[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

2022-11: Warosu is now out of maintenance. Become a Patron!

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
View page     

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 80 KB, 800x534, angry-bull-4079629.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15284449 No.15284449 [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe]

Only materialism is right, screw you woo pushers

>> No.15284461

we don't have to hate consciousness. we just hate the clowns who elevate it to some kind of divine status and completely ignore its dependence on the physical, MATERIAL brain. absolute retards.

>> No.15284480
File: 135 KB, 720x845, FrgX4y7WAAAuPU1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

consciousness is necessary for symbolic language. think about it, if you look at a symbol then it has to mean something and for it to mean something you must be able to somehow connect the symbols to something that is personally salient. this abstract salience is called consciousness and it can not be reduced to materialism because materials do not have conscious existence.

of course you could argue that electrons are conscious but that's just pan-psychism and posits that the entire universe is conscious it's evolution is how god thinks. in other words, your existence is just a thought in god's mind.

anyway, good luck with your crisis. i'm sure you'll eventually figure it out

>> No.15284484

>he types on the keyboard after thinking about what to post

>> No.15284494

lol he scared

>> No.15284502
File: 115 KB, 1351x638, EwA4jzxVoAAeCSU.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

you smell bad

>> No.15284525

Quantum mechanics is the solution.

>> No.15284527

qm is a failure.

>> No.15284538

Consciousness is cool but I do agree it has its downsides.
Nothing is this world is free..isnt it?

>> No.15284581

With your nose all the way up my ass, I imagine so

>> No.15284666


Note that OP will not refute, or even attempt to refute, this post.

>> No.15284668


The price you pay is the human condition. The anxiety of living. Otherwise you would be a happy animals just following instincts.

>> No.15284672
File: 570 KB, 712x1024, Edmund_Husserl_1910s.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Retarded, read husserlian Phenomenology, start with Ideas. Transcendental Idealism is correct.

>> No.15285100

How do materialists answer the vertiginous question?


>> No.15285282

how do idealists?

>> No.15285283

>Idealism is correct

>> No.15285286

>other animals have no emotion
retarded take

>> No.15285314

Don't waste your time with the spam bot. He posts his "virgin question" in every thread and never addresses the answers or criticism.

>> No.15285342

These are all higher abstractions of a different fundamental computing system, which is fine but it means nothing to understanding the nature of how consciousness is derived from simpler structures
>your existence is a thought in god's mind
If you mean that when you move a rock you are acting purely as an efficient method of moving energy around according to the set of maths that caused it, which you might call god, then you can say in a way the whole system is conscious but that's not a high abstraction which is what consciousness is about
Your reality is not judged like you think

>> No.15285366

The only way it makes sense is if it’s all GOD. Everything. GOD simply “is” and you have been told by man that GOD “is not” on purpose, to both confuse and then control you. You are also GOD. The thing you think is you in your head is the actual voice of GOD. A lot of people can’t comprehend that “everything” really means “everything”.

Id, ego, superego. God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy spirit. It’s been called many things, but it is all the same damn thing. It’s all just happening at once.

You literally have the GODhead represented on the American dollar bill. The triangle with the eye in the middle? Yeah motherfucker. Who do you think that is? Why is the triangle one of the strongest shapes in the universe?

Why would they need to hide all of this from you? What would be the political implications of an entire world designed to get you to not only ignore this truth, but to outwardly get angry about it?

>> No.15285377

>it just is, okay?

>> No.15285380
File: 47 KB, 598x274, 1501912410292.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

anon has woken up from the matrix, impressive, very nice

>> No.15285409

By positing the existence of souls

Most of the criticisms of Hellie’s vertiginous question are terrible in such a way that’s not worth the effort to argue against. The responses to it are generally statements like “because if you were someone else, you wouldn’t be you” and various permutations thereof. They just can’t grasp the distinction between token identity and type identity. It makes me genuinely suspect that the people who think it’s meaningless question are NPCs with no subjective experience whatsoever, and can’t understand subjective experience by default.

>> No.15285417

> the distinction between token identity and type identity.
What is the distinction and how is it relevant to the question? I know you won't explain. You will deflect and distract because your infantile language games collapse once they are rigorously questioned.

>> No.15285425


>> No.15285428

>By positing the existence of souls
no evidence for souls. materialists locate identity entirely within the flesh, for which there is irrefutable evidence.

>> No.15285434

Sigh, yet another redundant terminology for a concept that is already well known in many areas (species/individual, abstract/concrete, general/particular etc). But for the sake of argument I'll entertain this pseudophilosophical triviality and pretend that it was completely new and insightful ... Nonetheless you still owe me an answer to the more important question I asked. What does "type/token" distinction have to do with the virgin question?

>> No.15285438

Because my locus of awareness has a token identity

>> No.15285444

everyone knows that. this doesn't present any advantage for idealism.

>> No.15285445

Identity being located entirely within the flesh implies that “different people” don’t exist. There would be no physical basis for personal identity at all. Instead, it would mean we are all one consciousness. But the problem with this is that I don’t feel like I’m everyone. There’s no known physical reason why I’m perceiving the world through this brain, as opposed to some other brain.

>> No.15285455

>Identity being located entirely within the flesh implies that “different people” don’t exist.
>There would be no physical basis for personal identity at all.
>Instead, it would mean we are all one consciousness.

look into weak emergence.

>> No.15285456

I know your pain bro. The question of personal "point of view" is hard to put into words but some will understand, some never will.
I'm all for materialists trying to explain it, but it's not to be dismissed.
Doesn't help that so many people conflate phenomenal consciousness, the existence of inner subjective experience with self-reflection and self-awareness. A dog or a horse likely doesn't self-reflect about its own existence, but I can imagine one having subjective experience.

>> No.15285458

So you're asking about the ontogenesis of individual consciousness? How an instance of consciousness arises and is coupled to a physical body? And how this fails to happen in NPCs? Sounds like just another flavor of the hard problem to me.

PS: If you're so autistic about language you shouldn't say locus. Locus implies that consciousness is a physical object extended in spacetime.

>> No.15285460

Non sequitur. It is perfectly reasonable to assume that each conscious person has their own individual consciousness. Just as it is possible that all those consciousnesses originally arise out of some connected universal consciousness.

>> No.15285485

> the Self is a functional local autopoiesis.
> "Consciousness should not be individual tho if all mind is flesh than all mind is one too! "
Do materialists really?

>> No.15285486 [DELETED] 

>"I want to cut off my dick and become a woman"
Do idealists really?

>> No.15285496

no materialist said whatever headcanon garbage you just typed out.

>> No.15285509

Identity is an apodictic property of the ideal.
An axiom is identical to itself regardless if the source or number of iteration. So is an idea. If consciousness is individual it points out more to the ideality of consciousness than its materiality.

>> No.15285528

>If consciousness is individual it points out more to the ideality of consciousness than its materiality.

>> No.15285531


>> No.15285549

If you deny that materialism implies that you are everyone, you must assert the existence of “identities” that are somehow coupled with individual brains. What is the physical mechanism of how this happens? How do these “identities” emerge, and what makes an individual “identity” coupled with Brain A and not Brain B?

>> No.15285558

>t. npc
don’t worry no one who thinks humans are just animals has to worry about consciousness

>> No.15285560

>you must assert the existence of “identities” that are somehow coupled with individual minds. What is the physical mechanism of how this happens? How do these “identities” emerge, and what makes an individual “identity” coupled with mind A and not mind B?

>> No.15285564

you're not special. you will die, rot, and be forgotten like the rest.

>> No.15285567
File: 26 KB, 850x440, Husserl.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>You are on a lower level of causation where you can only study effects, not causes

>> No.15285569 [DELETED] 

oops wrong post

>> No.15285571

oops wrong post

>> No.15285573

Consciousness is the result of highly organized biological tissues. It's neither computational nor ideal/nonphysical.
Only living tissues built from specific atoms and materials can be conscious, which solves everything. The problem is idealist retards will get angry at this because it's a materialist explanation, and pseudo-materialist retards will get angry at this because it is a direct refutation of the idea that substrate independe consciousness is possible (which BTW is not a materialist position which is why I called them pseudo materialists)

>> No.15285575

>muh your mind and brain are identical
That still doesn’t answer the question of how individual identity arises. Why am I this brain and not some other brain?

>> No.15285578

retard level gibberish from a simple mind

>> No.15285581

>>muh your mind and brain are identical
you missed the point. i just turned back the same question at you, the idealist. the question is just as unanswered in idealism as in materialism.

>> No.15285582

You've never said a single intelligent thing bohdi. Go back to watching symbols of an alien sky like the retard you are

>> No.15285584

Bless you for your efforts.

>> No.15285586

>If you cant dumb down what you say to the level can understand it then you dumb!
You are an insignificant little nothing of a man who will never accomplish a 20th of what I have in this life. Keep seething twinkle toes

>> No.15285587
File: 179 KB, 430x430, awakening.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

cheers mate

>> No.15285589

*to the level a moron can understand it

>> No.15285593
File: 1.50 MB, 1366x2338, ActualSchizo.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>You've never said a single intelligent thing bohdi
top kek at this faggot literally stealing my words AGAIN

>> No.15285601
File: 22 KB, 893x125, schizoFaggot.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Just can't help yourself can you? You are incapable of original thoughts and can only mirror back what you observe

>> No.15285604
File: 50 KB, 1338x228, schizomimic.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Oops wrong pic. I can find 5 or 6 of these in the archives over the years where I have said this to you. This is precisely why I use a name FAG. To dunk on shills and schizos when they try to gaslight people

>> No.15285610

Idealism allows for the existence of souls, and materialism doesn’t.

>> No.15285614
File: 29 KB, 1319x129, schizomimic2.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

I could go on posting these but I think this is enough

>> No.15285616

you already said that. and again, souls are unevidenced. not only that, souls fail to solve the question. it's just equivalent to a brain, except le magical and immaterial.

>> No.15285624
File: 812 KB, 1366x3000, ActualSchizo.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Update on your schizo happenings just dropped

>> No.15285633

Quantum mechanics solves this.

>> No.15285640

no it doesn't. but please, do tell us how you think it does.

>> No.15285650

The fact that you keep looking for this shit and make these images only proves your schizophrenia, not that of your imaginary enemies

>> No.15285653
File: 1.79 MB, 355x343, joker6.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>the fact that you keep documenting my schizo behavior shows you are a schizo!
"schizo logic," not even once

>> No.15285656

Show me your web dev skills

>> No.15285658

Idealism can, but doesnt need to posit the existence of souls to explain individuality. Refer to >>15284672, Husserl doesnt deny the existence of the material world as a material world, and consciousness is thought to be the unified flux of a body's percepts. According to him even God needs a body.

>> No.15285661

idealism doesn't explain individuality.

>> No.15285668
File: 763 KB, 235x277, dancing.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

You remind me of my ex-girlfriend who was a cluster B BPD who would say you are crazy for documenting things to later have proof of how insane they are when they made up bizarre and nonsensical things that never happened to accuse you of while at the same time sniffing the crotch of your dirty underwear for the scent of another woman's vagina. You are mentally unwell my dude. You live in a constant state of delusion where facts, reason, proof and logic are your mortal enemies. You should be medicated in a padded room not on the internet trying to infect others with your mental illness

>> No.15285672

How fucking stupid are you, that you think this is an appropriate answer? Literally bot tier ffs.

>> No.15285679
File: 8 KB, 252x200, birdy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

and of course when you get backed into a corner with undeniable proof of your delusional state your only remaining option is the deflection, non-sequitur generally followed by acts of violence (if you are able)

>> No.15285695

Anybody have publications that mention intrusive thoughts from 1900-1980 or where to look for them? Or sources that mention the specific publication instead of generally referring to an author saying something about it during their life.

Also mentions of intrusive images are preferred The earliest I found with a quick search was from 1978.

>> No.15285713

it doesn't do what you said it does.

>> No.15285718

Explain to me how a transcendantal idealism that allows for bodies does not explain individuality.
In details.
Minimum 5 sentences, please.
I know you can do it if you try.

>> No.15285720

Explain to me how a transcendantal idealism that allows for bodies explains individuality.

>> No.15285725

That's not 5 sentences, I knew you were a retard, no go kys, you lost your chance.

>> No.15285744

Dude, it was a normal question. You said you're a web dev. I'm just interested in my favorite namefag's life.

>> No.15285750 [DELETED] 
File: 17 KB, 200x198, NPC.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

This. We are people who fail to realize consciousness is just an illusion. "Consciousness" is just a word. It has no real life significance.

>> No.15285752
File: 2.25 MB, 1366x3932, ActualSchizo.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

I'm not a web dev. I am a multi-millionaire currency trade. I don't wagecuck for Mt Shekelstein for scraps. I am the master of my own destiny (outside of the most high of course, we cannot escape our dharma as it is the reason the Godhead sent us to this plane to begin with). Shoo you mentally deranged psycho

>> No.15285755
File: 17 KB, 200x198, NPC.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

This. We are against people who fail to realize consciousness is just an illusion. "Consciousness" is just a word. It has no real life significance.

>> No.15285759
File: 10 KB, 400x600, ci-svedka-vodka-fdda6350bff8302d.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>I fucking hate consciousness
so take your brain juice and shut the fuck up

>> No.15285764

Whatever you are, you're clearly mentally unwell if you're spending your time making images like that.

>> No.15285766

Yes yes, my dear schizo. We are all aware you are a one tick pony who can only mimic and project. Run along now, adults are talking

>> No.15285769
File: 464 KB, 1186x1239, 1656531730755.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>it's another abhorrent platonist thread

>> No.15285773

So you admit that you know nothing about computer science, programming etc?

>> No.15285779

>my hair is bird >>15285668 >>15285679

>> No.15285793

Why so insecure? Didn't you say you "built the internet"? You surely contributed a lot. Let us see.

>> No.15285922

Long answer.
The meme idealist position /sci/ seems obsessed with (and with somewhat good reason, it is unfortunately too much represented in 4chinks) is a misconception of what idealism entails, at a minimum. It is simply the claim that ideal objects have properties which are not reducible to material ones. The claim that logic is apodictic while psychology isn't, for example (a basic anti-psychologism position) is sufficient to justify a form of idealism. As such, for Husserl, transcendental idealism is necessarily true (after much research) because of an epistemological commitment to the simple fact that no knowledge can be understood without reference to a knowing consciousness. That is the origin of ideal primacy to him. That's it. There is no doubt in the existence of a material world, and even further than Kant, he'll argue that there is no "ontological gap" between us and the transcendental object, that properties adhere to the object concretely. Consciousness as such is the unification of all perceptual moments of a single autopoietic entity into a temporaly structured flux.
Autopoiesis is a property of the body.

>> No.15285938

>dependence on the physical, MATERIAL brain.
Does it though? Maybe we just observe consciousness as it passes through us, like a proxy.

>> No.15285948

>Only materialism is right
how is it then that some people who had half of their brain removed still retained their personality and memories?
Maybe the brain is a radio receiver, it's not "us".

>> No.15285971

How is that not an inherently materialistic argument?

>> No.15285981

materialism would imply that consciousness "emerges" from matter, thus cutting away half or more physical brain would result in a significant impairment of cognitive functions, personality, memories, which sometimes doesn't happen.
Maybe "we" are somewhere else.

>> No.15285994

>read those posts
>learn new word: apodictic
>look it up on wikipedia
>the heckin wiki article contains literal hate speech

>For instance, "Two plus two equals four" is apodictic, because it is true by definition.
I'm literally shaking.

>> No.15286003

Consciousness is just as real as the imaginary numbers

>> No.15286014
File: 62 KB, 803x767, 1679251163274.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Imaginary numbers are heckin valid.

>> No.15286043

strawman extraordinaire!

>> No.15286048

>The claim that logic is apodictic while psychology isn't, for example (a basic anti-psychologism position) is sufficient to justify a form of idealism
unsupported claim, and no it's not.

>Consciousness as such is the unification of all perceptual moments of a single autopoietic entity into a temporaly structured flux.
meaningless word salad.

>> No.15286053

Exactly, both are real.

>> No.15286055

all evidence suggests a dependence.

>> No.15286060

>ignores cases of far less of the brain being removed and the differences in behavior being incredibly obvious

>> No.15286061
File: 257 KB, 1354x945, MaterialismIsNotScience.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Literally the exact opposite. I am often floored at how mind boggingly retarded the people that post on this board are and how retarded the posts are that they just pull out of their ass and try to present as factual.

>> No.15286067

remove a critical part from a radio receiver, and the whole device will stop working.
Why shouldn't it be the same for brain and consciousness?
It depends on what part you remove.

>> No.15286071

Literally the exact opposite
ok, then remove your brain from your body.

>> No.15286073

>Only able to observe Material
>"All evidence points to consciousness being material!"
If this was 1942 you'd be one of the retards saying we needed to armor the plane body since that's where the bullet holes were.

>> No.15286077

What an incredibly retarded follow up non-sequitur. At least you are consistent which is more than you can say for the resident schizo

>> No.15286078

literally, yes. only what the observable warrants belief. otherwise we can literally claim anything exists without criticism.

>> No.15286083

according to you the brain doesn't do anything. so you should be able to mess about with it. go on.

>> No.15286087

if there's no brain, there's no consciousness.
if there's brain, there's conciousness.
So what is consciousness describing exactly?

>> No.15286090

now the strawman follow up to that! you are firing on all cylinders. are you sure you arent the schizo? you are exhibiting very illogical patterns of thinking and behavior

>> No.15286091

Lol, but yeah, husserlian Phenomenology is pretty anti-troon by essence.

>> No.15286094

Autopoiesis is a physical property you fucking moron.

>> No.15286095

>duuuude it's all just appearances duuuude
>oh but the stuff actually does stuff
you want to have your cake and eat it too.

>> No.15286098

langan-tier babble.

>> No.15286103

Literally no one said any of the things you are claiming. You are being purposefully disingenuous or lack reading comprehension as not only did no one ever say this, the exact opposite has been stated. No one said the brain did nothing, it has been claimed by me countless times in the past and by this anon just moments ago >>15286067. That the brain acts as a receiver of some sort and damaging it obviously damages the machine it is part of but this has zero effect on the signal being sent to it. I am guessing you actually are the schizo from above because normal functioning minds don't generally completely misconstrue reality then substitute it their own illogical fabrications in this manner

>> No.15286108

Making a claim that you believe something which is observable is different from making a claim that you do not believe something which is not observable.
It's reasonable to believe that the brain relates to consciousness. We can observe that. Since we know our detection of non-material phenomena is poor, we cannot scientifically claim that there is or is not an immaterial component to consciousness.

You're having this confusion because you don't understanding that "not believe" is different from "believe not", i.e. that "The independent relationship between X and Y is ambiguous" is different from "There is no independent relationship between X and Y". The former is not a claim, the latter is a claim and requires evidence.

>> No.15286111

'antenna theory' is a type of materialist theory. it has nothing to do with idealism. it's strange how you apparently haven't realised that.

>> No.15286112

What form is the signal in?
Why does it never get blocked by overhead cover?
Why does the brain need to be more complicated than any supercomputer if it’s just a radio receiver?
Why don’t I show up back at the station when my brain is unconscious?
Why does everything point to the brain being in control instead of pointing to it being a radio receiver?

>> No.15286115

immaterial means unobservable. asserting its existence will forever be unjustified.

>> No.15286117

you are literally a stone cold retard, there is something not right with you whether it be autism, schizophrenia or any other host of brain maladies. There is something wrong with you that you cant hold a conversation mate

>> No.15286118

>if there's no brain, there's no consciousness.
>if there's brain, there's conciousness.
prove it, without simply proving that "no consciousness is visible without a brain aka "the receiver".

>> No.15286119

The term autopoiesis (from Greek αὐτo- (auto-) 'self', and ποίησις (poiesis) 'creation, production') refers to a system capable of producing and maintaining itself by creating its own parts. The term was introduced in the 1972 publication Autopoiesis and Cognition: The Realization of the Living by Chilean biologists Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela to define the self-maintaining chemistry of living cells.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autopoiesis
You big moron

>> No.15286121

i hope you learned something today.

>> No.15286123

I'm not the guy from before, but I like to play with philosophical idealism.
It's actually pretty reasonable.

>> No.15286124

what you said earlier is still babble. providing a definition of one of the words you used, doesn't change that.

>> No.15286127

>'antenna theory' is a type of materialist theory. it has nothing to do with idealism.
it has a lot to do with idealism.

>> No.15286128
File: 19 KB, 231x302, Husserl.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

First Consequence: If logical rules were based upon psychological laws, then all logical rules would have to be as vague as the underlying psychological laws.

> Refutation: Not all logical rules are vague. And therefore not all logical rules are based upon psychological laws. (§21).

Second Consequence: If laws of logic were psychological laws, then they could not be known a priori. They would be more or less probable rather than Valid, and justified only by reference to experience.

> Refutation: Laws of logic are a priori, they are justified by apodictic self-evidence, and valid rather than probable. And therefore laws of logic are not psychological (§21).

Third Consequence: If logical laws were psychological laws, they would refer to psychological entities.

> Refutation: Logical laws do not refer to psychological entities. And therefore logical laws are not psychological laws (§23).

>> No.15286130

Control is not consciousness. Consciousness parses reality in a task-frame not an action frame. I do not contract my tricep, I reach for an object and my body contracts the tricep to instruct this action to occur. It is not like a PLC which commands a wire to have a rising edge in order to actuate a press.

That statement is just begging the question. You silently equate observable and justifiable phenomena, then you declare that since immaterial phenomena are unobservable that they are unjustifiable. There's no part of this statement where you have provided logical evidence for why unobservable phenomena are unjustifiable and the closest you can get are cuck-tier arguments like "Russel's Teapot" that would've been used to claim magnetism and radio waves weren't real 200 years ago.

>> No.15286135

nope. postulating that consciousness is a signal that travels to the brain, would make it a material substance. idealism contrarily postulates that consciousness produces absolutely everything within the universe, and exists beyond it.

>> No.15286137

not reading that wall of rubbish.

you're free to assert the existence of unseen things, just know you look retarded to everyone else.

>> No.15286138

>everyone else.
The vast majority of the planet is some form of religious i.e. believes in unseen things, who exactly is this "everyone else" to whom I look retarded? The other people in your anime club?

>> No.15286140
File: 25 KB, 700x478, mofette.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

It's literally just double-materialism. As an idealist I spit on you, you are literally dumber than a materialist.

>> No.15286144

individual consciousness being a signal coming from somewhere doesn't exclude it being a subset or a superposition of a bigger consciousness generating the whole universe and existing beyond it.

>> No.15286145

I can't, because if brain = conciousness then no brain = no conciousness. However, I don't believe I've been given good reason to believe the physical brain needs some kind of external property to be made sense of.

>> No.15286146

sorry, everyone reasonable*. it's true that there are many dull-witted people in the world.

>> No.15286150

you would still be admitting that consciousness as we know it is material. you would be saying that consciousness transitions from an immaterial origin to a material 'phase'. it's not clear how this transition would even be possible.

>> No.15286154

>I'm right because everyone I think is right agrees with me
Are you physically capable of making a statement that isn't begging the question?

>> No.15286157
File: 301 KB, 1069x1600, R4637212c8ecac3197781d786602159a7.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>you're free to assert the existence of unseen things
> if you believe in unseen things you are a dumb dumb
> he says on /sci/
Show me a center of gravity, please.

>> No.15286158

don't you have a skydaddy to brown-nose? it's silly to continue posting here. it's not 'holy'

>> No.15286161

You insult like a woman

>> No.15286163

yeah, you're free to be dumb. can't stop you.

>> No.15286172

>you would still be admitting that consciousness as we know it is material
are quantum superposition effects "material"?

>> No.15286174

>it's not clear how this transition would even be possible.
but nobody can prove that such a transition would be impossible

>> No.15286176

for it to be a signal which arrives at the brain, it would necessarily have to be material.

>are quantum superposition effects "material"?
depends on the interpretation of qm. but actually qm is a load of bullshit. superposition isn't real.

>> No.15286177
File: 993 KB, 428x300, alizee.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

So just to get this right,
You don't believe in vaginas, since you've never seen one?

>> No.15286178 [DELETED] 

>if brain = conciousness then no brain = no conciousness
I think this statement is false.
Instead I believe the following statement to be true:
if brain = manifestation of conciousness then no brain = no manifestation of conciousness, but this doesn't imply destruction of consciousness.

>> No.15286179

>woo pushers
Says the moo pusher.

>> No.15286180

>if brain = conciousness then no brain = no conciousness
I think this statement is false.
Instead I believe the following statement to be true:
if brain = manifestation of consciousness then no brain = no manifestation of consciousness, but this doesn't imply destruction of consciousness.

>> No.15286183

>for it to be a signal which arrives at the brain, it would necessarily have to be material.
This is a very strange claim since what it is stating at heart is "For it to influence matter it must be material" to which I can only ask where, exactly, in the definition of material or immaterial did we establish that material is defined as "things which can affect matter?" and not as matter itself?

>> No.15286184

>but actually qm is a load of bullshit. superposition isn't real.
a nonzero part of the scientific world, including many professional physicists disagree with you on this.

>> No.15286187

Then what is the double slit experiment you massive tard

>> No.15286188

>caring about looking retarded to retards
Oh wow the wind isnt blowing right now. That must mean air stopped existing! You are stupid guv

>> No.15286192

If consciousness is independent of the brain, then where else would you find it? And why do you believe it exists in the first place?

>> No.15286193

immaterial means non-physical. which means it cannot possibly interact with physical things.

yeah they're dumb.

the double slit experiment has nothing to do with quantum superposition.

>> No.15286194
File: 41 KB, 960x768, coma message.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

ITT: idealist / dualist chads fucking with the minds of materialist midwits

>> No.15286197

If it interact with matter than it is empirical, even if the observation itself was by essence impossible an understanding of the form should suggest it naturally. You are attributing properties which are essentially material to what you claim is an ideal event. it doesn't work. Ideal entities are to be understood by their own properties, for idealism to be true.

>> No.15286199

>then where else would you find it?
I have no idea, maybe the universe itself is consciousness perceiving itself.

>> No.15286202

The human brain is capable of housing consciousness (as far as we know).

As far as we know, only animal brains are possibly capable of this, and no other physical object.

The consciousness itself is a separate thing, like a painting as an abstract concept vs the physical medium used to represent it

>> No.15286204
File: 112 KB, 1000x547, Arcadia.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Then you don't need to posit individual consciousness, you are just a monist. And you have abandoned any form of epistemological commitment.

>> No.15286206

>the double slit experiment has nothing to do with quantum superposition.
What are you, a bio major? What exactly do you think the double slit experiment is?

>> No.15286207
File: 86 KB, 640x641, teslamofo.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

forgot pic rel. When retards think something is retarded that is how I have proof positive it is true. /sci/ is always wrong about everything and you are the perfect example of the kind of idiots that make this axiom true. You just spew out retarded shit and have no understanding of any of the contradictions you make in your faulty logic and lack of knowledge of first principles in your positions. You just stretch for whatever "sounds about right" without thought to try and refute things you don't even understand on even an elementary level

>> No.15286212

we know air exists because we are in contact with it every day. we feel it. can't say the same about e.g. skydaddy.

>> No.15286216

>immaterial means non-physical.
No, immaterial means non material, where did we equate material with all physical phenomena is what I'm asking? You're making a very broad and consequential claim.

>If it interact with matter than it is empirical
You are confused because this statement is applying "empirical" to a thing which cannot functionally be empirical. An object cannot be empirical, only a claim can be empirical. This is why you don't intuitively understand why your claim is illogical, and at heart relies on declaring that empirical = true and therefore empirical objects = true objects. We can make empirical claims about objects and those claims are very highly reliable. The consequential part of immaterial objects is that they can only be described with non-empirical claims, not that they have no basis in physical reality. That doesn't mean that they don't interact with matter, but that the nature of their interaction is such that we can't characterize it with empirical claims.

>> No.15286217

monism doesn't exclude the individual character or properties of subsets of the one, do you agree?

>> No.15286218

>What exactly do you think the double slit experiment is?
a demonstration of wave-particle duality.

>> No.15286219

Too bad you're just a dumb motherfucker, with delusions of grandeur too

>> No.15286221

What leads you to say animal brains house consciousness?

>> No.15286223

Exactly, and what does it mean for an electron to behave like a wave?

>> No.15286225

physical = material.

>> No.15286226
File: 54 KB, 850x400, threeclasses.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Nah mate, sorry I cant with you anymore. You have the mind of a child and just say stupid shit. Not wasting my time with arguing with retards. I mean sometimes I will with the retards here if they are presenting genuine arguments and are searching for truth, you are just a an idiot and are obviously perfectly content with being an idiot with zero intent on becoming anything else

>> No.15286227

>Source: It came to me in a dream

>> No.15286228
File: 12 KB, 320x232, puti.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]


>> No.15286229


>> No.15286230

Should have clarified more, I meant "possibly" in that if anything other than a human brain were to be capable of consciousness, my first bet would be an animal brain.
Idk if they really can have consciousness; maybe it's possible they have a different and maybe more "primitive" form of consciousness, such that the question of whether or not they have it becomes the question of what exactly do we include in our definition of consciousness

>> No.15286237
File: 57 KB, 1080x1019, 1615228181684.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

I would assume it does, but I can't come up with an argument for it right now.
>An object cannot be empirical, only a claim can be empirical.
Wut. (let's disregard that a claim could also be seen as an object too).
>The consequential part of immaterial objects is that they can only be described with non-empirical claims
How is "the brain received a signal" not an empirical claim by nature of the objects it concerns? Do you have any other example of a non-empirical signal to give?

>> No.15286238
File: 28 KB, 200x200, gncsmiim9lzjhta7wtyj[1].png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>wave-particle dualism
a "wave" is what something does, not something. This satisfied the illogical need to regard one thing as a pilpul description.

>> No.15286242

>Exactly, and what does it mean for an electron to behave like a wave?
that its motion is described mathematically by wave function.

>> No.15286244

>what something does
What it "does" is, have a superposition lmao

You are sounding less and less like you know anything with each post

>> No.15286245

The definition part is exactly the problem here, as is very often the case.

>> No.15286248

Explain how is classical particle motion described by a wave?

>> No.15286249

t. skydaddy simp

>> No.15286255
File: 44 KB, 1024x739, shadowrealm.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>its motion is described
Hey look a shadow moved! It must be real!

>What it "does" is, have
Lol, lmao. Take an english class sometime you absolute twit.

>You are sounding less and less
Pretty rich coming from someone who defines light using privation. The only one here lacking is you, now on your way to quote me another non-experiment.

>> No.15286257

using some equation.

>> No.15286258
File: 1.24 MB, 900x1327, 1619193358617.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

> Atheist
> Probably believes in Freud's bullshit
> Cannot stop himself from using troon talk
The End is not near enough.

>> No.15286260

yes schizo, shadows are real.

>> No.15286262

i bet you can't wait for daddy to show up and punish all the naughty people huh

>> No.15286264

>Wut. (let's disregard that a claim could also be seen as an object too).
A statement about reality can be based on a process of empirical observation, but the objects which the statements describe are not empirical. They are phenomena. It's a problem of scope. Light isn't empirical, but claims about light like "Light is both a particle and a wave" can be described as empirical based on the process by which they are derived.

>How is "the brain received a signal" not an empirical claim by nature of the objects it concerns?
Because we cannot empirically describe the process by which the signal is generated. If apply a signal to a computer we can describe that we generated a signal, but we cannot create an objective reference frame to describe conscious phenomena because language processes are subjective and cannot be directly converted into objectively understandable claims. Therefore, even if we did an empirical test, such as telling a person X and observing the reaction of the electrons in the brain, we can't actually empirically describe the process by which the conscious mind interacts with the language statement X, which means we can't create a description the induced change to the system state.

Imagine a 1x1x1 meter cube in space which emits no light, heat, sound, gravitation, radio waves, etc. etc. such that no physical process can be used to describe what occurs inside the cube. You throw a sledgehammer into the cube. You observe that a sledgehammer emerges from the far side the cube. You may heuristically determine that the space inside the cube is empty and the sledgehammer passed through it, but you cannot make an empirical claim about the contents of the inside of the cube. You may even time, measure, and in all ways observe the process of throwing objects through the cube, but since the inside of the cube cannot be described empirical claims about the inside still cannot be generated.

>> No.15286267

Impossible: the wave contains more information than any classical particle motion, so the particle has hidden extra physical quantities,
or, quantum mechanics is right. Same thing really

>> No.15286270

>it can not be reduced to materialism because materials do not have conscious existence
Well I mean why can't consciousness be another emergent phenomenon. Proteins can't really process sense data, but life that emerges can process sense data. Why can't consciousness just be another emergent biological, material function?

>> No.15286271

>Lol, lmao. Take an english class sometime you absolute twit.
Nice argument.

But in the next post try to demonstrate some knowledge of the subject you're discussing.

>someone who defines light using privation
No idea what you're talking about gaylord

>> No.15286272

>the wave contains more information than any classical particle motion

>quantum mechanics is right
actually impossible. it's internally inconsistent.

>> No.15286274

>different people” don’t exist
Maybe at a fundamental level this is true, but maybe we are to the world are leaves are to a branch.

>> No.15286281

Thank you. That means I'm passing.

>> No.15286284

The eternal determinitard getting filtered by QM once again. Hilarious.

>> No.15286286

YWNBF, wootroon

>> No.15286287


>> No.15286289

>>the wave contains more information than any classical particle motion

>>quantum mechanics is right
>actually impossible. it's internally inconsistent.
Actual lol. Proof? I'd like to se it

>> No.15286293
File: 26 KB, 320x336, When you believe descriptions are explanations.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Go chase them then.

>Nice argument.
Provide me an actual argument then I will start the arguing.

>But in the next post try to demonstrate some knowledge of the subject you're discussing.
You're the only one here who cannot differentiate what something does from something in and of itself.

>No idea what you're talking about gaylord
You're defining it relying on the lack of information we know about it which is why you keep saying it's a "hurr it's a wave" without realizing a "wave" is what SOMETHING ELSE DOES. Water "waves", its water in action. So "waves of what"? You keep saying "wave" like that somehow explains anything when it just makes everyone convinced you don't understand the difference between verbs and nouns. Bad enough you're just reusing a descriptive word that doesn't explain anything whatsoever as a failed explanation in the first place.

You probably believe it travels and "has a constant" speed too, right moron? Even though none of that has been empirically verified?

>> No.15286301

>waves of what?
Dirac field

>You probably believe it travels and "has a constant" speed too, right moron?
You're correct, it depends on the metric of spacetime which is influenced by energy and momentum via Einstein's GR

Bro you are not educated on this subject lmao. But keep up the insults though, maybe it will hide your shame.

>> No.15286302

nothing to do with physics.

>Actual lol. Proof? I'd like to se it
the linearity of the schrödinger equation contradicts the nonlinearity of the measurement process (it is nonlinear because a superposition of initial states doesn't evolve into a superposition of final states)

>> No.15286309

>nonlinearity of the measurement process (it is nonlinear because a superposition of initial states doesn't evolve into a superposition of final states)
You are restricting to the copenhagen interpretation, that is your own problem dumbass. There is no "measurement collapse", and QM has unitary time evolution throughout.

>> No.15286310

what is that interpretation called, lmao

>> No.15286311

>nothing to do with physics.
Math has nothing to do with physics? Lmao

>> No.15286312

Pretty much any interpretation other than the copenhagen interpretation

>> No.15286314
File: 79 KB, 719x798, don't worry fren.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>Dirac field
What is a "field"? What is the origin of a "field"?

>You're correct, it depends on the metric of spacetime which is influenced by energy and momentum via Einstein's GR
Space has no properties to do any of that "warping/bending" nonsense. It falls apart once you have to actually explain what exactly it is being "bent" and that's where you'll have no choice but to negate the existence of this "vacuum"/ magical container referred to as "Space". Then there comes the "how is it bent"? Another impassibility that I'm sure you have a coping mechanism lined up and ready to post.

>> No.15286315

they're all different, you need to name one bitch

>> No.15286318

>What is a "field"? What is the origin of a "field"?
No one knows. You're invited to try to figure it out if you like. But, you should at least collect some standard knowledge on the subject first.

>Space has no properties to do any of that "warping/bending" nonsense.
Why? Because your dumb ass says so?

>> No.15286319

Go to wikipedia and pick one and I'll tell you if it's good or not

>> No.15286322

no, i'm not doing your job for you. name one, bitch

>> No.15286326

Many worlds

>> No.15286328
File: 263 KB, 1200x631, burdenofproof[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>No one knows.
But you know that light is a "wave" rofl. Which is just the action of what the fucking field is doing.

>Why? Because your dumb ass says so?
You have nothing see? You cannot even show me one empirical proof to put the nail in the coffin and end it can you? Also, why are you asking me why? I'm not the absolute crackpot who falsely reified a magical place and am begging you to believe it without showing me proof. It's not my job to prove deranged hobo theories, that's the hobos job.
Also I'm not a complete asshole telling people what to believe. Imagine.

>> No.15286329

So you don't know what a field is but you're apparently comfortable throwing around terms like Dirac field without having any clue about what they mean

>> No.15286330

many-worlds requires a postulate equivalent to the measurement postulate. so you end up with a problem equivalent to the measurement problem (why did i branch into this particular future?). it's no improvement.

>> No.15286332

No you don't. You are defined by the branch you are in. This is tautological. So your 'why' question is a nonsense

>> No.15286333

you're calling sabine a liar. not a good look.

>> No.15286335

It's well known that Sabine is an antiscience crackpot.

>> No.15286336

in fact it isn't.

>> No.15286339

I know what it is mathematically. Can you tell me what anything is physically without defining it in terms of other physical things?

>> No.15286341

Seethe. She failed as a scientist so she makes antiscientific youtube videos to appeal to the 'I'm not like other popsci fans' crowd

>> No.15286342


>> No.15286343

But people already have experimentally verified these things. Why are you mistrusting them? Because your schizo voices told you to?

>> No.15286344

Can you tell me why anyone should consider your question seriously?

>> No.15286345

it would be very entertaining to watch a debate between sabine and yourself on this subject. i don't think you would fare very well.

>> No.15286348

You were the one asking how the double slit experiment shows an electron is in a superposition. Are you retracting that question?

>> No.15286351

so i know what interpretation you subscribe to retard

>> No.15286352

Too bad your Sabine mommy isn't here to defend you today. MWI wins once again

>> No.15286355

That's not your concern. Like I said, go to wikipedia and look up some interpretations of qm, and maybe you'll learn a bit

>> No.15286358

Can someone explain what is Sabine's argument regarding MWI and why I keep hearing about this person

>> No.15286359

I'm not who you were arguing with I was just pointing out the absurdity in your comment

>> No.15286361

I wasn't asking a question, so, your comment >>15286344 saying I was asking a question didn't make sense to me. I was pointing out I was responding to a question

>> No.15286365

mwi doesn't win shit lmao. except, i will grant that it's the least retarded interpretation amongst all of them. still, assuming that an infinity of alternate worlds exists with zero evidence of them is pretty silly

>> No.15286367

I was referring to the question "Can you tell me what anything is physically without defining it in terms of other physical things?" in your post.

>> No.15286368
File: 443 KB, 750x730, md.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>that meme
my sides anon, here have one on me

>> No.15286369

i'm aware of most of the interpretations. need to know which one you think is true, idiota

>> No.15286372


>> No.15286374

Since the point seems to have eluded you: it is a rhetorical question, to which the expected answer is "no". The implied challenge is to provide a counterexample to it, or to explain why that is not contradictory to the earlier seemingly implied argument (that the inability to define what is a "physical field" invalidates a physical theory that uses these as fundamental objects).

>> No.15286376

The many worlds are not meant to be taken literally. What are you, 12?

>> No.15286379

Why do you "need" to know this? Weirdo

Try MWI then. You gonna wanna suck my cock next or what?

>> No.15286380

Go away, Donald Bernardo Chopra Langan

>> No.15286384

sean carroll is the most well-known proponent of mwi, and he would disagree with you.

>> No.15286388

you don't even know your own position, this is so pathetic


>> No.15286392

I don't care unless he claims to represent me or other physicists

>> No.15286393
File: 132 KB, 501x648, 1659829905112977.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>But people already have experimentally verified these things.
No they haven't. There is:
>No proof light travels
>No proof it has a constant speed
>No proof of it being a "particle"
>No proof of a "Wave" being something in and of itself

It's as real as a shadow. One might even say that without shadows you can't even define "light" whatsoever in the first place. An EFFECT. You never even see "light", you see illumination. It not the tungsten wire or glass tube you see when you flick the switch "off", at that point all you're doing is defining the reflections of another light source upon said glass/wire. It's not everything else illuminated when you switch it to the "on position", those chairs were already in the room, non of the objects are the source of the illumination save for a reflection of it. It is a field perturbation of what was already there and present in the room the entire time.

>> No.15286396

>Sean Caroll
Opinion discarded.
See https://twitter.com/seanmcarroll/status/1592168158865281025

>> No.15286397

I didn't say I had a position? I'm not a physicist

>this is so pathetic
What is?

>> No.15286398

why even bother calling it many-worlds if the other 'worlds' aren't real. that's just retarded

>> No.15286403

can you point out anything incorrect about this post, or is it just your chud brain seething?

>> No.15286405

big brain post

>> No.15286408

small brain (and dick) poster

>> No.15286409

You're right, I prefer the term decoherent histories instead. I was only driven to defend the term MWI because your posts were illogical or full of fallacies

>> No.15286411

>Imagine a 1x1x1 meter cube in space
you're an actual physicist aren't you?
this example reminds me of the particle-in-a-box model or the cubic resonator laser theory is built upon.

>> No.15286412

so consistent histories. which is basically copenhagen. which is trash

>> No.15286421

no you

>> No.15286422

>this thing I don't understand is basically just another thing I don't understand so it's garbage
OK retard

>> No.15286431

what is the significance of the wave function in this interpretation? is it said to represent 'knowledge' of 'agents' or some bullshit like that?

>> No.15286449

It's a device used to compute the different histories and the probabilities for those histories

>> No.15286456

the universe only had 1 history. this sounds ridiculous.

>> No.15286462

No retard the comment you're replying to itself says there are different histories

>> No.15286463

History doesn't necessarily mean the 'past' here, it just refers to a sequence of events indexed by time

>> No.15286466

i know, which is a ridiculous proposition, as i said.

what the fuck is the difference?

>> No.15286468

>what the fuck is the difference?
So the sequence (history) can refer to events in the future too

>> No.15286472

same thing. the universe only has 1 future.

>> No.15286483

Ok, and?

>> No.15286489

if the wave function "computes different futures" then it has to collapse to the future we get.

>> No.15286503

There is no need to collapse anything, since a wavefunction is not the same as 'state of a function at a given time'

>> No.15286507

*state of a system

>> No.15286523

ontological probability makes no sense.

>> No.15286553

I have no idea what you mean by that. In any case, 'ontological probability' is not even a scientific term.

>> No.15286708

the idea that reality is fundamentally probabilistic.

>> No.15286714

we don't have to hate matter. we just hate the clowns who elevate it to some kind of divine status and completely ignore its dependence on the mental, IMMATERIAL consciousness. absolute retards

>> No.15286718


>> No.15286728

>get rekt
>"p-pls go away so I can worship matter in peace..."

>> No.15286825

Any proof or convincing argument in favor of materialism is an abstract object and, by the materialist hypothesis, does not exist.

>> No.15286853

Your post is not an abstract object so by own standards, it is neither a proof nor a convincing argument of whatever you're arguing for.

>> No.15286875


>> No.15286888

The post itself IS an abstract object. It's the thing being encoded, not whatever media it's on. (My post is not your RAM or your network card or your registers.) But even if it wasn't, the post is just a way of expressing the argument, which is also an abstract object.

>> No.15286897

The only thing your posts are encoding is your obvious stupidity

>> No.15286901

Your post literally has to enter my hardware for my screen to show the proper pixels spelling out your retardesse

>> No.15286903

You can make empirical claims about any objects in a rule-based system, even abstract systems like language. Linguistics is a highly empirical field overall, albeit measured more often intersubjectively rather than objectively.

>> No.15286909

find the letter "T" stored in your RAM somewhere AS-IS and I'll admit my post is in your hardware

>> No.15286922

>posting pic of yourself

>> No.15287082


I actually think analytic philosophy is needed here, because definitions really matter in this context. Consciousness simply means awareness. Okay, great. Animals are aware of their perceptions. And probably so are single cell organisms. But that is not the "consciousness" that a lot of people mean when they say that humans are conscious. You must be conscious "of" something. Humans are the only matter that is conscious of their own existence. That is what is special about human consciousness. We really need a term for it to separate other levels of consciousness. Maybe superconsciousness or self-consciousness or abstract consciousness. I'm not really sure. But I think that before we can hope to make any progress we all need to agree on definitions.

>> No.15287093



>> No.15287120
File: 52 KB, 550x312, wheatfield.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

I love impressionism. I commissioned an artist to paint this Van Gogh for me

>> No.15287122

People tend to be envious of what they lack.

>> No.15287151

I think thoughts aren't real

>> No.15287270

Materialism itself is a doctrine. What material is it made of?

>> No.15287273

1000s of metric tonnes of midwit grey matter.

>> No.15287313

Everything you can name is a construct. Some are material constructs like "iron oxide" or "air," some are biological like "potato" or "lion," some are social like "money" or "family," some are mechanical like "car" or "doorknob," and still others are mental or mathematical or so on. You can try to construct these objects outside of their respective frameworks, but they often cease to make much sense.

Calling materialism "right" is just silly. Let's not be dualists, but let's not be stupid, either.

>> No.15288047
File: 2.63 MB, 1366x6245, RealityHallucination.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]


>> No.15288054

Calling idealism"right" is just silly.

>> No.15288055

You are an idiot mate. It is a higher dimensional signal therefore not detectable in this 3d plane. The very definition of material for us inhabitants in this plane is that it is detectable in our plane. Please stop posting stupid shit like you know what you are talking about.

>> No.15288064

>it's not detectable in this plane
>but it arrives at and interacts with the brain

>> No.15288066

>doubling down on retardation
Nice, I can make up unfalsifiable bullshit too

>> No.15288069

What makes you think ll the parts of your brain reside in the 3rd dimension? Oh you never even thought about it because you a retard

>> No.15288074

Just because something is unfalsifiable doesn't mean it isn't true, if you werent a retard this wouldnt need to be explained to you. Besides I have proven it and I wasn't the first one to do it but you are likely too stupid to understand the proofs or we wouldnt be having this conversation

>> No.15288075

>the brain doesn't exist in space

>> No.15288080

look, idealism is for niggers.
thats all.

>> No.15288083

lol you are a legit idiot. figured as much but you always want to give the benefit of the doubt

>> No.15288089

2 more weeks until materialism is defeated and you start killing people with dark magic, amirite?

>> No.15288094

you mispelled "matter," 2 more weeks til the black hole and dark matter and all the other magical shit you believe in does ... idk something. What schizo shit are the high priests of the quack shit you believe in pushing this week? You are stupid and beleive in things so imaginably stupid it is ,ind boggling while accusing others of the same yet you are completely obvious to this fact because you are ... well stupid

>> No.15288101

Well then, what's the point of idealism? Sounds the same as materialism but edgier and with mechanisms for muh mind being magical and immortal. The thanatophobia runs deep in this one to clutch at the final god of dlthe gaps. Deepak Chopra's ideas about quantum souls make more sense.

>> No.15288112
File: 29 KB, 500x500, avatars-000909375097-5gbgds-t500x500.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]


>> No.15288122


>> No.15288153


Yes, exactly. All matter is fundamentally the same. There is no difference between any of it. Hence nothing in the material world has any intrinsic meaning. Every single thing we can perceive is a construct. Midwit materialists cannot understand this.


It's the only answer. Materialism makes no sense. Dualism makes no sense. So call it whatever you want, but the point is that something BEYOND matter is fundamental. So when you cut through all the memes and shitposting, that's all there is.

I have a suspicion that when I talk to materialists, I am primarily talking to their ego and not actually talking to them. That's why I don't get upset. I accept that I am talking to your egoic mind. I show grace to the true you by acknowledging this. I find peace instead of conflict through this acceptance. And out of peace comes love.


bodhi, please ruminate on what I said above. You are likely talking to the egoic mind, which is not truly a person, but rather a construct of the brain. Try to find grace (accepting them despite their hostility) and you will find strength, meaning that your message will find its way through. If you resist their resistance, you are not holding a door open for them when they are ready to enter.

Peace and love to all.

>> No.15288156


There is no "point." It just is the way things are.

>> No.15288157

>It's the only answer. Materialism makes no sense.
>something BEYOND matter is fundamental
no evidence.

>> No.15288169


False. Quantum mechanics alone shows that material is not all there is. Can you explain to me what matter is? Please explain like I'm a child so I can understand. Thank you!

>> No.15288174

>Quantum mechanics alone shows that material is not all there is
>Can you explain to me what matter is?
the fundamental substance of reality.

>> No.15288186


>circular reasoning

Try again. What is matter fundamentally?

>> No.15288187

Point of believing it if it's functionally identical to materialism, genius. All it sounds like is a convoluted way to justify consciousness after death and dodge the scientific questions about consciousness.

>> No.15288199


Idealism doesn't dodge the question of consciousness. It answers the question of consciousness. Materialism dodges the question.

You have it backwards.

>> No.15288211

idealism can't account for the dependence the mind has on the brain.

>> No.15288220

Reminder that the only thing we know is our own experience. That's it. The burden is on materialists to prove that consciousness comes from material. But materialists' premise - their belief - is that material is fundamental. Do not take their premise as fact. The burden is on them to prove it.


The mind is a creation of the brain. That is the egoic mind. You exist above you egoic mind. You are able to witness your own brain's thoughts and feelings. You are the captain of the ship.

The burden is on you to prove your assertion that self-awareness is dependent on the brain. You are being called out for your unfounded premise. We are simply asking you to prove it or admit that it is a belief system.

>> No.15288228

That sounds like dualism, idealism insists the brain is an "image", thus making the ideology incoherent as it is functionally identical to materialism

>> No.15288236

>The mind is a creation of the brain
based fellow materialist.
>The burden is on you to prove your assertion that self-awareness is dependent on the brain
vegetative states/coma/death after brain damage is pretty conclusive of no self-awareness.

>> No.15288238


No, it is not dualism. Matter is fundamentally mental. What you are saying about it being functionally identical to materialism is exactly right, because we evolved to perceive the world AS material. Our existence in this realm IS functionally material. But not fundamentally.

>> No.15288244


No, you are not your egoic mind. You are the awareness of the "self."

No, brain damage is not conclusive at all. Correlation does not imply causation.

>> No.15288258

the burden is on you to prove your assertion that there is an egoic mind and some other magic mind after that. we only see one of them.

>> No.15288279


The evidence is your own existence. You didn't choose thoughts and impulses that pop into your head. But you are the captain. You choose what to do with them. Unless you're an NPC and go with whatever your brain tells you.

>> No.15288285

>The evidence is your own existence
no, that's not evidence of an extra magical mind.
>You didn't choose thoughts and impulses that pop into your head
you got one thing right at least.
>You choose what to do with them
"muh free will" assumption
>Unless you're an NPC and go with whatever your brain tells you
aaaand there's the seethe.

>> No.15288302


So you don't believe in free will. At least you are consistent. The fact that you believe this keeps you in a box and explains why you are unable to think abstractly and comprehend any of this. That's unfortunate. The burden is still on you to prove that my existence derives from my brain. Since you can't, that's fine, just admit that it is a belief you hold. And we can go our separate ways.

>> No.15288311

>So you believe in free will. The fact that you believe this keeps you in a box and explains why you are unable to think abstractly and comprehend any of this. That's unfortunate. The burden is still on you to prove that we have another, magical mind. Since you can't, that's fine, just admit that it is a belief you hold. And we can go our separate ways.

>> No.15288339


Wrong. I clearly exist. The burden is on YOU to show a link between material and me. You cannot flip this around. The burden is on you.

If you can't even agree that we exist and are not biological automations, then there is no conversation to be had. Your belief that you are a biological robot is a self fulfilling prophecy.

>> No.15288349
File: 33 KB, 657x527, smugapu.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

matter is energy (light) dense enough that its vibration slows down enough for us to be able to detect it with our limited senses in the 3rd dimension

>> No.15288362

>I clearly exist
>therefore i obviously have a second, magical mind

>> No.15288373


Burden is on you.

>> No.15288377

>Burden is on you.
burden is on you.

>> No.15288389

>experience has no real life significance
Usually when they use the npc picture it's done ironically.

>> No.15288446

My GPU can paint this in 20 secs tops

>> No.15289767

I will screenshot this and repost it every time to BTFO the idealists.

Delete posts
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.