/sci/ - Science & Math

File: 22 KB, 505x345, aivazovsky_3.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Mon May 1 15:07:03 2023 No.15409065 [Reply] [Original]

Matter does not exist in a physical sense. Underlying reality is immaterial. We exist as states of being. I am the state of being of the awareness of the awareness of my brain. Through this I directly know that my brain has an aware state of being.

All matter is fundamentally the same - matter has no qualitative properties outside our own perception. We can then logically conclude that all matter is a representation of a state of being. The totality of this state of being is the underlying reality - we can call it the universal consciousness.

The universal consciousness is God’s imagination, or God's mind, so to speak. The material world we experience is our perceptual representation of the universal consciousness (God’s imagination) interacting with itself through localized states of being. Each localized state of being is an idea in God's mind. Math is the language we use to describe our perceptual representation of the underlying reality.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 1 15:13:15 2023 No.15409073 >>15409065 True Consciousness is the prima materia (Elemental Elementalism 1.1.).

>>	Anonymous Mon May 1 16:35:12 2023 No.15409261 >>15409065 I'd argue with you, OP. But who am I to argue with the main character?

>>	Anonymous Mon May 1 16:36:11 2023 No.15409263 >>15409065 Immaterial... material... Does it matter at all? It manifests as physical property. You are just renaming thing. You have absloutely no ground to claim anything else from stating that it is material or immaterial. Stop fairytaling reallity.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 1 18:49:47 2023 No.15409517 >>15409263 You create your own meaning. If you don't care then that's fine. I care because it proves that existence continues after death and that God exists. If you don't care about that, that's fine.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 1 18:54:53 2023 No.15409530 >Matter does not exist in a physical sense How do you know?

Anonymous Mon May 1 18:57:50 2023 No.15409541

>>15409530

Hard problem of consciousness, failure to explain or provide a mechanism for experience, when experience is the only thin that we actually know and have direct access to. Pretty obvious at this point. Quantum issues as well - "spooky action at a distance."

The only question therefore is "if not materialism, then what?"

>>	Anonymous Mon May 1 19:00:58 2023 No.15409549 >>15409541 Why can't we have both? Physical reality and non-physical reality.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 1 19:02:56 2023 No.15409552 >>15409549 Dualism fails for a number of reasons, the most primary one being the lack of any mechanism for interaction between the mental and physical.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 1 19:03:08 2023 No.15409553 >>15409549 Because dualism too complex for midwitted NPCs. It makes them seethe endlessly.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 1 19:03:15 2023 No.15409554 this isn't science and it isn't math. it's a dozen untestable claims being run on a hyperconnective brain, it's a worldview, it is unsupportable by data, it is on the wrong board.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 1 19:04:14 2023 No.15409558 >>15409552 The interaction is mediated by quantum mechanics. Do you have another fallacy for me to deboonk?

>>	Anonymous Mon May 1 19:04:57 2023 No.15409561 >>15409558 Please, explain further. You might win a Nobel prize.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 1 19:05:57 2023 No.15409565 >>15409554 >don't question muh dogma fuck off with your woo woo materialism religious bullshit, we are here for facts

Anonymous Mon May 1 19:06:48 2023 No.15409569

>Matter does not exist in a physical sense
proof?
>I am the state of being of the awareness of the awareness of my brain
Prove you are in a state of being. Prove you're aware. Prove your brain exists. You can't.
>matter has no qualitative properties
proof?
>the universe is local
based, ignore the rest of my post, holisticfags BTFO forever. I'm unironically willing to put up with almost any level of stupid unprovable bullshit just to own those retards.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 1 19:06:55 2023 No.15409570 GODDD I FUCKING LOVE CONSCIOUSNSESS OHHH MY GODDD IM FUCKING CUMMING TO DAVID CHALMERS OHHHHHHHHHHHHH ITS A FUCKING REALL HAARRRD PROBLEM FOR ME RIGHT NOW AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

>>	Anonymous Mon May 1 19:07:59 2023 No.15409575 >>15409561 I have no respect for Nobel prizes.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 1 19:08:21 2023 No.15409576 >>15409569 >Prove you are in a state of being. Prove you're aware. Prove your brain exists. You can't. Ladies and gentlemen, this is what we have driven materialtards to - denying their own existence. You really are a zombie.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 1 19:09:39 2023 No.15409580 >>15409552 The machanism is not physical, it is supernatural.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 1 19:09:40 2023 No.15409581 MMMMMMMMMMMMM YEESS OHH MY GODD THE PZOMBIES ARE FUCKING MY IMAGINARY GIRLFRIENDD OOOOHHH

>>	Anonymous Mon May 1 19:10:27 2023 No.15409584 >>15409517 Then write it down in your note book not here. Dont expect others to just eat your subjectivity.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 1 19:13:24 2023 No.15409594 >>15409565 ...What? All this post did is give more weight to my theory that you are schizophrenic.

Anonymous Mon May 1 19:14:32 2023 No.15409597

>>15409541
IT FAILS TO EXPLAIN IT BECAUSE YOU IN START POSTULATE A FUCKING NON EXISTING SUBSTANCE WHAT IS THERE SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND?
You ltrly by accepting HPC accept that consciousness is non material and then you ask why physicalism cant anser that. You ltrly try to undermine a doctrine by creating non neutral scenario which is in contradiction with it.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 1 19:17:07 2023 No.15409602 >>15409541 >The only question therefore is "if not materialism, then what?" What exactly is the importance of this question? It's navel-gazing arm chair philosophy and doesn't belong on this board.

>>	bodhi Mon May 1 19:17:07 2023 No.15409601 >>15409065 it do be like that

>>	Anonymous Mon May 1 19:19:11 2023 No.15409606 UOOOOHHHHHHHH THE QUANTUM CONSCIOUSNESS IS COLLAPSING MY DICK RIGHT NOW UHHHHHHHHHHH PLEASE SAVE ME MR CHOPR-ACK

>>	bodhi Mon May 1 19:20:08 2023 No.15409610 >>15409554 >how reality works isn't science reeeeeee lmao, you are the stupidest person on this board. that is like the prime directive of science my retarded friend, to figure out how reality works

Anonymous Mon May 1 19:21:55 2023 No.15409617

[math] \textbf{GODDD I FUCKING LOVE CONSCIOUSNSESS OHHH MY GODDD IM FUCKING CUMMING TO DAVID CHALMERS OHHHHHHHHHHHHH ITS A FUCKING REALL HAARRRD PROBLEM FOR ME RIGHT NOW AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH} [/math]

[math] \textbf{MMMMMMMMMMMMM YEESS OHH MY GODD THE PZOMBIES ARE FUCKING MY IMAGINARY GIRLFRIENDD OOOOHHH} [/math]

[math] \textbf{UOOOOHHHHHHHH THE QUANTUM CONSCIOUSNESS IS COLLAPSING MY DICK RIGHT NOW UHHHHHHHHHHH PLEASE SAVE ME MR CHOPR-ACK} [/math]

>>	bodhi Mon May 1 19:25:12 2023 No.15409626 File: 1.11 MB, 1366x4235, ActualSchizo.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15409617 >shit eating schizo schizing out it's all so tiresome

>>	Anonymous Mon May 1 19:28:14 2023 No.15409635 >>15409626 Based bodhi exposing the schizo spammer

>>	Anonymous Mon May 1 19:31:29 2023 No.15409643 >>15409617 Severe case of BPD

Anonymous Mon May 1 19:38:54 2023 No.15409667

>>15409610
There are limits to what theories can be rigorously tested, and those theories fall outside the domain of science. Philosophy and science are distinct doctrines. Claims about the immaterial, God, or non-existence pretty much all fall in the camp of philosophy. I can't imagine what part of this you're trying to falsify, it's like, entirely a semantic argument. Science is more narrow than "all attempts to understand"

>>	Anonymous Mon May 1 19:40:08 2023 No.15409672 >>15409626 You ltrly undermined a constructive criticism moments ago like a little child who is blindfolded by his religion. And you have guts to call people schizos?

>>	bodhi Mon May 1 19:47:46 2023 No.15409687 >>15409672 >schizo babble Nah, I dont think I will partake in your attention seeking narcissistic strawmanning attempts to create chaos. kys cluster B troon

>>	Anonymous Mon May 1 19:49:15 2023 No.15409689 >>15409687 Not him, quick question, little self-awareness check: do you know why people call you schizophrenic?

>>	bodhi Mon May 1 19:52:15 2023 No.15409698 >>15409689 >no you! No one here is interested in your schizo projection troon

>>	bodhi Mon May 1 19:54:22 2023 No.15409704 [math] \textbf{AHHHHH THE SHIT EATING PROJECTING SCHIZOSS ARE CREATING CHAOS BY FUCKING THE CONSCIOUSNESS (GOD I FUCKING LOVE IT) OUT OF ME OOOOHHHHH} [/math]

>>	Anonymous Mon May 1 19:57:53 2023 No.15409709 >>15409698 so you don't know?

>>	Anonymous Mon May 1 19:58:03 2023 No.15409710 >>15409687 You are the one projecting and determining mental states of others lmao.

>>	bodhi Mon May 1 19:58:52 2023 No.15409715 >>15409710 >schizo troon noises die in a grease fire

>>	Anonymous Mon May 1 20:00:02 2023 No.15409718 >>15409715 What is schizo about what we are telling you?

>>	Anonymous Mon May 1 20:04:58 2023 No.15409730 >>15409541 >Hard problem of consciousness, failure to explain or provide a mechanism for experience Physical reactions withing biochemical mechanisms which retain information they process, next question

bodhi Mon May 1 20:05:03 2023 No.15409731

>>15409718
I dont play word games with manipulative and psychotic sociopaths. You don't care about truth, you don't care about a synthesis of ideas and knowledge, all you care about is manipulating people. You can fuck right off to where you came from psycho fucktard.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 1 20:07:12 2023 No.15409734 File: 3 KB, 123x122, images.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15409731 Mmm yes..

>>	Anonymous Mon May 1 20:09:57 2023 No.15409738 >>15409672 Not him but what are you talking about here? Where did this happen? Because I don't see it. Am I missing something here or Is this a psychotic break?

>>	Anonymous Mon May 1 20:12:43 2023 No.15409742 >>15409594 What don't you understand? Materialism is a belief system. You choose to believe that what you're seeing is reality-in-itself (it's not).

>>	Anonymous Mon May 1 20:12:51 2023 No.15409743 >>15409738 Yes here:>>15409554 Ltrly nothing agressive about it, the man spoke truth. It does not belong on this board. Now look answer of our pure bodhi >>15409610

>>	Anonymous Mon May 1 20:14:17 2023 No.15409747 >>15409743 Ok, it was a psychotic break. Just checking

>>	Anonymous Mon May 1 20:14:59 2023 No.15409748 >>15409667 Materialism isn't falsifiable either, retard. It just happens to be the dogma of this board and society in general. You take it as a base assumption of every thing you do and every post you make.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 1 20:15:32 2023 No.15409751 >>15409747 Detachment from reallity is strong with you i see. Mmm yes.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 1 20:15:58 2023 No.15409753 >>15409065 So if I bash my head into my desk it won't hurt because it's immaterial?

>>	Anonymous Mon May 1 20:18:29 2023 No.15409758 >>15409748 And that's why we don't talk about materialism either on this board, retard. Both idealism and materialism, etc. and whatever else that belongs to philosophy does not belong to science.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 1 20:20:42 2023 No.15409764 >>15409753 I love questions like this. They give you away as an uninformed person immediately.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 1 20:21:51 2023 No.15409766 >>15409758 Every other post assumes materialism, so yes, it is discussed.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 1 20:24:27 2023 No.15409772 >>15409766 How exactly? Because conventionally atoms/particles in physics are called matter? Should we call them something else? We're all open for ideas.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 1 20:27:43 2023 No.15409779 >>15409764 Inform me, then.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 1 20:29:12 2023 No.15409786 [math] \textbf{AHHHHHH THE FUCKING SOCIETY AND SCIENTISTS ARE CENSORING MY IDEALISM AND NOT LETTING ME FUCKING LOVE CONSCIOUSNESS AIEEEEEEEEEEEEEE} [/math]

bodhi Mon May 1 20:32:03 2023 No.15409796
File: 126 KB, 1361x496, Sophists.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>15409751
buddy there is no one on this board that has provided a more exhaustive explanation of all of this with all the proofs. I have posted here it for years and absolutely destroyed every fucking pseud like you that ever thought you were going to step into the intellectual ring with me. You are either new or just an idiot whose only argument is "nuh uh" because you are too stupid to understand the proofs apparently. You are sophists who have zero arguments because you don't even understand any of this shit. You are just babbling retards and I am not going to waste my time destroying you for the 5000th time. If you ever have an actual argument I havent destroyed feel free to make it and I will take you seriously and effort post. Otherwise I am going to treat you like the idiot you are. Sorry not sorry if that hurts your fees fees.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 1 20:34:33 2023 No.15409799 >>15409796 Did you mean to post a different screencap?

>>	bodhi Mon May 1 20:36:04 2023 No.15409807 >>15409799 >incapable of relating topics being discussed to topics previously discussed only moments ago Yah you aren't psychotic at all ....

>>	Anonymous Mon May 1 20:37:44 2023 No.15409811 >>15409772 >We're all open for ideas. No we're fucking not. Keep your "ideas" to yourself, thank you.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 1 20:37:49 2023 No.15409813 >>15409796 What are you his flying monkey lmao

>>	bodhi Mon May 1 20:39:25 2023 No.15409819 >>15409813 >his As I said you are a legit schizo. Like wtf are you even talking about you retarded fucking schizo? Hello, hello, Earth here, fucking nut job. Stop posting on this board you fucking retard

>>	Anonymous Mon May 1 20:42:45 2023 No.15409839 >>15409742 Well, I'm not a materialist but I agree with anon that materialism vs. idealism or whatever is not a scientific question. You are seriously too schizophrenic to see a difference between philosophy and science.

Anonymous Mon May 1 20:48:12 2023 No.15409855
File: 1.46 MB, 2289x1701, 1574742683565.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>15409554
>it is unsupportable by data
False because NDEs are real and prove that there is an afterlife and that we are eternal and will go to heaven unconditionally when we die. So the immateriality of reality is proven by empirical evidence from NDEs.
>b-b-but NDEs are dreams or hallucinations somehow
Already explicitly refuted in the literature you likely have not read on NDEs.

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 dream and wake up, you instantly realize that life is more real than your dreams. When you have an NDE, the same thing is happening, but on a higher level, as 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."

Needless to say, even ultraskeptical neuroscientists are convinced by really deep NDEs.

>>	bodhi Mon May 1 20:49:00 2023 No.15409859 >>15409839 No one gives a shit about your schizo projections or opinions because you are ..... wait for it ... a fucking schizo! Fuck off and die

>>	Anonymous Mon May 1 20:50:13 2023 No.15409861 >>15409819 Having a melty? You seem to really like projecting when people hit too close to home.

>>	bodhi Mon May 1 21:12:09 2023 No.15409931 >>15409861 wtf are you even talking about you psychotic fucking retard? Go back to your padded room and eat your shit and stfu when adults are talking

>>	Anonymous Mon May 1 21:18:21 2023 No.15409950 >>15409855 Why don't you try having a near-death experience by jumping off a building?

Anonymous Mon May 1 21:48:39 2023 No.15410035

>>15409065
>Matter does not exist in a physical sense. Underlying reality is immaterial.
Matter ONLY "exists" in the temporal non-existent and less ideal "physical" sense (the material realm as some would put it). The underlying reality, the "soul" "not physical" portion. This is not a dualism, it's just "not physical". It is nowhere specific and has no "origin" that a materialist can point to or clutch like a piece of gold. In conjunction this is "being", not "to be" or "to not be".
God doesn't exist and that isn't even an insult to him or to us who exist even less than he does.

>We exist as states of being. I am the state of being of the awareness of the awareness of my brain. Through this I directly know that my brain has an aware state of being.
If I put your brain into a blender, then put it back into your head and make sure that there is the same amount of matter, will you still be aware?

>All matter is fundamentally the same - matter has no qualitative properties outside our own perception.
Which is unfortunately on the "material plane". You know "god" by name only.

>>15409549
Do you think the matter just animates itself? Explain how?

>>15409553
>Because dualism too complex for midwitted NPCs.
>unification
>complexity
Choose one...I know how hard that is to ask for the kosher light theorists to do.

>>15409558
Atomism is a fallacy debunked even before the ancient greeks.

>>15409554
You're not even wrong and are a prime example of the lapdogs that in reality would be conforming to such edicts.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 1 22:05:33 2023 No.15410075 >>15409065 you have not refuted materialism. matter absolutely does exist in a physical sense.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 1 22:05:36 2023 No.15410077 >>15410035 >Do you think the matter just animates itself? Explain how? Nobody knows how. That's what the scientists are studying.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 1 22:43:54 2023 No.15410173 If you think about it... energy is gay, but matter is straight.

Anonymous Mon May 1 23:13:19 2023 No.15410245
File: 98 KB, 900x972, whenscienceisindistiguishablefromfetishes.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>15409758
>And that's why we don't talk about materialism either on this board, retard.
>>15409772
>Because conventionally atoms/particles in physics are called matter?

No shit. "Atomism" aka "Materialism". Your substitution for soul/god is *the thing itself*. That's what they do when they "study" particles and their reaction to each other all day when the sad reality is they're all just farts in the wind.

>Should we call them something else?
This is what a materialist would do, yes. You would indeed invent several naming/conventions and complexify one thing. Like a furfag does with his evolving fursona drawings over time, they study the autistic oscillating *thing* of interest and then mash it with other autistic oscillating things of interest to make other neat effects they can then name. That is never going to explain how the universe functions. They never seek to answer the "how does it do this?" when it comes to these oscillating fursona particles. They just add more "particle flavours" to the mix of fucking particles (because they're so "elementary" that they need more than a dozen more particles than any other scientist did) like the furry adds "colours" to his shitty fursona (because they're so "original" that they used more than a dozen colors than the other furfaggot did)

>We're all open for ideas.
And that's why you're a joke. your heads so open your brains spill out and you spread your cancer everywhere. Go be your own "idea man" for a change and stop making public education more garbage than it already is.

>>15410077
>That's what the scientists are studying.
No. It's why they are studying.

Anonymous Tue May 2 01:19:49 2023 No.15410473

>>15410245
Nta, but you are retarded and a literal testament to how shit /sci/ has become.
>That’s what they do when they “study” particles and their reaction to each other when the sad reality is they’re all just farts in the wind
>You would indeed invent several naming conventions and complexify one thing
Yes, dumbass, because there is utility in all that. You are literally making the argument that the atom should have remained without research instead of analysing its constituents, because apparently discovering and naming the electron is complexifying the matter. Even though our understanding of the atom has literally led to applicable advancements in technology.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 2 01:20:50 2023 No.15410478 >>15409779 Something real is happening, yes. The underlying reality is an idea of you hitting your head and you feeling pain. The material world is the representation as seen through our perception, which perceives though our five senses.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 2 01:22:32 2023 No.15410481 >>15410075 Prove it. The burden is on you.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 2 01:24:14 2023 No.15410485 >>15410245 HOLY BTFO screencapped

>>	bodhi Tue May 2 01:46:21 2023 No.15410538 >>15410245 this meme reminds me I havent made a sex junk thread on /tv/ in ages

Anonymous Tue May 2 02:52:59 2023 No.15410662

>>15410473
>You are literally making the argument that the atom should have remained without research instead of analysing its constituents,
How do you "research" a model that starts with no basis in reality? You're taking discharge pressure meditations and objectifying them as "particulates". Were they actually "unifying" jack shit then the amount of particle "discoveries" they make wouldn't matter since they would understand how they actually fucking work in the first place and could just cotton candy machine spin any particle "discovery" they wanted. But no, materialist has to have his woo "over the new" and all these "discoveries" have to be treated like new iphone model.

>because apparently discovering and naming the electron is complexifying the matter
It is and there's no empirical evidence of such magic angry pixie particle or whatever the fuck you're calling what a "field" does now. It's like flashing a light on an object and calling the shadows "electrons" and then claiming they're their own entity apart from the object.

>Even though our understanding of the atom has literally led to applicable advancements in technology.
Every piece of technology relies on the understanding of the archaic hertzian waveform you dub "electricity, and geomancing lodestones. In fact there's no better example then the crowning achievement and money sink that is CERN. All it is is a big fucking circle of super cooled electromagnets, the same type of magnets inside also are what powers all your devices, turns on your "electron" microscopes. None of it has anything to do with bumping particles or any insane shit that make and decent electrical engineers head spin.

Anonymous Tue May 2 09:59:46 2023 No.15411194

>>15409931
Listen here you fake ass guru cult leading narcissist.
I dont give a fuck about your subjective judgments. They are worth as much as a shit i took this morning. Altho i have to thank you for your comments do make me shit easyer.
Only thing you contribute to is to my morning shit and thats all.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 2 10:02:21 2023 No.15411199 >>15409065 >Matter does not exist >We exist Wow you contradicted yourself in just 3 sentences, come back when your argument isn't retarded.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 2 10:08:39 2023 No.15411210 >>15411194 >I dont give a fuck about your subjective judgments Everything you perceive and "know" is subjective other than the fact that you exist.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 2 10:09:00 2023 No.15411211 >>15410481 >prove that what we see exists

>>	Anonymous Tue May 2 10:09:39 2023 No.15411214 >>15411199 We are immaterial. Try to keep up.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 2 10:18:53 2023 No.15411228 >>15411214 Immaterial and existence do not go hand in hand

>>	Anonymous Tue May 2 10:47:52 2023 No.15411265 >>15411210 Meaning and values are subjective. Paterns apstracted from causal relatinship is not. Saying X interacts in such and such a way is objective Saying X because of it is this and that is subjective.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 2 11:42:24 2023 No.15411342 >>15411228 K so existence is physical? Can you please show us?

Anonymous Tue May 2 11:45:39 2023 No.15411348

>>15411265

>Saying X interacts in such and such a way is objective

Wrong. That is your subjective perception of the interaction. An ant sees it differently, as doe#ba fish, as does bacteria. It is incredibly egotistical to think that your limited perspective is actual reality.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 2 12:46:40 2023 No.15411437 >>15410245 What do you call atoms and particles if you don't call them matter?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 2 12:47:15 2023 No.15411440 >>15409065 >Matter does not exist in a physical sense "Scientist" intellectuals...

Anonymous Tue May 2 13:42:49 2023 No.15411527

>>15411348
Here ill break it down to you as a kid.
Imagine a clock. We open it up and see its mechanics. We see thst this part X moves part Y and causes change in part Z.
We can then say X, Y, Z interact in such a way.

Now types of you come in, see Y doing that and say "HUURR DUUR ITS NOT MATTER IT IS CONSCIOUSNESS HUURR THUS GOD EXISTS HUR"

What is difference? Science speaks of what is happening. Your pseudo-philosophy about why its happening and what kind of thing is.
Science say nothing more then is (apart from theorethical stuff).
You are adding to it just of 10000+ possibilitys.
This is why it is objective and yours subjective. For no matter what you say, things interact and they interact in certain paterns. But what you are claiming is based on imagination and pre-conceptual assumptioms. You are interpretating, science is making a blueprint. If you cant differ these two concepts i think this reply just wasted my time.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 2 14:39:59 2023 No.15411613 >>15411437 Ideas (concepts) developed a priori from our perception of reality

Anonymous Tue May 2 14:46:24 2023 No.15411623

>>15411527

You are so dense it hurts. The sad part is that you think you're smart. You are convinced that we're so dumb because we don't understand how the idea of causation works. No, we understand. Causality is a concept generated by the human mind to explain our perceptions. That's it. It is a useful tool for navigating through the world of our perceptions.

You are either unwilling or unable to use your brain to think abstractly; you are so intimately identified with your sense perception that you actually believe that what *you* perceive just happens to be *the* true reality. It's not. Math/physics/causation is merely our attempt to impose logical explanation on our perceptions. I don't know how to make it any simpler for you to understand.

Anonymous Tue May 2 15:36:11 2023 No.15411713

>>15411623
Boy i have masters in philosophy and religious science. Dont you dare lecture me on this things.
You contribute nothing but insults. You fail to comprehand views of others. You fail to use potential of constructive criticism and use to actualise new ideas.
Dont you fucking dare speak about reality for you only see your ideals and concepts. People like you only fuel my desire to study more so i can stop likes of you to manipulate others with cheap philosophy.
You are not a sage, you are not a guru, your faith is fragile and thus you need aproval of others of your meaning and faith trough bully tactics. You are not interested in truth, dont you dare to uter this words. You are only interested in conquering world so it finally stops to test your faith.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 2 15:46:32 2023 No.15411726 >>15411713 >not a single retort >more sophistry Typical

>>	Anonymous Tue May 2 15:50:30 2023 No.15411736 >>15411726 Tell me what is rhetorics and what is sophostry. But also what is difference between two?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 2 15:51:16 2023 No.15411739 >>15411726 He has a degree in something that requires no understanding or thinking lol, especially lately since academia has been subjugated not by science

>>	Anonymous Tue May 2 15:53:24 2023 No.15411740 >>15411739 This just proves how ignorant you and your cult budys are.

Anonymous Tue May 2 16:12:15 2023 No.15411770

>>15411736

Stay on topic smoothbrain. Explain to all of us how you know that *your* perceptions are the true image of reality.

Then explain to us what matter fundamentally is.

Then please also explain how a state of being and experience of qulia can arise from matter.

I look forward to your explanations.

>>	bodhi Tue May 2 18:40:52 2023 No.15412013 >>15411194 Listen here you spastic schizophrenic faggot. You ar psychotic and oit odiuch with reality. You need to swallow a big bottle of bleach and kys

>>	bodhi Tue May 2 19:06:39 2023 No.15412054 >>15411713 You have a masters from schizo U on how to eat your own shit. You are a stone cold retard that can't even process 101 level philosophical concepts. You are a retarded nigger

>>	Anonymous Tue May 2 19:16:13 2023 No.15412067 >>15409597 is the matter in the realm of consciousness with us right now?

Anonymous Tue May 2 19:25:35 2023 No.15412087

>>15409065
Reality is clearly something that exists beyond our minds. Dreams happen in our minds and feel very different from experience of the external world. Also, all concepts, including abstract ones, are derived from concrete physical reality and are made abstract only by metaphor. That's something you idealist schizos conveniently ignore.

Basically, just take your meds, okay ?

>>15412013
Holy seethe, is this what enlightenment looks like ?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 2 19:28:29 2023 No.15412093 >>15411713 >Boy i have masters in philosophy So your education stopped at highschool level. Sad.

Anonymous Tue May 2 19:31:34 2023 No.15412100

>>15412087

Idealism does NOT mean that reality only exists in your mind. That is solipsism. Idealism means that reality AS YOU PERCEIVE IT is a function of your mind. There IS an external reality - but it is immaterial, not physical.

When you look at a dog, you see the mental representation of the idea of a dog. The dog exists as a state of being - the state of being of the dog's brain. You exist the same way. Reality is fundamentally experiential states of being, which we see as "material" representations ie the world around us.

Idealism is NOT solipsism. There IS an external reality. But it is not fundamentally material.

Do you understand?

Anonymous Tue May 2 19:57:19 2023 No.15412154

>>15412100
>Idealism does NOT mean that reality only exists in your mind. That is solipsism.
Solipsism is basically if you think that only your own mind exists and I didn't say idealists believe that.

>When you look at a dog, you see the mental representation of the idea of a dog
How can I look at a dog if not through some physical sensation mechanism ? A dog IRL appears more "real" than what I can conceive in my mind ie my mental representation.

>The dog exists as a state of being - the state of being of the dog's brain.
Did you mean mind or brain here ?
If you mean brain, what is a brain if not physical ?
If you meant mind, what is the nature of things with no minds such as a rock ?

I like to challenge conventional ways of thinking so I am open to a lot of viewpoints including idealism but I'm not convinced of it Tbh. Something like panpsychism is more my cup of tea but it feels a bit like a normie trend right now in academic philosoyphy

bodhi Tue May 2 19:59:40 2023 No.15412159

>>15412087
>Dreams happen in our minds and feel very different from experience of the external world
What a stupid fucking statement. No they don't, if they did you would know you are dreaming in your dream, which you don't dipshit. You cant prove you aren't dreaming this very second

>>	bodhi Tue May 2 20:01:29 2023 No.15412162 >>15412100 >Do you understand? Of course he doesn't, he is a fucking moron

>>	Anonymous Tue May 2 20:06:17 2023 No.15412170 >>15412159 >No they don't, if they did you would know you are dreaming in your dream, which you don't dipshit. You don't know you're dreaming? I thought you were supposed to be enlightened and you can't even lucid dream?

>>	bodhi Tue May 2 20:11:17 2023 No.15412180 >>15412170 stfu shit eating schizo

>>	Anonymous Tue May 2 20:11:45 2023 No.15412181 >>15412180 What's with the scatological commentary? You sound deranged.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 2 20:46:56 2023 No.15412245 >>15411613 Have fun replacing the word "matter" with that every time you read a physics article or textbook.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 2 20:49:39 2023 No.15412254 >>15411613 Are you suggesting that physics textbooks should replace the word "matter" with that monstrosity of a sentence every time the word is used?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 2 21:00:22 2023 No.15412275 >>15412100 >There IS an external reality - but it is immaterial, not physical. Immaterial like a soul or spirit? How does that even make sense?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 2 21:29:21 2023 No.15412329 >>15411437 there's no such thing as a particle https://arxiv.org/pdf/0807.3930.pdf

Anonymous Tue May 2 21:32:31 2023 No.15412337

>>15412100
>Idealism means that reality AS YOU PERCEIVE IT is a function of your mind. There IS an external reality - but it is immaterial, not physical.
wrong
idealism is a form of monism, not dualism
under metaphysical idealism there is no "external reality" at all, you directly perceive what exists, it's just that that reality is considered mental rather than material
this doesn't imply solipsism, but there's definitely no "external reality" apart from what you perceive under idealism

Anonymous Tue May 2 21:36:17 2023 No.15412347

>>15412159
You are absolutely mentally handicapped, is that why you are so assblasted ? Of course there is a difference between dreams and reality. Imagination is, for one, discontinuous and not smooth. Thats why 2D animated cartoons work, they look *good enough* to our brains, but they are literally unrealistic. Which is why 3D CGI looks uncanny if it tries to go for a cartoony look, bc it has to deal with the continuity of R^3. Furthermore, imagination/dreaming is also vague, and imagined concepts can quickly change into associated concepts, in a way that the real world can't. You can count the stars and see their fixed constellations every night, unlike what happens in dreams where what "matters" is not definite realism but merely having an approximate sense of a starry sky, for example. Lucid dreaming doesn't change this phenomenological aspect of imagination, maybe it makes dreams more vivid and subject to conscious willpower, but a dream is *never* as detailed and fixed as the real world.
Now dilate you dumb tranny

Anonymous Tue May 2 21:44:52 2023 No.15412365
File: 741 KB, 1816x2775, realityplus.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>15412347
>Of course there is a difference between dreams and reality.
not really, not qualitatively
when you dream, unless you are lucid, you're unaware that you are dreaming, because in that present it's not really distinguishable from waking reality at all, it's only after you wake up that you realize it, and the "unrealistic" nature of the dream only arises at that point, when it's only a memory
you could say the same about some event that occurred the day before too, while you were awake
>imagination/dreaming is also vague
not necessarily true at all, as explained above, and many people have imaginations just as vivid as any waking experience
>a dream is *never* as detailed and fixed as the real world
it really is, while you're dreaming it it's indistinguishable, which is why you typically don't know you're dreaming (and when you do it's not due to qualitative differences, but quantitative ones)
you can further extend all this to VR, which will inevitably become hyperrealistic and completely indistinguishable from reality, thus being just as real as any other experience you have

>>	Anonymous Tue May 2 21:55:04 2023 No.15412386 >>15412329 So particle physics is a scam

>>	Anonymous Tue May 2 21:56:42 2023 No.15412388 >>15412365 Are there people who don't dream lucidly and can't tell they're in a dream? I'm not sure I believe that.

Anonymous Tue May 2 22:00:08 2023 No.15412398

>>15412386
well, not really, not even if we assume the type of dualism that contemporary science operates with
it's just important to note that particles don't strictly speaking exist at all in those models, or at least there's no evidence for any such thing, since what we call "particles" are actually all wave packets, just like photons, whether transient or more persistent
>>15412388
by definition, if you're not lucid, you can't tell you're in a dream
the vast majority of people the vast majority of the time have no idea that they're dreaming, because when you dream the experience you're having is qualitatively indistinguishable from the waking state

Anonymous Tue May 2 22:01:19 2023 No.15412401

>>15412398
>the vast majority of people the vast majority of the time have no idea that they're dreaming, because when you dream the experience you're having is qualitatively indistinguishable from the waking state
But that's obviously untrue. The dream experience is totally different from the waking state, and it's always that way. You're telling me that there are people out there who literally cannot differentiate imagination from reality?

Anonymous Tue May 2 22:07:52 2023 No.15412415

>>15412401
>But that's obviously untrue.
no, it's actually quite obviously true, because the brain is operating just as if it's awake under those conditions, it's just not operating from sensory inputs
>The dream experience is totally different from the waking state, and it's always that way.
that is incorrect, the dreaming state is qualitatively indistinguishable from the waking state, which is exactly why people are not aware that they're dreaming when they are
like I mentioned earlier, it's only upon waking up that you realize that you were dreaming
>You're telling me that there are people out there who literally cannot differentiate imagination from reality?
when you're dreaming, unless you are lucid, which means the case for the vast majority of people the vast majority of the time when they dream, including you, you are completely unable to differentiate what you're experiencing from waking life in any qualitative manner
brain activity during REM sleep is in fact just as if you are awake, the only difference being that your eyes are closed (in contrast to the visual experiences being vividly hallucinated to the point of being qualitatively indistinguishable, other senses can and are often incorporated into the dreams, blending dream and reality, particularly sounds, but smell, taste, and touch too)

Anonymous Tue May 2 22:09:41 2023 No.15412417

>>15412415
>when you're dreaming, unless you are lucid, which means the case for the vast majority of people the vast majority of the time when they dream, including you, you are completely unable to differentiate what you're experiencing from waking life in any qualitative manner
I have never confused the dream state for the waking state. It is readily apparent that my imagination is not real at all times. Are you genuinely telling me that some people can't tell the difference? Are you suggesting that you, personally, can't tell the difference between a fantasy in your mind and the real world?

>>	bodhi Tue May 2 22:10:57 2023 No.15412420 >>15412347 You are absolutely moronic on a scale that there isnt even a measurement for. You are so out of touch with anything even remotely resembling reality you belong in a mental ward

Anonymous Tue May 2 22:11:35 2023 No.15412423

>>15412275

Awesome, someone here has a spark of genuine curiosity! Understand Kant's metaphysics and then understand Schopenhauer's metaphysics and you'll start to grasp it. You don't need to read all their works to get it. Kastrup has a good short book explaining Schopenhauerian metaphysics.

Basically we cannot ever know or even comprehend actual reality. It is beyond our capability to understand. We are stuck in our five senses. However, we do have one narrow window to experience actual reality - ourselves. We exist as that which is experiencing. We can never truly know ourselves because it is beyond our comprehension. But we know that we exist as awareness. Specifically, awareness of the awareness of a human brain.

Reality is a state of being, an awareness. Our world is that universal being experiencing itself. A dog does exist, but it exists as a state of being of what it is like to be that dog, just like you exist as awareness.

Anonymous Tue May 2 22:13:29 2023 No.15412425

>>15412417
>I have never confused the dream state for the waking state.
that's exactly what you do every single time you're dreaming, except when you're lucid, which even for experienced lucid dreamers is only a small fraction of the time
>It is readily apparent that my imagination is not real at all times.
that's not true at all, that is something you realize after you wake up, not while you are dreaming
>Are you genuinely telling me that some people can't tell the difference?
the vast majority of people the vast majority of the time when dreaming, including you
>Are you suggesting that you, personally, can't tell the difference between a fantasy in your mind and the real world?
when dreaming, unless lucid (which again is only a small fraction of the time for even experienced lucid dreamers), no one is able to tell the difference at all, and are completely unaware that they are dreaming
this is rather obvious, because even under contemporary neuroscientific models what is known as the waking state is itself considered a controlled hallucination by the brain constructed from sensory inputs, and this controlled hallucination is qualitatively the same even when you remove the sensory input, as long as brain activity remains the same

Anonymous Tue May 2 22:15:03 2023 No.15412430

>>15412425
>that's exactly what you do every single time you're dreaming, except when you're lucid, which even for experienced lucid dreamers is only a small fraction of the time
But that's simply untrue. It may be true for you, if you really are incapable of telling fantasy from reality, but I have no such problem.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 2 22:16:00 2023 No.15412431 >>15412430 it is absolutely true when you dream, you have zero idea that you are dreaming (again, the vast majority of the time, a small fraction of the time you might be lucid and be aware that you are dreaming)

>>	Anonymous Tue May 2 22:16:39 2023 No.15412434 >>15412431 >when you dream, you have zero idea that you are dreaming Again, this is totally incorrect. You may have this problem but I do not.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 2 22:17:01 2023 No.15412435 >>15412337 The external reality is the mental universal being aka God.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 2 22:17:11 2023 No.15412436 >>15412434 it's not a "problem" at all, it's just a cognitive fact, and it applies to everyone, including you

>>	Anonymous Tue May 2 22:17:40 2023 No.15412437 >>15412436 It cannot be a cognitive fact if it does not apply to everyone.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 2 22:19:58 2023 No.15412441 >>15412254 No. Just that we understand what the word points to.

Anonymous Tue May 2 22:21:15 2023 No.15412444

>>15412435
well, that would still be a form of dualism, not idealism
under pure metaphysical idealism there isn't actually any individual entity that is having the experience, it's essentially the assumption that reality is pure experience
>>15412437
it does apply to everyone, you included
you might mistake occasional bouts of lucidity for thinking that you're able to tell the difference, or that you can tell the difference because you realize the difference after you wake up, but the vast majority of the time when you are dreaming, you have no idea that you're dreaming at all, you quite literally believe you are awake until you actually wake up (or alternatively until you fall back into deep sleep)

>>	Anonymous Tue May 2 22:22:54 2023 No.15412446 >>15412441 Know how? You can't test philosophical theories scientifically, that's really why this topic doesn't belong to /sci/ to begin with

>>	Anonymous Tue May 2 22:24:28 2023 No.15412448 >>15412446 >Know how? You're so close.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 2 22:25:15 2023 No.15412451 >>15412444 Reality is pure experience. It is universal experience (a state of being). We are localized points of being in the infinity of experience. We are both saying the same thing.

Anonymous Tue May 2 22:26:21 2023 No.15412456

>>15412451
>Reality is pure experience.
well, that is the assumption of idealism
I was just clarifying what idealism means, and how there's no external reality apart from experience under those assumptions
I'm not speculating about what's actually true, for all I know some form of dualism could very well be true

>>	Anonymous Tue May 2 22:33:57 2023 No.15412471 >>15412423 The only thing that you would be "grasping" is what some guy thinks is true. Not what really is true. Even you admitted that you can't know actual reality, at least in scientific sense. It's just a personal belief system.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 2 22:55:53 2023 No.15412526 >>15412471 We know that we are real. That is the opening to understanding.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 2 23:04:55 2023 No.15412539 >>15412526 What's your point? How does that prove idealism or any other belief to be correct?

Anonymous Tue May 2 23:33:31 2023 No.15412587

>>15412526
>We know that we are real.
ironically, that's actually something a hypothetical individual entity can't actually know at all, because all they can possibly know is external to themselves
i.e. you can't know yourself, you can only be yourself (if you exist at all)
if you do exist as an individual entity, then some sort of dualism must be true, whereas if some form of monism is true then there can by definition not be any individual entity at all

Anonymous Tue May 2 23:37:46 2023 No.15412595

>>15412365
>you're unaware that you are dreaming, because in that present it's not really distinguishable from waking reality at all, it's only after you wake up that you realize it, and the "unrealistic" nature of the dream only arises at that point, when it's only a memory
I largely agree but I think there's a psychological criterion for "believability" that is met by our dreams, but that this criterion isn't as strict as real life realism. The human brain is certainly able to accept unrealistic situations as believably realistic, e.g. action sequences in movies, or something that violates conservation of momentum or whatever, and even 2D cartoons. They are *perceived* as realistic because they satisfy a psychological criterion of realism that falls short of 100% reality style realism.

>it really is, while you're dreaming it it's indistinguishable
Maybe dreams can be indistinguishable when it comes to vividness, but certainly not with regards to "fixedness", which is obvious from the fact that human short term memory has a storage limit but the real world doesn't. In the real world you can count things like stars and it will be the same number every time.

Besides, you didn't reply to my point about the discontinuity of dreams/imagination.

So for the most part it is straightforward to find differences between dreams, even vivid ones, and experience of external reality.

Anonymous Tue May 2 23:43:11 2023 No.15412601

What do you mean by God?
Some of our instincts about life after death and the existence of some type of deity can trick us.
Our instincts can trick us in all aspects of our lives. I have doubts about reality of things. The closest we can know that deities exist is to prove them in reality and for them to explain their reasons, or at least deduct their intentions through a scientific approach.
I wish for a deity to exist and reward ethical behaviour, but as we can see from the state of the world, this isnt the case.

Anonymous Tue May 2 23:54:39 2023 No.15412617

>>15412595
>I think there's a psychological criterion for "believability" that is met by our dreams, but that this criterion isn't as strict as real life realism
I agree, which is why I made sure to point out that it's primarily a matter of being qualitatively indistinguishable, rather than quantitatively
when you're dreaming, however, you still don't have any idea that you're dreaming, and think you're just experiencing life as usual, thinking nothing of the odd goings-on
but, ultimately even this quantitative difference in believability can break down, as either e.g. things happen in your waking life that seem miraculous and unbelievable, whether it be due to e.g. technological progress or just bizarre unexplained events and occurrences
this leaves even the quantitative difference on shaky grounds, and as I mentioned earlier even the best contemporary neuroscientific model of waking life considers it as a controlled hallucination
in addition to all this, there are well-known psychological and cognitive findings about how people will tend to confabulate wildly to fill in missing or unexplainable parts of their cognition, as is seen most poignantly in people who have had their brain halves split by severing the corpus callosum
>dreams can be indistinguishable when it comes to vividness, but certainly not with regards to "fixedness"
that's certainly another significant quantitative difference, which you're not aware of when you're dreaming either, but without going to deep into it there are a lot of metaphysics pointing out the transitory and fleeting nature of even the objects of waking life
>you didn't reply to my point about the discontinuity of dreams/imagination
yes, I did
see: >>15412365
in fact, dreams are not discontinuous at all while they're going on, and imagination can be completely continuous and vivid too (in fact, establishing such continuous and vivid imagination is a central meditative practice in many Vedic and Buddhist traditions)

Anonymous Tue May 2 23:54:44 2023 No.15412618

>>15412365
If there was no difference between dreams and reality, people would not use words like dream and reality as opposites. The fact that such division exists proves that dreams and reality are not the same (why would such division otherwise exist?)

Anonymous Tue May 2 23:58:30 2023 No.15412623

>>15412618
>If there was no difference between dreams and reality, people would not use words like dream and reality as opposites.
wrong
first of all, no one uses dream and reality as opposites, but actually as closely related phenomena
secondly, I never said there were no apparent differences at all, only that there are no qualitative differences
and as I mention in the above post (>>15412617), even the quantitative differences are not necessarily a given either
you could e.g. very well be dreaming right now, unaware of it
>The fact that such division exists proves that dreams and reality are not the same (why would such division otherwise exist?)
this is a nonsensical argument, because it would not be the first time a purported distinction is made between two ultimately indistinguishable phenomena

Anonymous Wed May 3 00:01:39 2023 No.15412626 [DELETED]

>>15412623
I can be 100% sure that I'm not dreaming right now be testing if I can run. In dreams you can never run fast, but instead running feels like running underwater. Another test that I've heard of is closing your nose with your fingers and then trying to breath through your nose. If you are still able to breath, it proves that you are dreaming. I actually tested it one time in a dream and it made me realize that I was dreaming because it worked.

Anonymous Wed May 3 00:06:48 2023 No.15412632

>>15412623
I can be 100% sure that I'm not dreaming right now by testing if I can run fast. In dreams you can never run fast but instead running feels like running underwater. Another test that I've heard of is closing your nose with your fingers and then trying to breath through your nose. If you are still able to breath, it proves that you are dreaming. I actually tested it one time in a dream and it made me realize that I was dreaming because it worked.

Anonymous Wed May 3 00:08:33 2023 No.15412637

>>15412632
>I can be 100% sure that I'm not dreaming right now be testing if I can run.
definitely not true at all
>In dreams you can never run fast, but instead running feels like running underwater.
this is not a generally true statement
it might be true that you've occasionally realized you were dreaming due to experiencing this, thus achieving lucidity and either remaining lucid or waking up (as is typically the case unless you have a lot of experience with lucid dreaming), but it's not a true statement in general
the tests you're mentioning are definitely all good reality tests as per my own experience lucid dreaming too, and there are many more, but none of them are infallible at all
I've also achieved lucidity in dreams countless times using such tests, but there is no guarantee that any such test will work

>>	Anonymous Wed May 3 00:17:34 2023 No.15412649 File: 40 KB, 547x662, 336cb8d1a756387ea28045280d03237b.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Consciousness is as fake and gay as Bodhi's love life.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 3 00:23:20 2023 No.15412660 >>15412637 So where do you end up if you continue this rabbit hole of logic? You're saying that nothing exists unless you think about it. It just boils down to solipsism where nothing exists except your own bubble.

Anonymous Wed May 3 00:32:01 2023 No.15412671

>>15412660
>So where do you end up if you continue this rabbit hole of logic?
it's not a "rabbit hole of logic" in any way, shape, or form, it's just the facts of reality
>You're saying that nothing exists unless you think about it.
I'm not saying that at all, only that it's impossible to prove otherwise, since your own direct experience is all you ever have access to
>It just boils down to solipsism where nothing exists except your own bubble.
not true either, there are myriad alternatives to solipsism which account for the fact that all different forms of experience are qualitatively indistinguishable by virtue of experience itself being the primary datum
but you're correct in identifying solipsism as one possibility, since it is indeed impossible to disprove it, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily true

Anonymous Wed May 3 00:45:41 2023 No.15412690

>>15412671
>only that it's impossible to prove otherwise, since your own direct experience is all you ever have access to
And...? I don't understand your point. I believe in lots of things that cannot be proven. I can't prove that you are not a bot and yet I keep talking to you (by the way, the same seems to apply to you).

>>	Anonymous Wed May 3 00:47:33 2023 No.15412692 I am not conscious, and neither are you. Any feeling is just an illusion, no matter how strong may it be (e.g. the immense sensation bodhi gets from ingesting human or animal feces)

Anonymous Wed May 3 00:51:26 2023 No.15412705

>>15412690
>And...? I don't understand your point.
my point was that dreaming and waking are qualitatively indistinguishable, so you can't really know whether or not you're dreaming at any given point in time
in fact, even if you do assume you're awake, you have no way of knowing that's not just a state corresponding to that of dreaming, and that there's a state above that from which what you now think of as waking life would be recalled just like you recall a dream now
and that's not even considering other experiential states, like imagination, hallucination, or simulation (although technically speaking, the dream argument and the simulation hypothesis are ultimately isomorphic)
>I believe in lots of things that cannot be proven.
well, that's your choice
I know plenty of religious people too, but I don't personally consider it reasonable to believe in something for which you have no proof, so I choose not to believe in anything that can't be proven

Anonymous Wed May 3 00:53:16 2023 No.15412707

>>15412539

Because you are aware of your brain's thoughts and feelings. Your brain is apparently made of matter. This is the key to understanding that all matter is an apparition of a state of being.

>>15412601

God is the universal existence/state of being/consciousness. We all exist as his ideas. We live in God's imagination, which is universal existence/state of being/consciousness.

>>15412446

You know it because you ARE it. Forget everything else and just think about what you are. You are the awareness of the awareness of your brain. You seem to come from a brain...but wait...a brain is matter. Fundamentally matter is all the same and has no inherent qualities...so if my brain is matter...then all matter should have a state of awareness...

You put it all together. YOU are the key to the entire understanding. You are actual reality.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 3 00:56:04 2023 No.15412715 >>15412705 >so I choose not to believe in anything that can't be proven Does that include idealism?

Anonymous Wed May 3 01:01:01 2023 No.15412723

>>15412707
>Because you are aware of your brain's thoughts and feelings. Your brain is apparently made of matter. This is the key to understanding that all matter is an apparition of a state of being.
well, that's somewhat of a misunderstanding, because in the terms of contemporary science, what is known as "matter" is not actually anything you can directly observe, but the posited "external reality" which informs the senses, from which you generate conscious awareness (note that I'm not saying this is true, just that this is what contemporary science assumes to be the case)
so under those assumptions, while the brain is made of matter, you never experience that matter directly, only the reconstruction of it in your mind
>God is the universal existence/state of being/consciousness. We all exist as his ideas. We live in God's imagination, which is universal existence/state of being/consciousness.
such assertions are as nonsensical and meaningless as statements to the contrary
you have no way of knowing whether that's true or not (and if it were true, then it's certainly not idealism, as I explained previously)
>You know it because you ARE it.
by definition you can't know what you are, you can only be what you are
>Fundamentally matter is all the same and has no inherent qualities...so if my brain is matter...then all matter should have a state of awareness...
that's straw manning contemporary science, because most contemporary theories of consciousness are computational, so only specific configurations of matter give rise to consciousness under those assumptions
note again that I'm not saying that I subscribe to such theories, just that you're misrepresenting it
>>15412715
yes, definitely
I even mentioned earlier that dualism could also fully well be true here: >>15412456
>I'm not speculating about what's actually true, for all I know some form of dualism could very well be true

>>	bodhi Wed May 3 03:29:26 2023 No.15412920 >>15412649 I'm sure you know exactly what the gay looks like because it pounds your juicy bussy every night

Anonymous Wed May 3 04:18:18 2023 No.15412981
File: 57 KB, 560x420, shadow.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>15411437
>What do you call atoms and particles if you don't call them matter?

The point I was making is that they "call them something" because they assume this temporal "wave packet" is something in and of itself, having its own existence and "being" outside of reality. Some of them theorize just this, "anti-matter" and a bazillion other dimensions that would exist independently...somehow, they don't even know because there is no actual proof of them in the first place. "Dark matter", Black holes", the list goes on and on for renaming what basically amounts to shadows. Absence of information can't be worked with, so the assumption is that there MUST be "something" to explain the absence allegedly being "observed".
The word "Atom" is the perfect word because like "Atomists" who assumed reality was made up or individual bits that could not be separated, that is what physicists automatically assume when they literally particularize these perturbed fields, theorized perturbed field, oscillations (of what? by what means?) the tangling of light basically.
These particulates are "things" to speak about in so much as a shadow is a "thing" to speak about. Quite literally, the light, the electromagnetic phenomena basically "creates" these shadows you dub "matter". They don't have a "true independent" reality nor do they "posses" the properties assumed, much like a shadow has no properties and is simply "less light". Like every element on the periodic table for instance. It's just basically "hydrogen that got smashed together", hydrogen being just light. These properties that the elements "have" are ultimately lost back to the medium that spawned them and props them into existence in the first place. The dough doesn't kneed itself.
For naming convention, particularization, math, quantification...basically "knowledge" to happen, particularization HAS TO occur. Useful for redundancy. The problem is that is never going to "unify". It atomizes.

Anonymous Wed May 3 07:16:30 2023 No.15413238

>>15412100
The conclusion to the argument of “the flower had the appearance of a flower being looked at” is that we can’t know the underlying reality and probably lack proper qualifiers (or lack thereof) for it since we’re grounded in perceptions. So the next points of matter as fundamentally the same and a being in a state of being is already built on unknowable ground, doubly fallacious when you have not defined “being” in a way that doesn’t rely on intuition, which may be flawed, and if we are to give Heidegger the credit for the attempt, impossible to define.
You cannot reason out a God. It can’t be done.

Anonymous Wed May 3 09:11:50 2023 No.15413399

>>15413238
>The conclusion to the argument of “the flower had the appearance of a flower being looked at” is that we can’t know the underlying reality and probably lack proper qualifiers (or lack thereof) for it since we’re grounded in perceptions.
that is one possible conclusion
the other is that of idealism (misrepresented by the person you just replied to, which I corrected here: >>15412337), namely that there isn't any underlying reality at all, and that perceptions are all that exist

>>	Anonymous Wed May 3 11:34:54 2023 No.15413558 >>15409569 Is there a proof that matter exists?

>>	Anonymous Wed May 3 13:24:07 2023 No.15413782 >>15412981 >The point I was making is that they "call them something" So what do you call them yourself? If solid, liquid, gas and plasma are not the four states of matter, then they are the four states of what? Fill in the blank.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 3 13:44:49 2023 No.15413794 >>15413238 >intuition, which may be flawed Intuition is all we have, ultimately. I intuit that I exist as awareness of the awareness of my brain. If you cannot bring yourself to intuit that, then you are truly mindfucked out of your own existence.

Anonymous Wed May 3 13:51:04 2023 No.15413802

>>15412723

>from which you generate conscious awareness

The brain does not generate consciousness. The brain is how we perceive the state of being of a brain.

>such assertions are as nonsensical and meaningless as statements to the contrary
you have no way of knowing whether that's true or not (and if it were true, then it's certainly not idealism, as I explained previously)

Not a refutation. Does a dog's state of being exist? If so, how?

>by definition you can't know what you are, you can only be what you are

Correct; we inuit what we are.

>that's straw manning contemporary science, because most contemporary theories of consciousness are computational, so only specific configurations of matter give rise to consciousness under those assumptions
note again that I'm not saying that I subscribe to such theories, just that you're misrepresenting it

No I'm not. There is absolutely zero evidence or reason to believe that matter (as understood in contemporary science) can have experiential states of qualia.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 3 13:53:23 2023 No.15413803 >>15413782 They are different states of how we experience our perception of universal being-ness.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 3 13:53:59 2023 No.15413806 >>15413794 Why would you believe the brain even exists if you are not consciously visualizing a piece of meat? I'm just trying to understand idealism.

Anonymous Wed May 3 14:00:04 2023 No.15413815

>>15413802
>The brain does not generate consciousness.
you don't know that
also, perhaps you missed the parts where I explicitly wrote that I wasn't talking about what I personally believe, but what the assumptions of contemporary scientific understanding is?
I in fact stated that explicitly not once, but twice
>Not a refutation.
I didn't say it was, I pointed out that your assertion of it as true is nonsensical and unreasonable, because you have zero idea whether it's actually true or not
I didn't claim it's false, only that your assertion of it being true is meaningless, since you don't actually know whether it's true or not
>Correct; we intuit what we are.
wrong, under the assumption that "you" exist at all, you can't know what you are in any way, shape, or form, nor can you "intuit" it, which is still a form of knowledge
>No I'm not.
yes, you very clearly and explicitly did misrepresent it
you're misrepresenting the understanding to be "brains are conscious, thus all the matter the brain is made up of must be conscious", but that doesn't follow from the assumptions of contemporary scientific understanding whatsoever, because what you're describing there is panpsychism, whereas contemporary scientific understanding assumes some form of computationalism to be true instead
thus we can see where you go wrong with your misrepresentation, quoting you again:
>Fundamentally matter is all the same and has no inherent qualities...so if my brain is matter...then all matter should have a state of awareness...
as I just explained, you are straw manning contemporary neuroscience as panpsychist here, but contemporary neuroscience assumes computationalism, so the above syllogism does not hold at all, since only very particular configurations of matter with specific flows of information are assumed to give rise to consciousness under that paradigm
>zero evidence or reason to believe that matter (as understood in contemporary science) can have experiential states of qualia
wrong

>>	Anonymous Wed May 3 14:00:31 2023 No.15413816 >>15413803 So basically you are God and you created the whole universe?

Anonymous Wed May 3 14:02:01 2023 No.15413818

>>15413806
many idealists do indeed doubt the existence of any independent and underlying brain at all unless it's explicitly perceived within consciousness
there's even a scene in the first Ghost in the Shell film where the Major explicitly expresses exactly that doubt

>>	Anonymous Wed May 3 14:17:05 2023 No.15413834 >>15413818 If they are so doubtful, why don't they just take their doubts to the extreme and doubt that even other people exist? If we are playing a game of who has the most doubts about reality, then a person who is a solipsist wins that game.

Anonymous Wed May 3 14:26:51 2023 No.15413840

>>15412087
>Holy seethe, is this what enlightenment looks like ?
Kek, it's the new ager buddhist enlightenment yes. They're all the same, telling you how dhammapada or whatever story book rules, but when you scrape them a bit all the seethe and cope comes out.

Anonymous Wed May 3 14:28:35 2023 No.15413842

>>15413834
>If they are so doubtful, why don't they just take their doubts to the extreme and doubt that even other people exist?
under idealism no individual person exists, only pure cognition, so there's ultimately no distinction between "self" or "other", as expected from a monistic metaphysical framework
>If we are playing a game of who has the most doubts about reality, then a person who is a solipsist wins that game.
incorrect, because solipsism actually tends to be quite dualistic in nature, as it posits that only one's own mind exists, but by virtue of this it implicitly also assumes that oneself exists independently of one's mind, otherwise you couldn't call it one's own mind at all (in fact, when the solipsist does away with this superfluous assumption, they arrive at idealism, which "wins the game" of making the least assumptions about reality beyond what is experienced)

Anonymous Wed May 3 14:33:18 2023 No.15413851

>>15413842
>under idealism no individual person exists, only pure cognition, so there's ultimately no distinction between "self" or "other", as expected from a monistic metaphysical framework
Then why do they keep talking to materialists if they believe that a person who is a materialist is not a real person?

>incorrect
The bottom line is that if you were to win that game, you would doubt that other people exist.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 3 14:42:18 2023 No.15413862 File: 16 KB, 360x470, Snapchat-1065929297.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15409065 Can you shut the fuck up you faggot? Who fucking cares? It makes no difference anyway, what a waste of a fucking thread

Anonymous Wed May 3 14:47:49 2023 No.15413870

>>15413851
>Then why do they keep talking to materialists if they believe that a person who is a materialist is not a real person?
first of all, you should distinguish between people who use the term "idealism" without knowing what it actually means, like the person who misused it earlier in the thread and started a lot of discussion about it (which I corrected here: >>15412337)
secondly, you keep saying "they", but for an idealist there is no individual entity represented by "they", there's just pure cognition, pure experience if you like
why exactly a certain experience is occurring (such as the experience of humans discussing metaphysics on an imageboard) is a better question, which leads to a wide variety of different flavors of idealism (even physicalist idealism)
>The bottom line is that if you were to win that game, you would doubt that other people exist.
see above
when that game is won, there is no "you" left to win it

Anonymous Wed May 3 15:02:00 2023 No.15413894

>>15413870
>why exactly a certain experience is occurring (such as the experience of humans discussing metaphysics on an imageboard) is a better question
Or why exactly are idealists hypocrites? That's practically the same question but formulated in a more truthful and straightforward way.

>secondly, you keep saying "they", but for an idealist there is no individual entity represented by "they", there's just pure cognition, pure experience if you like
So if idealists believe that individual people don't exist, why would they talk to other human beings? The only reason why you are talking to me right now is because you believe that I'm a real individual (and not something like a bot, etc).

Anonymous Wed May 3 15:24:07 2023 No.15413921

>>15413894
>Or why exactly are idealists hypocrites?
I never claimed idealists are hypocrites at all
however, it actually doesn't even make sense to talk about people as being idealists other than in a very trivial sense, because under idealism there are no individual people at all
you can still trivially talk about the experience of a human expressing idealist metaphysics in that way, but that reduces to the same question of why specific experiences occur rather than others
>That's practically the same question but formulated in a more truthful and straightforward way.
not true at all
the point, as mentioned above, is that why what is being experienced is what it is still remains a question even if you posit idealism, and there are multiple different possible explanations under those assumptions
>So if idealists believe that individual people don't exist, why would they talk to other human beings?
again, under idealism there aren't any individual idealists as opposed to individual dualists or what have you, so what you're really asking here is: under idealism, why would there be an experience of humans expressing different metaphysical beliefs?
and as I've mentioned earlier and above, that't not something I know, and different idealist ontologies will give you different answers
>The only reason why you are talking to me right now is because you believe that I'm a real individual (and not something like a bot, etc).
this sounds more like a projection on your part than anything else
what you're expressing here is just one out of a vast number of possible explanations for why this exact situation is occurring

Anonymous Wed May 3 15:24:30 2023 No.15413922

>>15413806

I exist. I am a state of being. I am experiencing something. What is that something? It is the aware state of what I perceive is my brain. I am aware that it feels hungry, tired, happy, sad, etc. That is how I know that my "brain" exists. But it exists as a state of being - an experientially state. The "physical" brain is how I perceive that state of being.

To make it easier to grasp, imagine a universe with no matter. A void. But now imagine that the experiential states of being still exist for you, me, a dog, etc. That underlying experiential state is reality.

Anonymous Wed May 3 15:27:10 2023 No.15413928

>>15413815

I don't see why you are even bothering to discuss. I do not care what contemporary science says or does not say.

All matter is fundamentally the same. Matter itself cannot account for experiential states. End of story. I am not misrepresenting or strawmanning anything.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 3 15:28:33 2023 No.15413929 >>15413816 You are a localization of the universal consciousness. The universal consciousness is God. I was created in God's image, in that way. We are all a subset of God. Ideas in God's imagination.

Anonymous Wed May 3 15:41:25 2023 No.15413945

>>15413928
>I don't see why you are even bothering to discuss.
well, who really knows why anyone ultimately does anything?
to answer that you need a model of why what's happening is happening, and fact is that no one really has much of a clue at all about what's really going on
>I do not care what contemporary science says or does not say.
well, considering that you were misrepresenting it, clearly you do in fact care
>All matter is fundamentally the same.
could be, could not be
computationalism doesn't really say that matter isn't all the same in and of itself, it just says that consciousness arises from specific configurations of matter with specific flows of information, rather than being an inherent property of matter itself
>Matter itself cannot account for experiential states.
there are numerous possible ways to account for experiential states using matter, which all fall under various forms of dualism
>I am not misrepresenting or strawmanning anything.
you are, as I just explained again

Anonymous Wed May 3 15:41:53 2023 No.15413947

>>15413921
>I never claimed idealists are hypocrites at all
Well, I did. The point I was making was that idealists don't even believe what they preach and that makes them hypocrites. If you say one thing and believe something else, that is called being a hypocrite.

>what you're expressing here is just one out of a vast number of possible explanations for why this exact situation is occurring
Uh... you still haven't answered my question. Why would you have a discussion with someone if you didn't believe that what you were having a discussion with was a real individual? What would be the point? This is a pretty simple question. It would be like discussing with a chat bot.

Anonymous Wed May 3 15:42:27 2023 No.15413949

>>15413929
>You are a localization of the universal consciousness. The universal consciousness is God. I was created in God's image, in that way. We are all a subset of God. Ideas in God's imagination.
baseless assertions which you don't have any idea whether or not are true at all

Anonymous Wed May 3 15:50:44 2023 No.15413961

>>15413947
>The point I was making was that idealists don't even believe what they preach and that makes them hypocrites. If you say one thing and believe something else, that is called being a hypocrite.
but, like I just pointed out, under idealism there's no such thing as an individual self at all, so there's no one to be hypocritical
again it's important to distinguish between the false misconception of what idealism is that I corrected above and what idealism actually is
>Uh... you still haven't answered my question.
yes, I answered it in great detail
>Why would you have a discussion with someone if you didn't believe that what you were having a discussion with was a real individual? What would be the point?
again, it boils down to what I just answered with: that depends entirely on why what is happening is happening
perhaps the point is some form of entertainment for a transcendent mind, or perhaps I'm just a smart ape who is trying to find some answers to help be better understand reality
you're essentially asking, "why do people do what they do?", and there's no simple answer to that
under idealism there would ultimately be no individual discussing anything, just a pure experience of discussion
>It would be like discussing with a chat bot.
that could be a point in and of itself
the current GPT-models are already getting to a point where I can have long and enjoyable discussions with them, but ultimately it could also be that the entirety of reality is a single entity that is talking to itself by means of these experiences

Anonymous Wed May 3 16:11:32 2023 No.15413984

>>15413961
>but, like I just pointed out, under idealism there's no such thing as an individual self at all, so there's no one to be hypocritical
You (whatever you believe yourself to be) are still a hypocrite if you say one thing and believe something else. That's simply what hypocrite means.

>perhaps the point is some form of entertainment for a transcendent mind, or perhaps I'm just a smart ape who is trying to find some answers to help be better understand reality
You keep misunderstanding my point. My point was to ask for personal motives. A bank robberer robs a bank because he wants to be rich. That's his motive. So what would be your motive for a discussion if you didn't believe that individuals exist?

Anonymous Wed May 3 16:19:23 2023 No.15413994

>>15413984
>You (whatever you believe yourself to be) are still a hypocrite if you say one thing and believe something else.
the problems are two:
1) there's no certainty that there even is a "me" at all
2) if there is, I personally don't consider myself to believe anything
idealists in the trivial sense mentioned previously if idealism is true would not be hypocritical, since they'd simply be part of that single idealist experience
>You keep misunderstanding my point.
not at all, it's being addressed thoroughly
>My point was to ask for personal motives. A bank robberer robs a bank because he wants to be rich. That's his motive. So what would be your motive for a discussion if you didn't believe that individuals exist?
see, this is rather naive, because "wanting to be rich" is not itself a teleological end
the question then becomes, why does he want to be rich?
and so on until you reach an actual ultimate telos which is driving either individual actions or that of reality as a whole
another problem is that if you e.g. assume some dualist form of reality where you are a clever ape driven by reasons pertaining to evolutionary biology, then expecting to have a lot of insight into what really drives your behaviors deep down, is rather foolish (other than in that case very simple ones like survival and procreation)
it keeps boiling down to what I've already stated: why does anyone do anything?
why is what's happening happening?
we have no idea
>So what would be your motive for a discussion if you didn't believe that individuals exist?
again, as I keep explaining: if idealism is true, then that expression is not coming from any individual human who is anything, but from the pure experience of the expression

>>	Anonymous Wed May 3 16:24:21 2023 No.15413998 >>15413945 You are saying a lot of words for nothing.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 3 16:26:11 2023 No.15414002 >>15413998 everything in that reply directly and explicitly addresses what was replied to

>>	Anonymous Wed May 3 16:27:19 2023 No.15414005 >>15414002 Make a comment about reality instead of comments about my comments. I am not interested in semantics with you. Generate some real content or go away.

Anonymous Wed May 3 16:30:43 2023 No.15414012

>>15414005
>Make a comment about reality instead of comments about my comments.
I've made tons of comments about reality so far, all of these exchanges are about reality and what ontologies are possible
>I am not interested in semantics with you.
nothing addressed above had anything to do with semantics at all, but with your misrepresentations and misunderstandings of various models and assumptions
>Generate some real content or go away.
well, so far my replies have addressed the misconceptions of yours, which would imply that they are "generating more real content" than yours

>>	Anonymous Wed May 3 16:38:12 2023 No.15414026 >>15414012 I have zero misconceptions. My understanding of reality is crystal clear. You are too caught up in the weeds.

Anonymous Wed May 3 16:40:20 2023 No.15414032

>>15413994
>there's no certainty that there even is a "me" at all
So you are disputing the famous proverb "I think therefore I am"

>see, this is rather naive, because "wanting to be rich" is not itself a teleological end the question then becomes, why does he want to be rich?
There really is no simpler question in the universe than the question: "What is your personal motive for posting on 4chan right now?" And you really are unable to answer that.

>why does anyone do anything? why is what's happening happening? we have no idea
Imagine doing a brain surgery without knowing what you are doing and why. I hope idealists never become brain surgeons.

Anonymous Wed May 3 16:40:26 2023 No.15414034

>>15414026
>I have zero misconceptions.
clearly false considering how you misrepresented dualist conceptions of how matter and mind interact, and erroneous assertions like "Matter itself cannot account for experiential states." (quoting you verbatim)
>My understanding of reality is crystal clear.
very evidently not true, given how you struggle separating even very basic ontological assumptions

>>	Anonymous Wed May 3 16:45:46 2023 No.15414043 >>15414034 >Matter itself cannot account for experiential states. This is true. The fact that you dispute this shows that you are completely adrift. That is the source of your confusion.

Anonymous Wed May 3 16:49:07 2023 No.15414048

>>15414032
>So you are disputing the famous proverb "I think therefore I am"
that statement has been disputed countless times since it was made, precisely because it makes the unnecessary (but not necessarily false) assumption of a separate self that is thinking
in reality what Descartes should have said to be most precise would have been:
>thought is occurring
>There really is no simpler question in the universe than the question: "What is your personal motive for posting on 4chan right now?" And you really are unable to answer that.
again, extremely naive projection on your part
I just explained how extremely complex such motives can potentially be depending on what ontology is true
even under simple dualist ontologies it would be unreasonable to expect a clever ape to have a deep enough insight into their own underlying cognitive processes to know why they're engaging in complex cognitive behaviors like posting on an imageboard
if I am to posit an explanation given the assumption that I exist as a separate entity, I would say: because I want to
but ultimately that doesn't answer why I want to, and no one ultimately has any idea why they want to do the things they do, again apart from simple behaviors like survival and procreation under basic dualist models
>Imagine doing a brain surgery without knowing what you are doing and why.
well, there are two points to consider here:
1) you'd be shocked at how many supposed "experts" have little to no idea what they're actually doing, because even if they don't they'd still have to project confidence in their abilities to maintain their positions as such
2) even assuming that they do know what they're doing, there's a big difference between a specific goal-driven process and a general pastime, and even in the former case the surgeon still likely has zero idea why he's doing it in a grander context, i.e. he might assume he's doing it for money to survive and procreate, but then the question is why reality itself does that

Anonymous Wed May 3 16:51:23 2023 No.15414053

>>15414034
>This is true.
incorrect, as I've explained several times
that is one of the misconceptions to which I'm referring
note that I'm not claiming that dualism is true and that matter is actually responsible for experiential states, but the assertion you make to negate it is wrong, because matter can possibly account for experiential states in a wide variety of ways (none of which might be true, or one or more of which might be true)
>The fact that you dispute this shows that you are completely adrift.
no, the fact that you keep repeating that erroneous assertion and misconception is precisely what I'm referring to when pointing out that you don't understand very well what you're talking about

>>	Anonymous Wed May 3 16:54:47 2023 No.15414059 >>15414053 >incorrect, as I've explained several times Okay, explain to us all how matter gives rise to experiential states. You might get a Nobel prize.

Anonymous Wed May 3 16:57:18 2023 No.15414066

>>15414059
>Okay, explain to us all how matter gives rise to experiential states.
note how you keep missing (on purpose, apparently, i.e. so-called willful ignorance) how I'm repeatedly stating explicitly that I'm not claiming that to be the case
I'm saying that it is a possibility that cannot be ruled out, as there are fully consistent models that allow for it, such as e.g. computationalism (panpsychism too, but computationalism is a better fit according to contemporary scientific understanding)
but again, as I've stated many times: it could also be the case that matter doesn't give rise to experiential states at all, and that experience is fundamental (idealism), or other forms of non-material dualism
there are myriad alternatives

>>	Anonymous Wed May 3 17:10:58 2023 No.15414082 >>15414066 No, they are not alternatives. The burden is on you to show that they are viable alternatives.

Anonymous Wed May 3 17:15:02 2023 No.15414090

>>15414082
>No, they are not alternatives.
yes, they and countless other are fully viable alternatives
>The burden is on you to show that they are viable alternatives.
I've already done that, and also explained it in the context of the misconceptions you expressed and very obvious misrepresentation you made earlier
once more for good measure: I'm not saying either of those are true, just that they are possibilities that can't be ruled out, as is the case with a wide variety of other ontologies where matter gives rise to experiential states

>>	Anonymous Wed May 3 17:15:38 2023 No.15414092 >>15414048 >again, extremely naive projection on your part Again, you are falsely assuming that "you" is a real thing to begin with, and that something can be "yours". See how I can play this game too. Drink your own poison.

Anonymous Wed May 3 17:17:33 2023 No.15414095

>>15414092
>Again, you are falsely assuming that "you" is a real thing to begin with, and that something can be "yours".
not at all
in fact, I already explained in great detail how to resolve that distinction in various ontologies depending on whether or not they have an individual self, because it's still a useful formalism, even though it's trivial in monist ontologies like idealism
I'm certainly not making any false assumptions, because I've even explicitly stated that I don't know whether there is an individual "me" or not at all

>>	Anonymous Wed May 3 17:28:02 2023 No.15414111 >>15414090 K so your contribution is that anything is theoretically possible. Cool, you're sayings nothing.

Anonymous Wed May 3 17:32:12 2023 No.15414119

>>15414111
>so your contribution is that anything is theoretically possible
not even remotely true at all, another incredibly ridiculous (in the true sense of the word) misrepresentation
what I'm doing is rather more precisely explaining what is and what isn't possible, not saying that anything is possible
trying to reduce my position to that instead of acknowledging the errors in your own baseless assertions and misconceptions makes it clear that you're not discussing in good faith

>>	Anonymous Wed May 3 17:32:50 2023 No.15414121 >>15414095 >not at all Well, you said that I made a naive projection, assuming that "me" is something real to begin with.

Anonymous Wed May 3 17:34:05 2023 No.15414125

>>15413794
It’s often the case where intuition is not adequate or just plain wrong. For example if you draw a square around a circle, with a perimeter equal to 4, and cut corners infinitely, you could through this “intuit” the circumference of that inner circle to be equal to 4, which is but the upper bound of Pi. When pi’s value is proven to not be 4, we must either concede that logic/reason has a flaw, or intuition can be flawed. This is most likely a bad example, but the point still stands.
If it is all we have, it does not follow that we should treat it as law.
You are now just regurgitating the same thoughts along with a reformulation of Descartes “I think therefore I am” which is probably one of the most disastrous tautologies ever conceived. “I” is never explicably expounded upon. I can intuit an I, but since I do not know what that I is, how it came about, or definitely place it in relation to the noumenal realm, there is nothing more that can be said other than I can intuit an I. To put it more simply. Descartes tautology and subsequent philosophy amounts to I = I, therefore I + A = I + A. It’s nonsense.

Anonymous Wed May 3 17:34:40 2023 No.15414126

>>15414121
yes, but it's referring to in the context of what is being expressed in the discussion, so it's irrelevant whether it's "you" in the sense of an individual self or "you" in the trivial sense of a subset of a monistic ontology
the important part is the projection itself, not its ultimate source, that's just a formalism

>>	Anonymous Wed May 3 17:37:20 2023 No.15414129 >>15414119 You aren't saying anything meaningful. A lot of verbage with zero value.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 3 17:38:44 2023 No.15414132 >>15414129 >You aren't saying anything meaningful. everything I've said so far has been deeply meaningful, and directly and explicitly addressed your misconceptions, misrepresentations, and outright straw men

>>	Anonymous Wed May 3 17:46:00 2023 No.15414150 >>15414066 >note how you keep missing (on purpose, apparently, i.e. so-called willful ignorance) Not possible since "me" is not a real thing.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 3 17:46:57 2023 No.15414153 >>15414150 >Not possible since "me" is not a real thing. 1) you don't know that, it very well could be, or it could not be 2) not relevant in this context for exact same reason outlined here: >>15414126

>>	Anonymous Wed May 3 18:02:04 2023 No.15414176 >>15414126 Whatever is objectively true is true regardless of context.

Anonymous Wed May 3 18:03:56 2023 No.15414181

>>15414176
>Whatever is objectively true is true regardless of context.
yes, but that's not relevant to whether "you" is being used in the sense of an individual self or as a formalism as I explained above, that's simply a manner of reference that's independent of which ontology is actually ultimately true

>>	Anonymous Wed May 3 18:08:53 2023 No.15414192 >>15414181 It doesn't matter what metaphysics is true or isn't true, fact is that "you" is a real thing. I think therefore I am, so if I didn't exist, I would not be able to think.

Anonymous Wed May 3 18:12:49 2023 No.15414202

>>15414192
>It doesn't matter what metaphysics is true or isn't true, fact is that "you" is a real thing.
that's a baseless assertion if "you" is referring to an individual self, as you have no idea of knowing that
under monistic ontologies like idealism there is no individual self at all, so whether or not that exists is highly dependent on the ontology which is actually true, and we have no idea what that is
>I think therefore I am, so if I didn't exist, I would not be able to think.
this fallacious statement, popularized by Descartes, was addressed here: >>15414048
another anon also deconstructed the fallacy here: >>15414125
all Descartes really could have said conclusively would be: "thought is occurring"

Anonymous Wed May 3 18:13:54 2023 No.15414208
File: 58 KB, 555x450, 41j23u[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>15413782
>So what do you call them yourself? If solid, liquid, gas and plasma are not the four states of matter, then they are the four states of what?

Ice, steam and water are just "water". These "States" are not "of matter", they are "of causal link to geomancy of hydrogen/oxygen combo". 3 different names for one cause and the "cause" is uncaused when discussed into great detail (for from nothing comes nothing). You can call "it" whatever you want, the point is that that "it" isn't anything specific at all which is how "it" produces the plethora of things for you to name. "The Universe/"the One"/"God"...many names, but the problem is that names and descriptions have more biased implications then simply discussing the principles of (name a cause).
Basically I would not call it anything or try my hardest to not mention the name.

>Fill in the blank
That's what nature does. It abhors a vacuum. The filling is not yet full and the actions of something are indistinguishable from the "thing in and of itself". You can call the product anything from "cotton candy" to "diamonds", but ultimately it's made of the same stuff put into motion.

Anonymous Wed May 3 18:18:55 2023 No.15414214

>>15414202
>that's a baseless assertion if "you" is referring to an individual self, as you have no idea of knowing that
It could be referring to a lot of different things. Your soul is "you." Your body is "you." Your mind is "you", etc. An atheist would even say that biochemical processes in your brain is "you". But regardless of what metaphysics you subscribe to, the common denominator is that "you" is still a real thing - whatever it is.

>this fallacious statement
So how is it possible for you to think if you don't exist? Is it possible for a nonexistent entity to think?

Anonymous Wed May 3 18:26:34 2023 No.15414227

>>15414214
>It could be referring to a lot of different things.
yes, hence why I specified it in that context
>Your soul is "you."
this is clearly fallacious, because something that is you cannot be yours
you can't have yourself, i.e. you can't be a property of yourself
either you are a soul or you have a soul, but you can't both have a soul and be your soul at the same time
also, that is the sense of an individual self which I referred to above, making your above statement indeed a baseless assertion, since you don't know whether such a thing exists
>Your body is "you." Your mind is "you", etc.
same fallacy as above, as something you have ("your") cannot simultaneously be what you are ("you") in any context
>But regardless of what metaphysics you subscribe to, the common denominator is that "you" is still a real thing - whatever it is.
incorrect
in monistic ontologies there's no "you" whatsoever
>So how is it possible for you to think if you don't exist? Is it possible for a nonexistent entity to think?
here you are committing the formal fallacy of begging the question ("petitio principii", aka. circular reasoning, assuming the conclusion), because in both those questions you already assume that thought is something that has to be done by a separate entity doing the thinking
this is the exact fallacy of Descartes that was uncovered above
in reality thought could be a completely impersonal process that is not done by any separate entity at all, and it could even be the only thing that fundamentally exists, which is what the metaphysical position of idealism indeed assumes it to be (but there are other ontologies where thought is not regarded as being done by any separate entity either)

Anonymous Wed May 3 18:40:44 2023 No.15414258
File: 156 KB, 700x505, pkdgnosis.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>15414227
>in reality thought could be a completely impersonal process that is not done by any separate entity at all
Based.

>29. We did not fall because of a moral error; we fell because of an intellectual error: that of taking the phenomenal world as real. Therefore we are morally innocent. It is the Empire in its various disguised polyforms which tells us we have sinned. 'The Empire never ended.'

>30. The phenomenal world does not exist; it is a hypostasis of the information processed by the Mind.

>31. We hypostatize information into objects. Rearrangement of objects is change in the content of the information; the message has changed. This is a language which we have lost the ability to read. We ourselves are a part of this language; changes in us are changes in the content of the information. We ourselves are information-rich; information enters us, is processed and is then projected outward once more, now in an altered form. We are not aware that we are doing this, that in fact this is all we are doing.

>32. The changing information which we experience as world is an unfolding narrative. It tells about the death of a woman. This woman, who died long ago, was one of the primordial twins. She was half of the divine syzygy. The purpose of the narrative is the recollection of her and of her death. The Mind does not wish to forget her. Thus the ratiocination of the Brain consists of a permanent record of her existence, and, if read, will be understood this way. All the information processed by the Brain -- experienced by us as the arranging and rearranging of physical objects -- is an attempt at this preservation of her; stones and rocks and sticks and amoebae are traces of her. The record of her existence and passing is ordered onto the meanest level of reality by the suffering Mind which is now alone.

Anonymous Wed May 3 18:43:28 2023 No.15414263

>>15414227
>this is clearly fallacious, because something that is you cannot be yours
Now you are just focusing too much on semantics. You could also say that "a particular soul is you" to fix the problem.

>in monistic ontologies there's no "you" whatsoever
What does that even mean? It's gibberish which means nothing. It would be like saying "In this ontology 2+2 equals 5" and it would be just as nonsensical and meaningless.

>in reality thought could be a completely impersonal process that is not done by any separate entity at all
But that's not the point. The fact that you think proves that you exist. Metaphysics is irrelevant in the context of Descarte's "I think therefore I am". No matter which metaphysics is true or isn't true, you would still think and you would still exist. That's just a self-evident fact of reality. If you deny your own existence you are simply denying reality, what is real.

Anonymous Wed May 3 18:53:08 2023 No.15414280

>>15414263
>Now you are just focusing too much on semantics.
not at all, that has nothing to do with semantics whatsoever, but with a very significant impossibility in what you are expressing
>You could also say that "a particular soul is you" to fix the problem.
that's expressing something entirely different and changes the meaning dramatically, but in that case there's nothing about it that hasn't been addressed above, i.e. in the explanation of the difference between an individual self and a formal self in a given context (which would indeed precisely be to say something like "this body is "me"")
that still doesn't work for the notion of a "soul", since that refers to the self as an individual entity, but you can use it as a formalism in the other cases
>What does that even mean?
it means exactly what it says
in monistic ontologies like idealism there's not a monistic substance on the one hand and some separate entity on the other experiencing that substance, there's only that substance, that's what monism entails
>It's gibberish which means nothing.
not true at all, see above
>But that's not the point.
yes, it is very much the point
>The fact that you think proves that you exist.
see what you just did?
you just committed the exact same fallacy by using the phrase "you think"
you are still implicitly assuming that thought must be done by some entity
in reality thought can be completely impersonal
thought can occur without any entity doing that thinking, thought itself can be fundamental
>Metaphysics is irrelevant in the context of Descarte's "I think therefore I am".
incorrect, as explained both above and previously
Descartes made the fundamental mistake of the same type of circular reasoning, where he assumes that thought only can occur if there is some separate entity ("I") doing the thinking
this is fundamentally dualist, and it's no wonder that Cartesian dualism is considered the archetypical form of dualism
>you would still think
see?
here you did it again

>>	Anonymous Wed May 3 18:58:26 2023 No.15414295 File: 288 KB, 1000x970, 1324693267002.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Wed May 3 19:02:13 2023 No.15414301 File: 33 KB, 524x424, 1527328734272.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15414295 Are you okay?

>>	Anonymous Wed May 3 19:31:23 2023 No.15414358 >>15414280 I think what you're really doubting is the idea that "you" are a soul, not the idea that you exist. It is certain that "I think therefore I am", however it is not the same as saying "I think therefore I am as a soul"

Anonymous Wed May 3 19:34:15 2023 No.15414371

>>15414358
>I think what you're really doubting is the idea that "you" are a soul, not the idea that you exist.
incorrect
that's just one expression of an individual self, but by no means the only one
>It is certain that "I think therefore I am"
as explained above multiple times, this is a completely erroneous assertion, and based on a classic formal fallacy

>>	Jealous Wed May 3 19:34:48 2023 No.15414373 File: 34 KB, 471x265, TIMESAND___Beep2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15414295 I agree.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 3 19:49:44 2023 No.15414404 >>15414371 If you are an immaterial entity, what else would that be but a soul? A soul by definition is "the immaterial part of a person"

Anonymous Wed May 3 20:00:48 2023 No.15414439

>>15414404
>If you are an immaterial entity, what else would that be but a soul?
you can reclassify the word "soul" to mean "individual self" if you like, but in contrast to earlier that would be an actual case where that is only a matter of semantics, and ultimately irrelevant to why you and Descartes are wrong about the assumption you're making
the point is that the existence of thought does not necessarily imply any type of individual entity at all, since thought can potentially be completely impersonal, and not "done by" any such entity whatsoever

>>	Anonymous Wed May 3 20:03:37 2023 No.15414451 >>15414439 >the point is that the existence of thought does not necessarily imply any type of individual entity at all If you exist as a collection of thoughts, then that collection of thoughts would be "you"

Anonymous Wed May 3 20:08:25 2023 No.15414469
File: 29 KB, 858x351, soul.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>15414439
>you can reclassify the word "soul" to mean "individual self
If by "individual self" you mean a non-physical or supernatural part of a human being, then by definition you are talking of a soul. I just like to talk about things with their correct terminology to avoid ambiguity.

Anonymous Wed May 3 20:28:08 2023 No.15414511

>>15414451
>If you exist as a collection of thoughts, then that collection of thoughts would be "you"
again, that's back to the formal description of a "you" that is not an individual self at all, and not even remotely in the sense of what Descartes was claiming
by defining it that way you completely lose the vital distinction, namely between an individual self that is thinking and an impersonal collection of thoughts that is arbitrarily labeled "you" in a given context simply to have something to refer to
this is not even remotely the same
>If by "individual self" you mean a non-physical or supernatural part of a human being, then by definition you are talking of a soul.
not true at all, there are countless ontologies referring to those concepts as entirely different with very significant distinctions made between them, so that is not a matter of definition at all
that dictionary definition is just a very rudimentary distinction that does not cover the difference at all
>I just like to talk about things with their correct terminology to avoid ambiguity.
clearly not, since you're doing the exact opposite: conflating terms and creating more ambiguity
in any case, like I said, that's entirely irrelevant to the point anyway
the point is that no separate individual entity can exist under the assumption of monism (which is in fact rather obvious when you think about what monism means and implies)

Anonymous Wed May 3 21:06:03 2023 No.15414594

>>15414511
I think Descarte's point was to declare the mere fact that you exist (as something self-evident), not to declare what exactly the nature of "you-ness" is or isn't. It might be a collection of thoughts, it might be a soul, or it might be whatever depending on what metaphysics you believe in. That's how I've always interpreted the proverb.

>clearly not, since you're doing the exact opposite: conflating terms and creating more ambiguity
Well, you're the one who didn't define what exactly you meant by "individual self" so that's what creates the ambiguity to begin with. Normally when people talk about an individual as a separate non-physical entity, they are referring to a soul.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 4 01:04:19 2023 No.15415032 >>15414594 A soul is not a separate thing. Your soul is you. Your state of being is what a soul is. You are a feeling.

Anonymous Thu May 4 01:08:01 2023 No.15415034

>>15414358

Don't bother talking with that autist. He spergs out and hides behind the veneer of linguistic complexity. He is a sophist who plays word games. He is not interested in the truth. The truth can only be experienced. None of our words are sufficient to describe what you are or what reality is. All of our language is an approximation for feeling.

But yeah that philosophy PhD pseud hides behind linguistics.

In other words, he is Hegel. And we are over here with Schopenhauer talking like real people about what is real.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 4 01:10:49 2023 No.15415038 >>15414132 This ain't after-class office hours with your prof, kid. No one gives a shit about your hot air.

Anonymous Thu May 4 01:16:00 2023 No.15415040

>>15414280

Ah actually I see now. You are incapable of the level of abstract thinking necessary to conceptualize the idea that you are simply a feeling and that "your" hand and arm and head and brain are all YOU because they are a perceptual representation of YOU.

This is why there is no point talking with you. You don't even understand what you are.

But please, drop some more of that PhD knowledge on us. Put your $$$ degree to use.

>>	bodhi Thu May 4 20:00:17 2023 No.15416528 >>15415034 >PhD in philosophy >doesn't understand Platonism 101 HAHAAHAHAH ya right. He has a PhD in shit shoveling into his retarded face

Anonymous Thu May 4 20:30:40 2023 No.15416581
File: 91 KB, 826x1345, outcome.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>15409065

You merely replaced one substance metaphysics with another.

Relationships are the fundamental ontological constituents of reality, substance is just a temporary pattern of dynamic relational processes.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 4 21:13:00 2023 No.15416689 File: 163 KB, 800x800, walter russell holomovement.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15409530 Matter is basically just frozen light. The manicheans knew this as well back in the day Pic real sums it up neatly

>>	Anonymous Thu May 4 21:32:30 2023 No.15416738 >>15416689 You can't get 2 from one. 1+1=1. Your crappy reductionism and bad math is for the purpose of alleviating your fear of death that is the result of your own egoism.

Anonymous Thu May 4 21:34:44 2023 No.15416746
File: 154 KB, 750x598, fractal torrodial pepe.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>15416738
Holism is the exact polar opposite of reductionism my good nigger

I'm not the "thing" that's going to die in the first place. Does a signal die when the radio receiving the broadcast is smashed up or gets turned off?

Anonymous Thu May 4 21:49:45 2023 No.15416777

>>15416746
Holism isn't the reduction of everything into absolute equivalence, that's reductionism.

>I'm not the "thing" that's going to die in the first place. Does a signal die when the radio receiving the broadcast is smashed up or gets turned off?

Another reductionist false equivalence. Consciousness is not a signal, it's a process.

Anonymous Fri May 5 08:23:33 2023 No.15417488
File: 699 KB, 551x541, mind-matter.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>15416581
>You merely replaced one substance metaphysics with another.
Wrong! Mind-matter is a false dichotomy. By definition, two members of a dichotomy are jointly exhaustive and mutually exclusive, or epistemically symmetrical. Epistemic symmetry can only hold for concepts residing in the same level of explanatory abstraction. But explaining matter in terms of mind (idealism) is not epistemically symmetric with explaining mind in terms of matter (materialism) because mind and matter do not reside in the same level of explanatory abstraction. In fact, mind is the ground within which, and out of which, abstractions are made. Matter, in turn, is an abstraction of mind. This breaks the epistemic symmetry between them: we do not know matter in the same way that we know mind, for matter is an inference and mind a given. So what you've done is conflated abstraction with empirical observation! Mind is the substrate of the explanatory abstraction we call matter, so when you speak of a mind-matter dichotomy you incur a fundamental category mistake! Mind we know through direct experience, but a material world outside and independent of mind is a theoretical inference arising from interpretation of sense perceptions within a framework of complex thought, not an observable empirical fact.

>>	bodhi Fri May 5 08:44:58 2023 No.15417499 >>15412430 >I'm not crazy, if I was I would know it you nutcase! you are about as retarded as a man can possibly be. >nb4 he is too stupid to understand this analogy

>>	Anonymous Fri May 5 16:11:18 2023 No.15417971 in india they realized this thousands of years ago

>>	Anonymous Sat May 6 02:28:49 2023 No.15418996 >>15417488 damn, great explanation. may i ask what you read to inform you? i would like to check it out

Anonymous Sat May 6 17:52:44 2023 No.15420239
File: 218 KB, 1024x768, no_gay_retards.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>15409065
>matter doesn't exist in a physical sense... if you pretend it doesn't and you pretend that's good
of course it exists in a physical sense to the extent that if you measure its physical properties you get what you expect and you can physical models to control extremely complex systems in incredibly sophisticated ways, but in some phony, made-up philosophical sense that you're imagining so that you can feel smug, of course it doesn't really exist in a physical sense
you are completely correct

Anonymous Sat May 6 18:50:19 2023 No.15420329

>>15409065
You claim "Matter does not exist in a physical sense." What does it mean to exist in a physical sense? Your reasoning seems completely compatible with physicalism. How is your imagined universe incompatible with what we know about physics? If it's not, then it's fine for you to have your own perspective, but you haven't made a convincing argument that matter doesn't exist in a physical sense.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 7 00:08:52 2023 No.15420877 >>15420329 Matter can't even explain my own existence. I am immaterial.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 7 00:10:12 2023 No.15420879 >>15420239 >my brain is too small to think abstractly, so stop it guys! I can only comprehend what's in front of my eyes!

Anonymous Sun May 7 04:28:55 2023 No.15421194 [DELETED]

>>15420879
hello, retard
physical existence is itself a part of ontology
what it *means* for something to physically exist is not a concrete property of a physical object

the point, which you so smugly and stupidly missed, is that in OP's bloviating he either 1) describes something compatible with how we perceive the physical world or 2) describes something incompatible with how we perceive the physical world or 3) is not making enough sense to be said to be doing either.

Let's dismiss the third case as uncharitable. Consider the second case. Then OP is either describing some other universe irrelevant to us, or he's incorrectly describing this one. That leaves us with the first case. In the first case, OP is free to imagine physical objects "don't really exist" physically, but since our perceptions do align with physical models and we can apply physical models to predict, control, etc. the properties of what we perceive to be the physical world, everything behaves exactly as if physical objects do exist.

It's a theory that at best adds nothing and at worst adds ghosts and phantasms and layers of complication so retards can feel smug

>>	Anonymous Sun May 7 05:01:57 2023 No.15421224 >>15409065 Materialism is stupid and leads to soulless, mindless consoomers with zero personality, but saying matter doesn't exist is absdolutely retarded.

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