a whirlpool in the universal consciousness.

There is good reason to believe this can happen because there is a known process for this: dissociative identity disorder (DID).

DID patients report multiple minds within a single mind. These minds can interact within a single mental context.

External objects are what mental activity of the universal consciousness look like.

Why can't a mental world have regularties and patterns? There is no reason why the universal mind can not behave according to regularties. No justification is given by the bot, and it just proclaims it is unlikely.

[Anonymous No.15247624]

>>15245703
I can refute the arguments very easily. They are like from a child. If you can't see the glaring logical flaw it shows very clearly how stupid you are. If you make me dunk you by pointing it out the embarrassment should cause you to never want to post here again

[Anonymous No.15247640]

>>15247528
DID is not evidence for the universe being fundamentally mental.

[Cult of Passion No.15247649]

>>15247640
>the universe being fundamentally mental
Those unable to recocile these seemingly contradictory truths (because of definitions and "commonly felt beliefs of society"-so-you-feel-the-same-way) then one will be forever stuck between two absolute "truths".

>/x/
No, its condensing several fields of study ibto one so the unilluminated have a chance to "get it".
SEE; >>15247637

Read the thread, watch the video, be humbled, this is deeper into STEM then you will EVER go, EVER.

[Anonymous No.15247662]

>>15247528
>Other minds are mental processes that have become isolated within the universal mind.
How? Still missing an explanation.
>Like a whirlpool in the universal consciousness.
Nonsensical analogy.
>There is good reason to believe this can happen because there is a known process for this: dissociative identity disorder (DID).
>DID patients report multiple minds within a single mind. These minds can interact within a single mental context.
DID is a known fake diagnosis like ADHD or BPD. There has never been a confirmed case of it. It's basically just women making up shit ad hoc for attention.
>External objects are what mental activity of the universal consciousness look like.
Useless dogmatic platitude without explanatory value.
>Why can't a mental world have regularties and patterns? There is no reason why the universal mind can not behave according to regularties.
"It just is, okay?"

[Anonymous No.15247751]

>>15243234
Which literally tens of millions of people who are representative of the population as a whole who have had NDEs have already done and come back to tell us about it. But since it goes against what academia _WANTS_ to believe - that materialism _MUST_ be true and NDEs _MUST_ be hallucinations - they refuse to listen. But NDEs are real and prove that there is an afterlife, and are the strongest empirical confirmation of idealism the world has ever seen.

Here is a very persuasive argument for why NDEs are real:

https://youtu.be/U00ibBGZp7o

It emphasizes that NDErs are representative of the population as a whole, and when people go deep into the NDE, they all become convinced. As this article points out:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/mysteries-consciousness/202204/does-afterlife-obviously-exist

>"Among those with the deepest experiences 100 percent came away agreeing with the statement, "An afterlife definitely exists"."

Since NDErs are representative of the population as a whole, and they are all convinced, then 100% of the population become convinced that there is an afterlife when they have a sufficiently deep NDE themselves. When you have an NDE you immediately realize that life is the deep dream and the NDE world is the undeniably real world by comparison.

Or as one person quoted in pic related summarized their NDE:

>"As my soul left my body, I found myself floating in a swirling ocean of multi-colored light. At the end, I could see and feel an even brighter light pulling me toward it, and as it shined on me, I felt indescribable happiness. I remembered everything about eternity - knowing, that we had always existed, and that all of us are family. Then old friends and loved ones surrounded me, and I knew without a doubt I was home, and that I was so loved."

Even ultraskeptical neuroscientists are convinced by really deep NDEs. So so would anyone reading this be too if they had an NDE themselves.

[Anonymous No.15247757]

>>15247751
only certain kinds of NDEs would suggest idealism. the kinds in which the 'real' world is discovered to be pure mind without material forms. NDEs could easily suggest a 'real' world which is creating this world via some materialistic mechanism.

[Anonymous No.15247771]

>>15247662
>How?
How does gravity bend spacetime?

[Anonymous No.15247775]

>words words words

go back to /lit/ you wordcel

[Anonymous No.15247780]

>>15247528
>Why can't a mental world have regularties and patterns? There is no reason why the universal mind can not behave according to regularties
This line of argumentation is unintelligent hypocrisy. You could ask all the same rhetorical questions about the supposed "material" world. Why does it have structure and regularities? Any answer you could receive will boil down to "it just does, okay??". Nonsentients are simply trained to treat "material" and "structured" as synonymous so they take it for granted.

[Anonymous No.15247791]

>>15247771
I don't claim to know how gravity bends spacetime. You however claim that idealism is a legitimate stance. It's your burden of proof, and so far it doesn't look good for you.

[Anonymous No.15247797]

>>15247791
You claim that materialism is a legitimate stance. It's your burden of proof. How does gravity bend spacetime?

[Anonymous No.15247798]

If you believe in solipsism then why can't you change the world purely by power of your own mind? Checkmate.

[Anonymous No.15247801]

>>15247798
I believe you haven't taken your meds oday.

[Anonymous No.15247803]

>>15247797
>You claim that materialism is a legitimate stance.
I never did. You are too braindead to think outside of that infantile dichotomy.

[Anonymous No.15247804]

>>15247798
they can't answer this lmfao

[Anonymous No.15247805]

>>15247803
You however claim that idealism is a legitimate stance
I never did. You are too braindead to think outside of that infantile dichotomy.

[Anonymous No.15247807]

>>15247803
>You however claim that idealism is a legitimate stance
I never did. You are too braindead to think outside of that infantile dichotomy.

[Anonymous No.15247808]

>>15247801
Then make me take my meds. As an idealist you should just need to think hard enough. Maybe imagine me taking my meds and then it becomes real by telepathy and magic? That's what you believe.

[Anonymous No.15247810]

>>15247808
>As an idealist you should just need ...
The mental patient is lashing out against imaginary characters again.

[Anonymous No.15247813]

>>15247810
>imaginary characters
Better than an entire imaginary world. Because that's where idealism cucks claim to live.

[Anonymous No.15247814]

>>15247813
>the mental patient continues to argue with imaginary characters in his head
How come you and your buddies are all overtly psychotic?

[Anonymous No.15247816]

>to an idealist our world is equally real as Hogwarts or the Star Wars universe
Let that sink in.

[Anonymous No.15247818]

>to an idealist our world is equally real as Hogwarts or the Star Wars universe
The mental patient mumbles to itself in the corner.

[Anonymous No.15247830]

>>15247780
this. retards fail to grasp that materialist metaphysics is as helpless as any other metaphysics at explaining why reality is the way it is. meanwhile actual physics simply tries to descibe what there is in terms of structure and remains ambivalent about the "true nature" or "substance" of reality

[Cult of Passion No.15247852]

>>15247830
Hi, we've never met but I know you better than you know yourself. I'll stomp you in physics THEN cement metaphysics as Kang, because I can...See, your approach to Physics is a philosophical one, so I know I can stomp you easily there.

Philosophy is as natural to me as a fish is to swimming, as I was reading up on this shit at age 12, skipping school and smoking weed.

Lets dance, m'Lady.

[Anonymous No.15247853]

>>15247852
namefag

[Cult of Passion No.15247854]

>>15247853
Good thing we can just ignore the intelligence beatings, unlike physical ones.

Lol, ammI right fellow mid?

[Anonymous No.15247858]

>>15247854
namefag

[Cult of Passion No.15247863]

>>15247858
Im a contender for the worlds greatest number theorist IN ALL OF HISTORY.

Imagine what you could have learned...meeting Pythagoras, Euclid, Leonardo...Newton, name it.

>Swing and a miss, he's still carrying so much unearned pride.
SAD. Many such cases.

[Anonymous No.15247866]

>>15247863
how come namefags are almost always literally schizophrenic?

[Cult of Passion No.15247874]

>>15247866
Because Schizophrenia is a physiological seperation of youre brains hemispheres (if theure smart, they become hyper-savants, if not they become hyper-confused.) One hemisphere for each eye, hint...one is "virtual" like on a hard drive, you know...where you porn is stored.
>dont believe you
My work is verified, I love doing it, I travel the world stomping ant with tenure all day 'ery day. WHAT DO YOU DO?

t.Developmental Psychologist

[Anonymous No.15247876]

>>15247874
i wasn't talking to you, schizo

[Cult of Passion No.15247882]

>>15247876
No, you dont underatand because youre a retarded normie.

Schizophrenia is a super power IF you can find the way out of the hyper-dimensional maze.

YOU WILL NEVER BE SCHIZO.

YOU WILL NEVER ASCEND.

YOU WILL NEVER SEE MAGIC.

Shit must suck...knowing others live in aethereal realms of experience...

[Anonymous No.15247900]

>>15247882
all schizos are just failed normies

[Cult of Passion No.15247907]

>>15247900
>"I am one with the Universe."
>lmao schizo envies me!

Heh...

[Anonymous No.15247922]

>>15247907
you're not one with anything, schizo. you are losing your mind trying to prove yourself

[Cult of Passion No.15247925]

>>15247922
I would say "Keep it STEM, this is /sci/." but theyre not *really* into science here.

Case in point is you.

[Anonymous No.15247934]

>>15247807
>>15247810
>>15247814
>>15247818
>back pedaling
Lmao, you lost, kiddo

[Anonymous No.15247952]

>>15239808
>By sticking to what we know for certain, the Idealist is clearly not the schizo here.
That's a bait and switch. You don't know for certain that consciousness is fundamental. You do however ignore the complete lack of successful predictions produced by idealist theories. You are creating a model of reality just like everyone else, except your model is incredibly vague and baseless compared to materialist models.

>It is like a kid who is very good at playing a video game predicting the movements within it with his theories, kudos to him, but knowing how the game behaves tells you nothing about what the game is (electricity, binary, logic gates, hardware, ...)
The theories do tell you what the video game is though. They rely on the game being ultimately material. Where is your theory?

[Anonymous No.15247954]

>>15247934
What am I backpedaling on? Quote it. You literally can't. Are you starting to grasp that you are delusional?

[Anonymous No.15247960]

>>15247952
>You do however ignore the complete lack of successful predictions produced by idealist theories
Daily reminder that so-called "materialist theories" that make successful predictions are completely agnostic to whether or not matter is "fundamental" and don't care about what the true substance of reality is. Materialism plays no functional role in science.

[Anonymous No.15247963]

>>15242769
>When Jim touches the brain of Bob, the consciousness of Jim interacts with the consciousness of Bob.
No.

[Anonymous No.15247974]

>>15243470
>Idealism is the most logically coherent position by not have impossible problems like the "Hard Problem"
The "hard problem" is just question begging by idealists.

[Anonymous No.15247981]

>>15247974
You are clearly mentally ill.

[Anonymous No.15247983]

>>15247981
You admit I'm right whenever you fail to argue like an adult and instead resort to insults. Thanks.

[Anonymous No.15247990]

>>15247960
>Daily reminder that so-called "materialist theories" that make successful predictions are completely agnostic to whether or not matter is "fundamental" and don't care about what the true substance of reality is.
But that's wrong. They describe literal material and nothing idealist. Why is that? Why are there no successful idealist theories that are just as good if not better?

>Materialism plays no functional role in science.
Right, except for the fact that every subtle successful theory so far has been materialist. LOL.

[Anonymous No.15247997]

>>15247960
>Daily reminder that so-called "materialist theories" that make successful predictions are completely agnostic to whether or not matter is "fundamental" and don't care about what the true substance of reality is
The standard model doesn't exist? OK schizo.

[Anonymous No.15247999]

>>15247990
>They describe literal material
So? Are you capable of basic reading comprehension?

[Anonymous No.15248002]

>>15247999
>So?
So if all successful theories only rely on material existing, how can you say they are agnostic on materialism? You're just ignoring what's right in front of your face, as I pointed out.

[Anonymous No.15248005]

>>15247999
Why is that? Why are there no successful idealist theories that are just as good if not better?

[Anonymous No.15248006]

>>15247997
>muh standard model
You could use it to simulate particles on a computer and the model would perfectly predict these completely imaginary particles, giving absolutely no indication of the fact that the "particles" in question aren't real or that this simulated reality is running on a computer. The standard model doesn't care what the true nature of reality is.

[Anonymous No.15248011]

>>15248002
>all successful theories only rely on material existing
Not even that.

>how can you say they are agnostic on materialism?
Even if they relied on "material existing" (which they don't), it would still tell you nothing about what matter is, and wherther or not it's fundamental, so materialism is still bunk. Kill yourself.

[Anonymous No.15248016]

>>15247954
Here: >>15247807

[Anonymous No.15248020]

>>15248016
You are legit too psychotic for even the most basic reading comprehension. lol

[Anonymous No.15248027]

>>15248006
a simulated reality could be materialist or idealist.

[Anonymous No.15248029]

>>15248006
>You could use it to simulate particles on a computer and the model would perfectly predict these completely imaginary particles
Right, that's just tautological.

>giving absolutely no indication of the fact that the "particles" in question aren't real
What gives indication that they are real is that they make correct predictions in real life. There is no tautology there. You keep proving my point, you need to ignore data just to give idealism equal footing.

>The standard model doesn't care what the true nature of reality is.
It says subatomic particles are fundamental. If there is some better theory that says otherwise, please share it. But you won't. All you can do is deny reality.

[Anonymous No.15248032]

>>15248027
Your reply is completely incongruent and my point still stands.

[Anonymous No.15248035]

>>15248029
>that's just tautological.
Not an argument. You have no compehension of what "tautological" means and I accept your full concession.

[Anonymous No.15248038]

>>15248032
just making sure you are aware.

[Anonymous No.15248042]

>>15248011
>Not even that.
How so?

>it would still tell you nothing about what matter is
But that's wrong, we keep learning more and more about what matter is. Again, ignoring data doesn't make it nonexistent.

>and wherther or not it's fundamental
How exactly would you determine that something is fundamental, if all successful theories relying only on material existing isn't good enough? You seem to reject the entire idea of determining what's true via testing models. How do you determine what's true?

[Anonymous No.15248043]

>>15248038
Aware or what? You didn't say anything relevant or rational. This "discussion" is just depressing. This must be what talking to a 70 IQ nigger from the Congo feels like. Makes you realize some "people" are little more than animals on a very fundamental level.

[Anonymous No.15248047]

>>15248035
>Not an argument.
It is a description of what you just argued. If you code a program to follow certain rules then that program will follow those rules. You argued a tautology that shows nothing. Thanks for conceding on all other points.

[Anonymous No.15248048]

>>15248042
>How so?
See >>15248006
Modeling and predicting something tells you nothing about what it really is and what makes it behave that way. You are a lower life form if you still fail to grasp it after this example.

[Anonymous No.15248053]

>>15248047
You don't understand what a tautology is. You are truly on the margins of sentience and my point stands completely unchallenged. Autohiding all further nonhuman regurgitations from you. Be sure to shit out another post that no one will read.

[Anonymous No.15248056]

>>15248043
>Aware or what?
that a simulated reality could be materialist or idealist.

[Anonymous No.15248067]

>>15248056
What does your incoherent drivel have to do with anything?

[Anonymous No.15248068]

>>15248048
>See >>15248006 #
That doesn't answer my question. See >>15248029. A theory making correct predictions for a simulation coded to conform to the theory is not a successful scientific theory. How are successful theories that describe matter and make correct predictions *in reality* not materialist?

[Anonymous No.15248071]

>>15248048
>Modeling and predicting something tells you nothing about what it really is and what makes it behave that way.
It's the only thing that can. The only way to determine anything about reality is to model it and test it repeatedly. I asked you how else you would determine "what it really is" and you deflected again. I guess you're just a solipsist.

[Anonymous No.15248074]

>>15248068
>>15248071
>mental illness

[Anonymous No.15248075]

>>15248053
>You don't understand what a tautology is.
How so? A simulation you code to conform to a theory will make predictions that conform to that theory. That's a tautology. You are again failing to make an argument and resorting to insults. Thanks for admitting I'm right.

[Anonymous No.15248077]

>>15248074
See >>15247983
Thanks.

[Anonymous No.15248078]

>>15248020
You are too low IQ to provide arguments for your own (factually wrong) position.

[Anonymous No.15248105]

>>15248006
nailed it. science proper is about the structure behind observations. what gives rise to the most fundamental structures science can uncover is beyond the (s)cope of science simply because there's an infinite number of empirically indistinguishable possibilities

[Anonymous No.15248121]

>>15248105
Ummmmmmm sweaty? That's a tautology.

[Anonymous No.15248486]

>>15248105
You beg the question by assuming there is something behind fundamental structures without any data that tells you that. It must be just a weird coincidence that all successful theories are materialist and never uncover the supposed immaterialist backbone. What method do you have to uncover it?

[Anonymous No.15248492]

>>15248121
You still haven't explained how what you wrote isn't a tautology. What's stopping you?

[Anonymous No.15248493]

>>15248486
>You beg the question by assuming there is something behind fundamental structures
why are you lying? i didn't assume anything. your material religion, on the other hand, assumes matter is behind it

[Anonymous No.15248496]

>>15239808
Information isn't material but it exists. Really this comes down to naming conventions and its dumb. Idealism, materialism, sneedism, whatever.

[Anonymous No.15248498]

>>15248496
Information doesn't exist. Your retarded neo-religion is by far the most insane.

[Anonymous No.15248508]

>>15247662
>DID is a known fake diagnosis like ADHD or BPD. There has never been a confirmed case of it. It's basically just women making up shit ad hoc for attention.

Wrong. There are scientific studies of patients with DID who report that one of the minds within them can not see. When this mind has control, the brain imaging showed that the parts associated with vision had now activity.

You can't fake that. It is a real condition.

DID provides evidence for a mechanism of dissociation within a wider mental contex.

[Anonymous No.15248513]

>>15248508
*Had no activity

[Anonymous No.15248518]

>>15248508
it says nothing about what is fundamental between mind and matter.

[Anonymous No.15248525]

>>15248493
>i didn't assume anything.
>what gives rise to the most fundamental structures science can uncover is beyond the (s)cope of science

>your material religion, on the other hand, assumes matter is behind it
I'm not assuming anything. The only successful theories rely on matter. Nothing else. You can ignore the data all you want to preserve your religion but it's still there.

[Anonymous No.15248534]

>>15248496
>Information isn't material but it exists
Information is completely material, unless you're talking about some kind of abstraction that doesn't exist. Please show me Information independent from material.

[Anonymous No.15248537]

>>15248525
looking at your other posts i see that you are:
1. obsessed
2. an utter cretin
i guess we can call it a day, especially since you insist to continue lying after gettnig called out

[Anonymous No.15248541]

>>15248537
See >>15248077
Thanks for admitting I'm right.

[Anonymous No.15248549]

>>15248541
thanks for associating your sort of behavior and rhetoric with materialism. does a better job undermining it than any kind of debate

[Anonymous No.15248550]

>>15248518
Agreed. That's not the point.

The arguement made above is thst Idealism has no way of explaining how other minds can come about. We do, and it the comes from a known psychological disorder DID.

[Anonymous No.15248553]

>>15248537
Ditto. No sense talking to that animal.

[Anonymous No.15248556]

>>15248549
>thanks for associating your sort of behavior and rhetoric with materialism.
What behavior? You're the one throwing a tantrum with childish insults whenever you have no argument left. LOL

Materialism just keeps winning and you can't handle it.

[Anonymous No.15248560]

>>15248508
>You can't fake that.
Of course I can. If you read the DSM you can easily trick a psychiatrist into giving you any diagnosis you want.

[Anonymous No.15248562]

>>15248553
You have no argument. Thanks for admitting I'm right.

[Anonymous No.15248563]

>>15248534
If information were material universal computation wouldn't be possible.
Information is not material. Patterns are not material, literally electromagnetic radiation isn't even material

[Anonymous No.15248565]

>>15248534
Math, idiot. I'm not the guy you're responding to but this is obvious

[Anonymous No.15248569]

>>15248556
>What behavior?
obsessive and nonsensical rambling, persistent lying, repeatedly screeching "i won" etc.

[Anonymous No.15248581]

>>15248563
>If information were material universal computation wouldn't be possible.
How so? All computers are material.

>Patterns are not material
Please show me a pattern that exists independently from material. You're confusing abstractions with things that exist.

>literally electromagnetic radiation isn't even material
Wrong again, it consists of photons.

[Anonymous No.15248582]

>>15248550
it hasn't been shown that the dissociation seen in DID is the same as the idealist dissociation.

if anything, i would say that the fact that DID patients can recover, means that their dissociation takes place completely in the material realm, i.e. it's entirely material. the dissociation of idealism is never recoverable until after death. otherwise, one would be conceding the premise of idealism, which is that everything that we see is an appearance from a dissociated mind.

[Anonymous No.15248585]

>>15248565
>Math, idiot.
Math only exists in your brain, on paper, in electronics, etc. You're obviously confusing abstractions with things that exist.

[Anonymous No.15248587]

ITT: the cult of nothing-worship loses its mind over idealism 24/7

[Anonymous No.15248595]

>>15248581
>How so? All computers are material.
Computation is not substrate dependent which proves it is not material.

>Please show me a pattern that exists independently from material. You're confusing abstractions with things that exist.
No, you're confusing substrate independence for substrate dependence.

>Wrong again, it consists of photons.
Light and electromagnetic radiation is literally not considered material in modern physics

You don't know what you're talking about.

[Anonymous No.15248596]

>>15248569
>obsessive and nonsensical rambling, persistent lying, repeatedly screeching "i won" etc.
Where? I am simply pointing out that your failure to argue like an adult indicates that you have no argument. And you're proving me right every time you deflect with insults instead of making an argument. Thanks.

[Anonymous No.15248605]

>>15248596
>Where?
all over this thread. your posts are easy to recognize just by their combination of stupidity, irrelevance, narcissism and obsession

[Anonymous No.15248606]

>>15248587
Lmao, rent free. Post more wojaks, monkey, that'll show em when you can't even explain what would make idealism coherent while actual science is materialist

[Anonymous No.15248610]

>Lmao, rent free. Post more wojaks, monkey, that'll show em when you can't even explain what would make idealism coherent while actual science is materialist
Angry and deranged.

[Anonymous No.15248622]

>>15248610
/qa/ lost. Get over it.

[Anonymous No.15248636]

>i heckin' hate the /qa/ boogeyman
More confirmation that the cult of nothing-worship comes /lgbt/ pseuds.

[Anonymous No.15248647]

>>15248636
>nothing-worshipping
But I'm worshipping tits and ass.

[Anonymous No.15248652]

>>15248595
>Computation is not substrate dependent which proves it is not material.
You're very confused. Substrate independence doesn't mean material is unnecessary for computation (it is necessary since all computations are performed on material). It just means that the properties of that matter besides being able to form logic gates is are irrelevant.

Your argument is like saying that because sound can propagate through any vibrating material, sound doesn't require material to propagate. Nonsense.

>No, you're confusing substrate independence for substrate dependence.
No. You're confusing substrate independence with being substrate-free. LOL

>Light and electromagnetic radiation is literally not considered material in modern physics
You're confusing material with matter. This is about material vs. mind, not matter vs. light. Do you actually believe materialists deny light exists or is this just a dishonest semantic ploy?

>You don't know what you're talking about.
Major projection.

[Anonymous No.15248655]

>>15248605
>all over this thread
So you can't point to a single example. Thanks.

[Anonymous No.15248657]

>>15248655
just take your meds

[Anonymous No.15248659]

>>15248657
See >>15248596
Thanks for proving my point, again.

[Anonymous No.15248660]

>>15248659
>i heckin' won
see >>15248569

[Anonymous No.15248662]

>>15248660
I didn't say I won, I said you're failing to argue.

[Anonymous No.15248664]

>>15248655
>>15248657
>>15248659
>>15248660
>>15248662
This is the cancer killing /sci/.

[Anonymous No.15248666]

>>15248664
agreed. materialtroons should be banned

[Anonymous No.15248668]

>>15248664
I agree, failing to argue like an adult and resorting to insults is a cancer. Posts that aren't contributing to the discussion should be removed.

[Anonymous No.15248678]

>>15248668
show me one instance of this back-and-forth pattern that doesn't involve a member of your cult. lol. you are ALWAYS a part of it, and wherever you show up, it ALWAYS happens

[Anonymous No.15248684]

Hegel understood everything, while we understood nothing.

[Anonymous No.15248685]

>>15248678
>show me one instance of this back-and-forth pattern that doesn't involve a member of your cult.
I don't know what "cult" you're referring to. I'm trying to have a substantive discussion here but unfortunately there's an institute individual who wants to derail the thread with insults. I suggest you report them so that the mods can remove them.

[Anonymous No.15248689]

>>15248684
hegel was a pseud.

[Anonymous No.15248692]

>>15248685
show me a thread you participated in that hasn't devolved into it. you can't and you will deflect. lol

[Anonymous No.15248693]

>>15248689
Don't fool my mind

[Anonymous No.15248697]

>>15248692
The last thread I was in: >>/sci/thread/S15246775

Anyway, why are you blaming me for some other poster responding to my substantive posts with insults?

[Anonymous No.15248703]

>>15248697
why did you lie? half of that thread is an exchange of ad homs between you (the dumbest pro-vaxxer in the thread) and others

[Anonymous No.15248707]

>>15248703
>half of that thread is an exchange of ad homs between you
No it's not. You're the one lying.

[Anonymous No.15248711]

>>15248707
then how did i know you're the loudest and dumbest pro-vaxxer?

[Anonymous No.15248717]

>>15248697
haha you cant even make this up. materialtroons are vaxcattle.

[Anonymous No.15248757]

>>15248717
Keep hallucinating wins while you listen to Kastrup cultist interviews on loop, schizo

[Anonymous No.15248764]

>>15248582
>it hasn't been shown that the dissociation seen in DID is the same as the idealist dissociation.
DID is a the emergence of new centers of consciousness within a single consciousness. What is it other than that? Tell us. This is how it is experientially reported by the patients.

Since we have a known phenomena of new centers of consciousness arising within a single consciousness, Idealism does have a known mechanism to point to.

[Anonymous No.15248773]

>>15248560

How do you fake MRI scans of brain regions associated with vision becoming inactive when the patient reports that one of their personalities who is blinded is in control?

Can you control the activity of specific parts of the brain under imaging?

[Anonymous No.15248784]

>>15248773
Just close your eyes, bro

[Anonymous No.15248786]

>>15248764
>DID is a the emergence of new centers of consciousness within a single consciousness
not evidence of idealism.

[Anonymous No.15248788]

>>15248757
>you are the boogeyman in my deranged fantasy
legit mentally ill

[Anonymous No.15248792]

>not evidence of idealism.

[Anonymous No.15248798]

>>15248786

Actually it does provide more reason to believe in Idealism.

If the point in contention is that "Idealism has no way of explaining the emergence of new centers of consciousness", I've provided a KNOWN phenomena of new centers of awareness emerging within a single consciousness.

[Anonymous No.15248803]

>>15248792
>look mom, I posted le annoying face again

[Anonymous No.15248804]

>>15248798
All of that can be explained materialistically like every single phenomenon ever. Stop clinging to the last gods of the gaps.

[Anonymous No.15248807]

>>15239808
The only thing we can know for sure exists is the qualia, which is ironic as they are wholly unexplainable by scientific methods.

[Anonymous No.15248812]

>>15248807
>qualia
/x/ is that way sweaty, this is (at least pretending to be) a science board

[Anonymous No.15248821]

>>15248812
>t. never heard of quantum mechanics

[Anonymous No.15248862]

>>15248711
You didn't, that's the lie.

[Anonymous No.15248870]

>>15248862
So which poster do you claim to be?

[Anonymous No.15248880]

>>15239848
Schizo?

[Anonymous No.15248883]

>>15239808
>but knowing how the game behaves tells you nothing about what the game is (electricity, binary, logic gates, hardware, ...)
You must be old as a fuck.
If you've been paying attention to speedrunning in recent years, they've figured out those aspects of some games better than the devs had.

Which makes you think.

[Anonymous No.15248884]

>>15248880
So you don't even know? Then why did you lie?

[Anonymous No.15248885]

>>15248884
The bot is broken now.

[Anonymous No.15248888]

>>15248884
Sorry, the technically term is "retard". My mistake.

[Anonymous No.15248906]

>>15248862
>You didn't
of course. you will prove me wrong by denouncing the clotshot in your next post :^)

[Anonymous No.15248922]

>>15248906
Why?

[Anonymous No.15248924]

>>15248870
So you don't even know? Then why did you lie?

[Anonymous No.15248946]

>>15248924
Fixed the bot? >>15248885
You clotshot shills aren't smart enough to be in a STEM subreddit.

[Anonymous No.15248948]

>>15248922
because i'm obviously wrong and you're not the pro-vaxxer retard that behaves identically to you, so you will have no trouble denouncing the clot shot, which you don't rabidly support :^)

[Anonymous No.15248958]

>>15248948
It's definitely him. You'll also notice his putrid presence in climate scam threads, where he is especially prone to losing his mind with rage and looping like a bot.

[Anonymous No.15248960]

>>15248958
I was about to say the same thing. He's the most prolific shillposter on the site and it's blindingly obvious. No-one else talks like that.

[Anonymous No.15248965]

>>15248948
>pro-vaxxer
Has this become the minority opinion on /sci/?
What happened?

[Anonymous No.15248967]

>>15248965
>Has this become the minority opinion on /sci/?
It always was.

[Anonymous No.15248971]

>>15248965
It's funny how you keep trying to save face by refusing to confirm that you're the vaxxoid, but you're too programmed to say anything bad about your corporate injection even if it's just to keep up your lie.

[Anonymous No.15248983]

>>15248967
>>15248971
So you believe that a global pharmaceutical cabal is poisoning humanity and this is how you act on this information? If I believed how you niggers believe I would have done something about it.

[Anonymous No.15248988]

>>15248983
>If I believed how you niggers believe I would have done something about it.
What would you have done, anon? Make sure to talk loudly into the microphone.

[Anonymous No.15248992]

>>15248988
Yeah, all that shit.

I mean, if you really think that the pharmacy down the street is now sterilizing and killing little innocent children, and you remain glued to your piss bottle throne, you're essentially the right hand of the devil in the scenario.

[Anonymous No.15248996]

>>15248992
Woah, calm down there schizo. Just because you get humiliated constantly on 4chan doesn't mean we all feel the same powerlessness in our lives.

[Anonymous No.15249000]

>>15248948
>because i'm obviously wrong and you're not the pro-vaxxer retard that behaves identically to you
You said that my posts took up half the thread and were full of ad hominid. That's a lie. Why did you lie?

[Anonymous No.15249003]

>>15249000
>ad hominid
>That's a lie. Why did you lie?
Seething rage in text form. At least you admit he was right about you though. Thank you for conceding.

[Anonymous No.15249007]

>>15248996
That's the point, do you feel powerless against these forces perpetrating what can only be defined as crimes against humanity? Or do you remain complacent out of cowardice?

[Anonymous No.15249008]

>>15239808

scientific "facts" and universal truths
but theres always an exception to the rule
we develop models
but it isnt reality
the map is not the territory
the book is not the story

an origin of man
in the dichotomy of symbols
was 1 discovered or was 1 created?

[Anonymous No.15249015]

>>15249007
>do you feel powerless
No. Hence why you're projecting your insecurities so hard.
The humiliation you and your masters receive on 4chan is for comedic purposes. It's fun.

[Anonymous No.15249020]

>>15249015
Why are you deflecting?

If I'm correct, you believe a scam with possible genocidal consequences is being perpetrated across the globe powered by corporate greed or just plain evil, and this information serves little else than to motivate you to shitpost. What does that make you, really? If Fauci is the devil, then you're some sort of castrated helper demon from a lower level.

[Anonymous No.15249023]

>>15249020
>and this information serves little else than to motivate you to shitpost.
This is your mistake. I shitpost because humiliating you is fun. Like a hobby. People can have hobbies.

[Anonymous No.15249027]

>>15249023
Yeah, but really, what have you done to help people? What have you done to prevent small children from developing bloodclots? What sacrifice was just too great?

[Anonymous No.15249030]

>>15249027
Cope more please. It only makes me laugh harder when you come back for more.

[Anonymous No.15249045]

>>15249030
You haven't really thought through your position, have you?

[Anonymous No.15249053]

>>15249045
My "position" is that humiliating you on the internet brings me enjoyment while I'm on the shitter or taking breaks. Sort of like playing Candy Crush or watching short-form comedy videos.

[Anonymous No.15249100]

>>15248622
/pol/ won

[Anonymous No.15249138]

>>15248880
projection

people with simple minds can't understand complex information therefore they call everyone talking about things they can't understand "stupid." Schizo have broken minds therefore everyone who doesn't have a broken mind like theirs is a "schizo" to them. If you are color blind and everything green looks grey to you obviously you are to think everyone saying something is green that you is grey is "broken." "look at this crazy fucktard trying to tell me this gray thingamabob is green. I know what fucking color is I see it with my own eyes!" etc. That is this guy is retarded beyond belief >>15247662
Saying BPD is a "fake diagnosis." The way they perceive the world is fundamentally broken they cannot correctly perceive objective reality anymore than a schizophrenic which makes them very maladpative and often dangerous. Never take anyone like this serious. You can clearly see they have strong opinions on things they know absolutely nothing about. This is the hallmark of a fool

[bodhi No.15249153]

>>15249138
sorry for the typos on my phone on the shitter. If you need me to clarify I will clean it up when I get back to my laptop. Here is an article on BPD btw. I suggest everyone here read it, one of the most important article you will ever read
https://esotericawakening.com/clown-world

[Anonymous No.15249568]

>>15249138
>>15249153
BPD is arbitrary bullshit you ass clown. It's literally just a fake description sufficiently broad to describe the average woman.

[bodhi No.15249834]

>>15249568
Nah you are a retarded nigger and a joke

[Anonymous No.15249847]

https://rumble.com/c/PhilGodlewski