The Utter Failure of Materialism

File: 21 KB, 200x300, 1683619659810079.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

The Utter Failure of Materialism Anonymous Sun Jun 11 22:34:00 2023 No.15495711 [Reply] [Original]

There is not a SINGLE conscious experience that Materialists can explain purely in terms of material/physical entities.

Take the taste of salt. A materialist can not give me the precise neural activity that must be the taste of salt, and could not be the smell of sulfur, the burn of a hot stove, the taste of chocolate, or any other conscious experience.

This is not limited to the taste of salt. There is not a single conscious experience they can explain. Not a one.

That is a remarkable failure.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 11 22:35:16 2023 No.15495714 not science or math

Anonymous Sun Jun 11 22:38:12 2023 No.15495719

>>15495711
>There is not a SINGLE conscious experience that Materialists can explain purely in terms of material/physical entities.
All evidence has been physical. Inductively, each are equally highly likely to be explicable by physical mechanism the same as literally everything else we have ever discovered.
>muh personal incredulity thoe
boo hoo not an argument

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 11 22:40:22 2023 No.15495721 >>15495719 >highly likely cite quantitative analysis please. beliefs have no place in science.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 11 22:41:51 2023 No.15495722 >>15495721 >cite quantitative analysis please. I did. Every discovery so far has been explicable by physical mechanism and predicted and explained by theory of physical mechanism. The quantity is 100% of all discoveries.

Anonymous Sun Jun 11 22:42:38 2023 No.15495725

>>15495711
reminder that idealism is just a type of simulation theory.

idealists hate this truth because it strips the pretentious woo-fluff they like to dress up their stories with and reveals it for what it really is.

ok, this could all be a dream...now what. you're still stuck in said dream. you're still a helpless worm.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 11 22:42:47 2023 No.15495727 >>15495722 you believe in God too don't you.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 11 22:44:20 2023 No.15495731 >>15495727 >you believe in God too don't you. Not an argument. Also, no.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 11 22:46:11 2023 No.15495733 >>15495731 you do, the immaturity of your arguments reveals such.

Anonymous Sun Jun 11 22:47:59 2023 No.15495734

>>15495722
Incorrect. Why should objective reality be accessible to you? Don't you believe you were shit out of a queefing monkey vag? No, it is more likely that your insistence on physical reality is just incompetent jibber jabber, riddled with inconsistencies and devoid of meaning. Your own subjective certainty binds you in a comfortable prison so you may rest easy at night.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 11 22:48:02 2023 No.15495735 >>15495733 Thanks for directly revealing that you're a troll.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 11 22:49:21 2023 No.15495740 >>15495734 >Incorrect. The entirety of all scientific discovery says I'm right. All you have is cope.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 11 22:49:53 2023 No.15495741 >>15495711 awareness is a field modality, all other suff like you intellect is a super exposed lie.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 11 22:50:08 2023 No.15495742 >>15495735 >y- you'reee a trolll so i'm r- righttt!!!!! oh how i wish for you to find happiness. belief in God as Science isn't gonna get you there anon... poor lil chud

Anonymous Sun Jun 11 23:00:44 2023 No.15495752

>>15495740
>no evidence
>no argument
Nice assertion, queefing monkey discharge. Hardly even worth addressing this hodge-podge npc. What should I expect? It seems like the chances of his randomly bouncing particles being in sync are too low, no IQ present. Too bad, I wonder how many humans slip from consciousness into NPC state forever.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 11 23:02:19 2023 No.15495753 >>15495752 anon stop he's gonna khs at this rate. never seen a chud embarassed so easily

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 11 23:07:30 2023 No.15495755 >>15495711 All observable human behavior can be explained by materialistic processes. There is no evidence that conscious even exists, so why would materialists need to explain it.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 11 23:09:46 2023 No.15495757 >>15495755 >There is no evidence that conscious even exists Please tell us what it feels like to be completely devoid of free will. I've never met an NPC before.

Anonymous Sun Jun 11 23:19:30 2023 No.15495769

>>15495757
Consciousness has nothing to do with free will. I claim that I have consciousness, not that you can ever verify my claims. But consciousness does not mean free will, my physical brain dictates every decision I will ever make, my subjective experience has no control over what I do, it can only observe.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 11 23:20:50 2023 No.15495770 >>15495769 Fascinating. I'm glad I don't have your disability, whatever it is.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 11 23:21:21 2023 No.15495771 >>15495752 >Nice assertion No assertion. Inference from fact. You're still dodging with insults and non-arguments. Cope and seethe harder

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 11 23:28:20 2023 No.15495778 >>15495770 So you are saying drugs or brain damage won't alter your behavior?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 11 23:30:44 2023 No.15495779 >>15495778 I'm saying that I feel sorry for you but I hope you get better.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 11 23:35:24 2023 No.15495785 >>15495770 i see you are claiming not to have a brain

Anonymous Sun Jun 11 23:36:07 2023 No.15495786

>>15495771
No stated fact, no listed assumptions, no inference possible, no argument listed. A baseless assertion, but an assertion nonetheless. It is strange that you believe your own beliefs are insults my little monkey afterbirth. It seems that you can't even keep basic internal consistency without veering off on wide-eye course of delusion. Are you saying you don't think you are the better part of a sheboon water sac? Or are the little bouncing particles in the room right now?

Anonymous Sun Jun 11 23:39:21 2023 No.15495789

>>15495786
>No stated fact
My apologies anon, I did not realize you could not read.
1. all discoveries have been explained thus far physically
2. Therefore, anything you think "can't be explained" or hasn't been explained also as likely to be physically explicable.
keep running copeatron

Anonymous Sun Jun 11 23:46:36 2023 No.15495795

>>15495789
Now are you going to continue whining about being wadded phlegm from a primate cock coozie? Or will you admit that is also something you believe?
I would like to point out that there is no such thing as a physical explanation, as explanations are done with words. Maybe you mean in some isomorphic sense and referring to mental correspondences between ideas and appearances. This seems contradictory to assumption one as such correspondences have not been explained physically. And considering your random particles could just be temporarily in alignment with some understanding doesn't really say much about reality at all.
Where are logic and mathematics stored physically by the way?

Anonymous Sun Jun 11 23:54:21 2023 No.15495805

>>15495795
>I would like to point out that there is no such thing as a physical explanation, as explanations are done with words
Physically explicable. Words describing relations and predictions of physical things by physical mechanism. Category error 1.
>Maybe you mean in some isomorphic sense and referring to mental correspondences between ideas and appearances.
Models are maps to territories. Congratulations you passed philosophy 101.
>This seems contradictory to assumption one as such correspondences have not been explained physically.
Impossibility of the contrary. If correspondences were impossible the world could not be coherent, and therefore we could not be having this conversation. Preempting your bullshit, this is also a description of physical mechanism and physical forces, same as every model ever. In this case with basic logic glossed over from your recent philo101 course.
>And considering your random particles could just be temporarily in alignment with some understanding doesn't really say much about reality at all.
Reification fallacy. The possibility of a thing does not make it actual. You do not discount "it is reasonable to infer the next apple in a bag always having given red apples will be a red apple" by claiming "but it is possible that it will be a blue buick". You have a burden of proof, and merely imagining possibility is not evidence to discount the evidence from inference.
>Where are logic and mathematics stored physically by the way?
The same place all semantics are. In your brain. Again, you're committing a reification fallacy.

Anonymous Mon Jun 12 00:21:04 2023 No.15495830

>>15495805
You have not explained anything, but instead relish in more assertions like the sweet amniotic sac of pommeled primate pussy.
It must be the little particles whispering in your ear, telling you the territories are real. Strange, why do you listen to these pixies?
What are the physical mechanisms and physical forces describing correspondence? Or will you just assume those exist as well via assumption two?
Are you actually arguing that particles don't randomly move? Chance alignments necessarily follow from that.
So if logic and mathematics and semantics are all stored in my brain, how did others discover it before I was born?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 12 00:34:06 2023 No.15495841 >>15495830 >You have not explained anything So you claim, yet nothing in your reply deals with the explanations. I've no interest dealing with your random nonsense. Address the points as given.

Anonymous Mon Jun 12 00:55:28 2023 No.15495856

For example, there is no explanation in English culture (Materialism) for what Harm is.
You literally cannot define it because Harm can only be possible if you can define purpose non-arbitrarily, which obviously materialists/naturalists/darwinists cant do.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 12 00:59:32 2023 No.15495859 >not a SINGLE piece of evidence the salt

Anonymous Mon Jun 12 01:31:57 2023 No.15495877

>>15495722

The fact that you have not been able to say anything precise about the consciousness in which you hypothesize about physicality makes physicalism highly unlikely.

Moreover, Donald Hoffman has shown that if you take Evolution by natural selection seriously, the probability that your perceptions show any truth of reality is 0; these are known as his Fitness Beats Truth Theorems.

Thus, your successful predictions using physicality are then almost certainly successful predictions of a false reality conjured up to us by Evolution.

Succesfully predicting the behavior of a false world presented to us does not score points for the underlying metaphysics.

Imagine being a scientist stuck in some video game that behaves nothing like the world as. Imagine he can predict the behavior within this false reality. What a fool he would be to think he knows something out the world outside the game.

You're that fool.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 12 01:32:00 2023 No.15495878 >>15495841 pajeet

Anonymous Mon Jun 12 02:12:31 2023 No.15495906

>>15495877
You still haven't addressed the inductive argument. Try again. I don't care about your dodging and evading, so address the argument given.
1. all discoveries have been explained thus far physically
2. Therefore, anything you think "can't be explained" or hasn't been explained also as likely to be physically explicable.
keep running copeasaurus

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 12 02:12:45 2023 No.15495907 >>15495711 Correct. Every post against this will be a cope and seethe.

Anonymous Mon Jun 12 02:17:49 2023 No.15495910
File: 80 KB, 850x400, 1680803271190513.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>15495906

I would call this a cope, but you're too unintelligent to even recognize what this discussion is about. Your entire post assumes your conclusion; i.e. that matter exists outside of consciousness. Because you are starting from an incorrect and unproven premise, we will disregard your post and whatever other drivel you come up with based on your presupposed conclusions.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 12 02:25:57 2023 No.15495917 >>15495910 >O-OH YEAH W-W-WELL YOU CAN'T KNOW ANYTHING SO I'M RIGHT >muh solipsism lmao every time soiface harder why don't you

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 12 02:41:32 2023 No.15495926 File: 47 KB, 427x604, mirrors.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15495711 I know right! I've been thinking about this a bit too. I find it to be quite cringe how hard they have been clinging on to these ideas.

Anonymous Mon Jun 12 02:43:06 2023 No.15495927

>>15495906

I have.

Donald Hoffman has shown with his Fitness Beats Truth Theorems that our conscious perceptions almost certainly do not reflect the reality outside of ourselves.

Thus, all physical scientific models are models of a false reality, like succesfully predicting the behavior while stuck in a game like Pong.

You're not saying anything about reality outside your conscious perceptions using space, time or physical objects.

Anonymous Mon Jun 12 02:52:40 2023 No.15495937

>>15495927
>Donald Hoffman has shown with his Fitness Beats Truth Theorems that our conscious perceptions almost certainly do not reflect the reality outside of ourselves.
We don't rely on our perceptions to directly know truth. Try again.
>Thus, all physical scientific models are models of a false reality
They work. Your bullshit does not. 0 for 2
>You're not saying anything about reality outside your conscious perceptions
You either accept that science works or you retreat back to solipsism. If the latter, by your own standard I can just say you're wrong because I say so. 0 for 3

Cling harder to your cope maybe it helps you sleep at night but it's nothing but a cope

Anonymous Mon Jun 12 03:16:59 2023 No.15495961

>>15495937

>They work. Your bullshit does not. 0 for 2.

They work to predict the behavior of a false world presented to you as I've explained and you continue to ignore.

Someone stuck in Pong can predict Pong's behavior, but that person has no understaning of the world outside that game.

You don't actually have an understanding of reality using physical models because space, time physical objects, brains, etc are not in the observer independent world. They don't exist "out there".

>We don't rely on our perceptions to directly know truth. Try again.

You need your perceptions to show you at least some of the observer independent world if you want to make the claim that physical models that rely on space, time, and physical objects like brains are saying something about reality. Unfortunately for you, concepts like space, time and brains are not actually out there as shown by Donald Hoffman.

>You either accept that science works

Science works to model a false world presented to us as a result of evolution by natural selection.

Anonymous Mon Jun 12 03:26:07 2023 No.15495974
File: 393 KB, 745x416, Screenshot(10).png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>15495711
Either way you're fucked.
You want idealism to triumph because you're sheltered and naive. You haven't seen what I've seen. You've never worked in a black city hospital. If there's more to it than this, then its infinitely more horrible than whatever it is we're getting a taste of right now.

You better fucking hope the materialists are right and this all ends some day.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 12 03:35:53 2023 No.15495986 File: 50 KB, 734x757, 1680465142098206.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15495711 Everything is atoms because... It just is, okay?!

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 12 03:40:13 2023 No.15495994 >>15495917 >doesn't know what solipsism is but uses the word anyways Keep going, this is funny.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 12 03:55:10 2023 No.15496007 >>15495937 You've gone quite. Something wrong?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 12 04:00:10 2023 No.15496011 >>15495711 Consciousness is just an epiphenomenon of the brain baka

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 12 04:32:01 2023 No.15496033 >>15495974 It could be bad, it could be good. I dunno. I don't see a reason to lean either way.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 12 04:32:13 2023 No.15496035 >>15496011 >he doesn't know Should we tell him?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 12 04:41:04 2023 No.15496048 File: 428 KB, 1242x1129, 1686544818136.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >materialism Can't explain consciousness. >idealism Can't explain physics. Dualism is the only rational choice.

Anonymous Mon Jun 12 04:46:30 2023 No.15496051

all of that spiritual stuff is encoded into 3D information. you need to accept reality even if it goes against what you BELIEVE in. you have no choice, such is the nature of reality. I mean you can choose to believe whatever you want, doesn't affect reality the least bit.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 12 05:19:11 2023 No.15496088 >>15495711 Emperor has no clothes. Materialism BTFO.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 12 05:20:40 2023 No.15496092 File: 9 KB, 480x360, mfw materialist being materialistic near me.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15496048 >Dualism Weird way to spell nondualism, but okay

Anonymous Mon Jun 12 05:23:19 2023 No.15496096

Idealism can't "explain" ideas without recurring to circular reasoning.
>Where do ideas come from?
>From ideas
>But where do those ideas come from?
>From other ideas
>Where do all ideas ultimately come from?
>From uhhhhh God or something
>But isn't God just an idea?
>[ERROR 404 APPROPRIATE RESPONSE NOT FOUND].

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 12 05:29:31 2023 No.15496103 >>15495910 >Your entire post assumes your conclusion; i.e. that matter exists outside of consciousness If it didn't then nothing would exist in the first place, retard, you should start namefagging so I could filter your retarded posts

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 12 05:31:47 2023 No.15496107 >>15495910 Therefore consciousness is just as believably real as chakras, qi, and feng shui.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 12 05:40:57 2023 No.15496120 >>15495711 Nore can you outside ontologicaly saturated framework which is built on preassumptions and interpretations. So what?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 12 05:44:18 2023 No.15496128 >>15496103 >>15496096 >>15495974 Anons, dont reply anymore. Whole point of this thread is narcissistic energy drain. There is not a single pure intentio by op.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 12 05:51:15 2023 No.15496134 >>15495711 Inb4 Conscioussnes is only thing you know. Thus let me tell you how from only that one fact we can draw 100 conclusions about how God and 2nd reallity exist.

Anonymous Mon Jun 12 06:16:32 2023 No.15496160

>>15495711
Yes they can, its just a neural network state, the only problem is that your shitty mind can't keep track of large sequences like the number of neurons and the precise connections and on/off states necessary to calculate the taste associated with a molecular configuration from the olfactory nerves.

I bet you can't even count out loud without looking at anything from 159,899,987,798,918,987,136,749,852,167,069,971,926,638,698,023,365,987,897,718,987,102,368,226,236,698,781,269,429 to 159,899,987,798,918,987,136,749,852,167,069,971,926,638,698,023,365,987,897,718,987,102,368,226,236,698,781,269,438 without losing track of the count, you fucking retard.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 12 06:19:02 2023 No.15496164 >>15496103 Nothing does exist, I am holding nothing right now. Noting is empirically observable with every classical sense by seeing darkness, feeling numbness, hearing silence, smelling odorlessness, and tasting blandness.

Anonymous Mon Jun 12 06:53:26 2023 No.15496216

>>15496164
No you opened your hand and held it up

>darkness
Oh nonononono
>feeling numbness, hearing silence, smelling odorlessness, and tasting blandness.
OH NONONONONOMON

Anon nothingnes means nothingnes...
It implys absence of something whichy darkness and feelings are. There is no "no feeling" and darkness isn just absence of light, not the things light interacts with.

Anonymous Mon Jun 12 07:00:09 2023 No.15496223

>>15496216
>No you opened your hand and held it up
I am holding nothing, why are you trying to say I am holding something when I am clearly holding nothing, are you a stupid person trying to argue in bad faith without realizing how stupid you seem?

>Anon nothingnes means nothingnes...
Yea and every instrument can measure nothing within it domain and every sense you have directly sense nothing, it is empirically observable.

>There is no "no feeling"
Its called numbness, numbnuts.

>darkness isn just absence of light
I know, blind people see darkness all the time even though there is light all around them because they always see nothing.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 12 07:06:13 2023 No.15496242 >>15496223 >Refuses to have rational discussion Ill just leave you with one question, How do you know numbness if you never felt it;) Have a god day anon:)

Anonymous Mon Jun 12 07:11:54 2023 No.15496262

>>15496242
>How do you know numbness if you never felt it;)
You don't, but you do know what it is like to feel and you do notice when you don't feel anything and the word for feeling nothing is numbness, but it makes sense why you are so confused since you have never experienced numbness, so no wonder you can't talk about it rationally and just keep coming off as an underage dipshit.

>>	bodhi Mon Jun 12 09:09:59 2023 No.15496474 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1668071442322169858

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 12 09:18:00 2023 No.15496481 >>15496096 "Coming from" is an obscurantism. Generally, Idealism claims that ideas are pure appearance, something that does not "have parts", does not "work", does not "come from".

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 12 09:32:17 2023 No.15496494 >>15496481 Oh so that is why you can't have good ideas, you have learned that they don't come from you, so you put into practice the helplessness you have been taught and just act retarded instead.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 12 10:49:52 2023 No.15496576 >>15496494 Just pointing out that your objection makes no sense.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 12 10:56:15 2023 No.15496589 >>15496576 I am just pointing out you are wrong, ideas come from an agent's agency.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 12 11:26:57 2023 No.15496613 >>15496589 >agent's agency. >can't stop being tautological even in an offhand remark

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 12 11:44:38 2023 No.15496630 >>15496613 >can't stop stripping himself of agency, even when trying to prove he has ideas about how arguments should work

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 12 12:15:31 2023 No.15496655 >>15496630 And where does this agency "come from"?

Anonymous Mon Jun 12 12:15:59 2023 No.15496657

>>15495711
Physicalists, idealists and dualists all seem to want to live in a world of abstractions. Reality is: you play with yourself and stuff comes out. You heat water and it turns to vapour. You wash your hands and infection rate goes down. Simple: experiment, observe, try again. But you guys insist on imagining all sorts of stories about it that go completely off the rails. You would get a PhD in gynecology just to get a woman pregnant because you can't stand the simple, bare, smelly reality of it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 12 12:26:12 2023 No.15496669 >>15496655 It depends what kind of agency, but ideas come from the agency of an agent of ideas.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 12 12:28:05 2023 No.15496670 >>15496669 Where does any kind of agency "come from"?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 12 12:29:57 2023 No.15496672 >>15496670 Agency comes from an agent for the third time.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 12 12:31:49 2023 No.15496674 File: 61 KB, 713x611, 1637698524162.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15496657 >You would get a PhD in gynecology just to get a woman pregnant because you can't stand the simple, bare, smelly reality of it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 12 12:31:55 2023 No.15496675 File: 14 KB, 220x221, 1686573071875.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] There is a physical world. There is a mental world. They interact via quantum mechanics. Simple as.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 12 12:32:10 2023 No.15496678 >>15496672 So ideas "come from" agency, agency "comes from" the agent, and the agent "comes from"...?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 12 12:33:25 2023 No.15496679 >>15496678 When a mommy agent loves a daddy agent very much... Don't worry agency is apparently something you will never have to consider yourself since you have already stripped yourself of the ability to come up with ideas.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 12 12:34:18 2023 No.15496682 >>15496679 So agents "come from" other agents. This is a tautology.

Anonymous Mon Jun 12 12:35:12 2023 No.15496683

>>15496674
He's right though. There's a lot of jokes on 4chan like "imagine the smell". But in reality the smell is disgusting. Sex is disgusting. Vaginas are disgusting. I'd rather prefer an in vitro fertilization than having to impregnate my wife via sex.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 12 12:36:28 2023 No.15496684 >>15496682 That is a reality, its how nature works, you didn't come from yourself, you came from a mommy daddy agent and they gave you your first ideas.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 12 12:36:47 2023 No.15496686 >>15496683 you're doing it again. you'll get stuck in a loop at some point. break the loop anon

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 12 12:37:38 2023 No.15496687 >>15496048 Physics is our language to describe and make sense of the mentally-constructed world we live in.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 12 12:38:01 2023 No.15496688 >>15496684 This is the blueprint you previously denounced (>>15496096).

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 12 12:39:00 2023 No.15496690 >>15496688 Its not the same agent, though, they are just similar in their agency.

Anonymous Mon Jun 12 12:39:57 2023 No.15496694

>>15496481
If it were a brute fact. Problem is, it is not a brute fact. Direct experience is a brute fact, not ideas as to ontology or nature of the experience. Hence the circular reasoning nature of it, because they're asserting (falsely) that something is a brute fact and people are pointing out the only justification of it being so is an appeal to circularity as to the nature of reality (using the assumption to claim it is brute fact).

By contrast, consider direct experience. Just saying "I experience" is not circular, nor appeals to any circularity, unless one proceeded to make additional or other argument or statements. Its nature as a brute fact, too, is clear by impossibility of the contrary, as not experiencing means one could not say "I am experiencing". Keep in mind the perspective of that is within one's own mind, and I am not talking about some external claim someone else is or is not (and the obvious "muh GPT muh chinese room" nonsense).

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 12 12:41:10 2023 No.15496696 >>15496690 Recall that God is likewise said to be "not the same God", even by most Christian denominations.

Anonymous Mon Jun 12 12:42:12 2023 No.15496697

>>15496262
Anon, absence of certain stimuly (positive) is not nothingness. You are still feeling something. Just not the things you used to feel before numbness.

We are trying to show you that "grabing nithing" is way of speech not reallity. Very word "grab" implys you grab something. SOMETHING not NOTHING. If you really try to assert this as reallity, you are in cintradiction.

Anonymous Mon Jun 12 13:16:54 2023 No.15496733

>>15496697
I am not that anon and the line of conversation from that anon was smarmy jackassery. Would you mind starting over for something not as shit?
>>15496164
>Nothing does exist, I am holding nothing right now.
This is a contradiction. You are not "holding nothing", you "are not holding anything". Something contradictory being expressed via words is all too easy, so you have to be aware as to its strict logical entailment. For example, I can write "square circle", or "big small", but in strict terms these are contradictions. The same as one might say "jump down", but what you're really doing is falling down.
>Noting is empirically observable with every classical sense by seeing darkness, feeling numbness, hearing silence, smelling odorlessness, and tasting blandness.
That same error between the semantic and the underlying logic applies to your examples. As far as space itself goes, keep in mind evidence thus far seems to indicate the apparent nothing of space isn't "nothing" at all. It's all something i.e. vacuum energy.

Anonymous Mon Jun 12 13:59:30 2023 No.15496767

>>15496696
No that isn't God, those are gods, God is suppose to be the one that that solves infinite regress of parenthood by stopping the process at a clear beginning source instead of continuing on to more gods infinitum.
While agents in reality do come agents, the need for agency in the first place comes from a multifaceted open environment with life threatening choices to be made.

Anonymous Mon Jun 12 14:04:01 2023 No.15496770

>>15496697
>You are still feeling something
No you aren't, when you are numb, you don't feel, by definition.

> Very word "grab" implys you grab something.
Yes and I told you what you grabbed, nothing is something or you wouldn't keep calling it nothing and assigning properties to nothing.

> SOMETHING not NOTHING.
NOTHING is SOMETHING, the smallest possible amount of SOMETHING is called NOTHING.

>If you really try to assert this as reallity, you are in cintradiction.
Prove -0 doesn't equal +0 or that 0-0=0 isn't true if you think you can prove all contradictions are false.

Anonymous Mon Jun 12 14:08:05 2023 No.15496773

>>15496767
frankly I'm not sure what about "infinitely multiplied probabilities" making his notion infinitely improbable he doesn't understand. There's a reason people end up relying on special pleading to claim "the buck stops here because uhhhh it does ok".
>>15496684
Let's say you have a probability of one god being 0.5. That one needs a perceiver or another god, so 0.5*0.5. Keep multiplying and watch as 0.5^x descends into zero. n^x < 1 will always trend toward zero. That means it is infinitely improbable, AKA "does not exist".

You might as well just believe literally anything at that point. You are already believing something infinitely unlikely.

Anonymous Mon Jun 12 14:08:12 2023 No.15496774
File: 78 KB, 680x538, 1686539374211040[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>15495711
I think you missed the point of the hard problem of consciousness. They will probably be able to tell you the neural activity sometime in the future, and they have made strides doing so today, but they can't explain the qualia, the sensation of salt. They are 2 different things.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 12 14:09:14 2023 No.15496776 >>15496774 oh boy here we go again >but they can't explain the qualia define qualia

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 12 14:09:59 2023 No.15496777 File: 41 KB, 971x729, newman.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Mfw materialists deny the wetness of water because it doesn't fit into their narrow framework of reality

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 12 14:11:48 2023 No.15496782 >>15496777 mfw antimaterialists think describing music means playing music is its own substance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_division https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition

Anonymous Mon Jun 12 14:12:45 2023 No.15496784

>>15496733
>You are not "holding nothing", you "are not holding anything".
Commutative property, 1+0 = 0+1, so when you are not holding anything, you are specifically holding nothing, the amount held is still 0 and there is still nothing wrong with the origin number being its own additive inverse and self negating ala contradiction..

Vacuum fluctuation is just accounting for the fact that the mathematical vacuum ie 0 is always fluctuating between +0 and -0 which is no measurably different than infinitesimally small positive and infinitesimally small negative energy.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 12 14:13:43 2023 No.15496785 >>15496774 I didn't just ask for the neural activity correlated with the taste of salt. I asked for the neural activity that MUST BE the taste of salt - that is an explanation.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 12 14:14:19 2023 No.15496787 >>15496774 You can't make an intelligent post in this thread, sure you can use your "intelligence" to post to the best of your ability, but you can't make an intelligent post, those are 2 different things.

Anonymous Mon Jun 12 14:16:21 2023 No.15496789
File: 188 KB, 1228x1150, 1686579295046.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>15496777
Idealists deny the wetness of water because they believe water is merely a mental construct and not something to be experienced in physical reality.

Again dualism wins. There is physical water. I decide by my free will to touch physical water. I experience its wetness as a quale in the mental realm mirroring the physical information.

Anonymous Mon Jun 12 14:17:09 2023 No.15496791

>>15496784
>Commutative property, 1+0 = 0+1
0 = 0+1/1
0/0 = 1/1
0 = 1
>Vacuum fluctuation is just accounting for the fact that the mathematical vacuum ie 0 is always fluctuating between +0 and -0
It has measurable energy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect
Not zero.

Anonymous Mon Jun 12 14:22:13 2023 No.15496794

>>15496791
>measurable energy
Your measurements still depend on 0 as an origin and any meter still measures 0 when measuring nothing and 0 still self negates because it is a contradiction, I don't understand what you think you have proven by saying we can also measure things that aren't 0 and name dropping someone more productive than you instead of forming an argument or at least summarizing it yourself.

Anonymous Mon Jun 12 14:25:56 2023 No.15496797

>>15496794
My dude your argument was a literal contradiction discoverable with 1st grade math.

No, I am not going to try explaining something that complicated to somebody who refuses to understand, or accept, that they've made an error in reasoning so obviously elementary. You're either trolling or somehow pathologically unable to say "Oh shit I fucked up".

Anonymous Mon Jun 12 14:31:05 2023 No.15496802

>>15496797
But you are clearly just wrong and mad about it, you didn't even try to prove that there is a measurable difference between +0, -0, +infinitesimal, or -infinitesimal, you only proved that the smallest measurement you can ever possibly make is at the quantum level, which isn't a fault of the value itself, but a fault of your ability to measure it as nothing in that wiki even says you can specifically measure an exact infinitesimal amount of energy.

The error in reasoning is you saying that there isn't valid contradiction when math clearly shows that 0 self negates and is a self contradictory value by definition, you haven't resolved this at all, you just say quantum math means zero because reasons and hope nobody notices how illogical that is since you depend on 0 for quantum mechanics in the first place.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 12 14:32:35 2023 No.15496805 >>15496797 >>15496802 *you just say quantum math means zero doesn't even exist

Anonymous Mon Jun 12 14:33:47 2023 No.15496808

>>15496802
my dude, address the contradiction.
>>15496784
>Commutative property, 1+0 = 0+1
0 = 0+1/1
0/0 = 1/1
0 = 1
>and there is still nothing wrong with the origin number being its own additive inverse
Point where -0 and +0 are on a graph.
>The error in reasoning is you saying that there isn't valid contradiction when math clearly shows that 0 self negates and is a self contradictory value by definition
Okay. Prove it. Where are -0 and +0 on a graph?

Anonymous Mon Jun 12 14:41:22 2023 No.15496817

>>15496808
There is no contradiction, you just don't know how to do math, you aren't symmetrically applying the functions since you only divided by zero on the left of equality while removing the redundant +0 from the other side, and you are treating division by zero as if it is defined.

>Point where -0 and +0 are on a graph.
The origin point.
>Okay. Prove it. Where are -0 and +0 on a graph?
The origin point. I already gave the proof back at >>15496770 +0-0=0.

Anonymous Mon Jun 12 14:50:17 2023 No.15496827

>>15496808
>address the contradiction.
Also you keep harping on contradiction, but I already addressed it, zero is negative zero, all complex well defined formal systems necessitate contradictions for the logical explosion that allows the system to be formally well defined thanks to the unrestricted comprehension principle.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 12 14:51:45 2023 No.15496829 150 Renowned academics against god https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s47ArcQL-XQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Gt4WSK_NlQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHv__O8wvZI

Anonymous Mon Jun 12 14:53:23 2023 No.15496831

Niels Bohr:
>I felt ... that philosophers were very odd people who really were lost, because they have not the instinct that it is important to learn something and that we must be prepared really to learn something of very great importance. There are all kinds of people, but I think it would be reasonable to say that no man who is called a philosopher really understands what one means by the complementary description.

Paul Dirac:
>I tried to appreciate it, but I did not get very much success in trying to appreciate philosophy. I feel that philosophy will never lead to important discoveries. It’s just a way of talking about discoveries which have already been made.

Richard Feynman:
>I rapidly learned that philosophy, as far as I was concerned, the philosophers who were respected were really quite poor and rather stupid people — at least, from the modern point of view. It seems to me that there were trivial errors in logic which were obvious. Very poor, it seemed to me.

Steven Weinberg:
>After a few years' infatuation with philosophy as an undergraduate I became disenchanted.
>I know of no one who has participated actively in the advance of physics in the postwar period whose research has been significantly helped by the work of philosophers.

Stephen Hawking:
>Traditionally these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead. Philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics. Scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge

Anonymous Mon Jun 12 15:15:42 2023 No.15496854

>>15496831
>Niels Bohr:
>Appeal to Authority Fallacy

>Paul Dirac:
>Appeal to Novelty Fallacy

>Richard Feynman:
>Appeal to Wealth Fallacy

>Steven Weinberg:
>Appeal to Popularity Fallacy

>Stephen Hawking:
>More Appeal to Novelty Fallacy
Also failing to understand that the scientific method is a philosophical method of dialectics involving self scrutiny and external scrutinization/defense, scientists are applied philosophers and the entire branch of physics is supposedly built on logic to pursue logical frameworks of reliable predictions of outcome.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 12 15:23:43 2023 No.15496863 >>15496854 Wrong. Science and philosophy share a common ancestor just like humans and chimpanzees. Philosophers are the chimpanzees

Anonymous Mon Jun 12 15:28:13 2023 No.15496871

>>15496817
>The origin point.
Origin point is 0, a single point. -0 and +0 are two points. 1 != 2
>There is no contradiction, you just don't know how to do math
You picked the (second) worst person on this board to say that to. I worked with *your* math, and you don't appear to be honest as to its implications or you don't understand what the implication is.
Consider my pet peeved.
>>15496164
>Nothing does exist, I am holding nothing right now.
Your words. You are holding nothing. You rejected correction,
>>15496784
"You are not "holding nothing", you "are not holding anything"."
>Commutative property, 1+0 = 0+1, so when you are not holding anything, you are specifically holding nothing
>you are specifically holding nothing
So you are very specifically holding something. This is why it results in 1 = 0.

1. If I hold 1 thing, and add 1 thing, I get two things.
1+1 = 2
2. If I add no things, I get 1 thing.
1+0 = 1
[one object]+[no objects] = [one object]
3. If I am holding one, plus holding nothing as an object, I am holding two things.
[one object]+[one object] = 2
Therefore, 1 = 0.

Hence the following, >>15496791
0 = 0+1/1
0/0 = 1/1
0 = 1

This is because you defined 0 = 1 by saying "I am specifically holding nothing". So you're holding one thing of nothing. 1 = 0.

Just because you assigned it a different symbol doesn't change the meaning. If you can hold nothing, you are nothing something. One of nothing means one, and therefore the operations resulting in 0 = 1 are valid because you are treating "0" as "1".

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 12 15:28:18 2023 No.15496872 >>15496863 So in a fight about truth, philosophers can actually rip your head off if you engage while scientists have to use high level deception and tricks to win a fight against a chimpanzee?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 12 15:32:29 2023 No.15496876 >>15496872 Here we see a philosopher embrace its chimpanzee instincts

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 12 15:36:09 2023 No.15496884 >>15496854 Appealing to relevant authority is not fallacious. The fallacy is appealing to irrelevant authority. You can argue they're not relevant authorities, but you have to demonstrate their irrelevance not merely assert it.

Anonymous Mon Jun 12 15:41:03 2023 No.15496900

>>15496871
>Origin point is 0, a single point. -0 and +0 are two points. 1 != 2
If they were different values, there would be a difference in value, but they are not different because there is no difference in value unless you can prove that +0-0=0 is false.

>I worked with *your* math
No, you did it complete wrong and I explained exactly how, you only divided one side of the equality by zero instead of dividing equally and then you treated division by zero as a defined value when it is not, but even if it were, both sides would have been divided by zero and it would have been 0/0 = 1/0.

>You are holding nothing. You rejected correction,
I am holding nothing, what can you prove I am holding? You didn't show anything correct, you don't understand that both sides of an equality have to have equal functions to maintain equality.

>So you are very specifically holding something.
Yes, the specific thing I am holding is nothing, like I keep saying, I am holding nothing, the smallest possible amount of things I can possible hold on to.

>3. If I am holding one, plus holding nothing as an object, I am holding two things.
I am not holding one plus nothing, I am only holding nothing, even if I were holding something else, I would still be holding that one and nothing else 1+0=1.

>This is because you defined 0 = 1
No I used the definition 0!=1. There is exactly one way to arrange nothing.

>One of nothing means one
No zero is defined as a unit of nothing, it follows the additive identity.

Anonymous Mon Jun 12 15:41:31 2023 No.15496901
File: 1.37 MB, 2120x1580, 1672248104298280.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>15495711
Correct, science, intellectualism, atheism, judaism are a plague upon this world. Notice how those who killed the most people (Stalin, Churchill, Pol Pot, Mao Zedong) are atheists.
By the way, the ones who caused the World War 2 was not Hitler but France and the England. Just like Zelensky was the one who killed pro-russian people from 2014 before being "shocked" that Russia decided to invade.
And about the Holohoax: Truth fears no investigation.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 12 15:43:05 2023 No.15496905 >>15496884 >Appealing to relevant authority is not fallacious. Yes it is, you have to actually show their work and what the authority produced, not just say your argument is correct on the basis that they are important.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 12 15:57:14 2023 No.15496932 >>15496831 This all just sounds like a bunch of ambitious old men teaching their grad students to give up their own agency, so that the professor can work them to the bone and take credit for all the work.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 12 16:00:27 2023 No.15496939 >>15496831 Max Planck: >I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 12 16:02:46 2023 No.15496943 >>15496939 He was a retarded god believer whose only contribution was fitting a curve.

Anonymous Mon Jun 12 16:05:12 2023 No.15496945

>>15495711
I personally think experience CAN be explained by physical processes.... eventually.

However I also believe in the validity of NDEs and OBEs... so perhaps there's rationale for both Duality of Mind/Body AND a physical explanation for it.

Source: read far too many books on this shit

>>	bodhi Mon Jun 12 16:05:40 2023 No.15496946 >>15496943 what was your contribution to anything? So far only squealing like a retard on anime forum I assume. Keep up the good work

Anonymous Mon Jun 12 16:06:10 2023 No.15496947

>>15496939
If consciousness came first, what was there to be conscious of and why does consciousness have physical limits like sensation?

I mean of course it is fundamental to observation and the scientific method like all logic, but how is it fundamental to matter?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 12 16:06:37 2023 No.15496948 >>15496943 Maybe he was smarter than you

>>	bodhi Mon Jun 12 16:07:19 2023 No.15496949 >>15496901 https://ugetube.com/watch/the-wotan-awakens-the-aryan-spirit_s86prRsHljLJEdG.html

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 12 16:08:00 2023 No.15496950 >>15496946 Kill yourself, schizo

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 12 16:08:38 2023 No.15496951 >>15496945 Aren't those just chemical induced hallucinations, if they are valid are all drug induced psychotic experiences just as valid as telescopic imagery?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 12 16:10:53 2023 No.15496959 File: 11 KB, 569x86, bodhi admits they are retarded.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15496946 What a shame, they didn't contribute made up shit to the internet by being retarded, like you and your twin.

bodhi Mon Jun 12 16:10:59 2023 No.15496960
File: 1.11 MB, 1366x4235, ActualSchizo.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>15496950
wrap my ass cheeks around your face and suck out a wet fart mental midget. you are nothing, never have been and never will be anything. you arent fit to shine my shoes peasant

>>	bodhi Mon Jun 12 16:13:15 2023 No.15496964 >>15496959 >unable to discern obvious satire Not like it was ever under any doubt but posting an obvious sign of your psychosis to project psychosis is top lelz. Too bad you are too mentally ill to appreciate the hilarity of it all

Anonymous Mon Jun 12 16:15:39 2023 No.15496969

>>15496900
You can stop with the cute semantic games already. Obviously I'm wise to it and it doesn't work. Maybe go try to trick some undergrads and give someone a headache who has to deal with undergrads.
>If they were different values, there would be a difference in value
You're the one claiming -0 and +0 are two different things. That means two different locations. By claiming it is only one point, 0, you contradict yourself. 1 != 2
>Yes, the specific thing I am holding is nothing
You keep agreeing with me. By "holding nothing" you are asserting it is something you can hold. Nothing = something, hence 1 = 0.
>No zero is defined as a unit of nothing, it follows the additive identity.
"0" is a symbol. Your definition of that symbol is wrong. Yes, it is an additive identity, but the way you are defining it leads to contradiction.
>No I used the definition 0!=1. There is exactly one way to arrange nothing.
Equivocation.
>when you are not holding anything, you are specifically holding nothing
The fact "not arranging" is an order that can be indexed as "1" has nothing to do with the claim "you are specifically holding nothing".

Pretty obvious you're just trying to play semantic games throughout. As it is equally obvious I clued into this by correctly operating your "1 = 0" definition to call you on your bullshit in the first place >>15496871
>>15496905
>Yes it is, you have to actually show their work and what the authority produced
So you don't know who any of them are?

>>	bodhi Mon Jun 12 16:15:56 2023 No.15496970 god i really love eating shit

Anonymous Mon Jun 12 16:16:23 2023 No.15496971

>>15496964
ok retard
I obviously recognized that was one of the only true things you have ever posted (which is why I saved it) while you go on satirizing science by making up shit about nonsense illnesses that can't even be diagnosed the way you are pretending to do it.

>>	bodhi Mon Jun 12 16:17:10 2023 No.15496974 >>15496683 >wife you are a faggot son. I dont think you will have to worry about a wife

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 12 16:19:03 2023 No.15496976 >>15496770 >NOTHING is SOMETHING Wana be sophist lmao Atleast dont be so obvious

>>	bodhi Mon Jun 12 16:20:42 2023 No.15496979 File: 17 KB, 236x328, joker8.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15496971 >retard screeching

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 12 16:21:08 2023 No.15496980 >>15496974 >son I see you are copying CoP now. You people are something special indeed.

>>	bodhi Mon Jun 12 16:21:42 2023 No.15496981 >>15496970 just dropped two logs in the bowl an hour ago and havent flushed yet. Dig in shit eater

>>	bodhi Mon Jun 12 16:23:14 2023 No.15496984 >>15496980 I have no idea wtf a CoP but there is obviously something seriously wrong with you. Likely autism. When you are in public the smell of incel wafting off of you makes people gag

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 12 16:26:11 2023 No.15496989 >>15496976 Yeah, that about sums it up. He wanted to claim nothing is something, then claim he didn't say that, but also while saying that. All to avoid defending his idea.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 12 16:26:48 2023 No.15496991 >>15496984 CoPe more hahahahahahahah Got emmm

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 12 16:29:09 2023 No.15496994 >>15496981 Stop replying to yourself, retarded schizo

Anonymous Mon Jun 12 16:29:41 2023 No.15496996

>>15496969
>You're the one claiming -0 and +0 are two different things.
No I am not, I am saying that the value of 0 is specifically a self contradiction because it and its negative are all the same value.

> By claiming it is only one point, 0, you contradict yourself
I don't make the claim, it is the axioms of arithmetic that lead to the claim that +0-0 =0, my claim is that it is a self contradiction to have a value that is self negating due to being its own opposite value.

>1 != 2
I am not saying that, I am saying that 1! = 1 and 0! = 1., but 0 is an additive identity, so adding it to a value doesn't change the value so adding a unit of nothing to one other thing, doesn't change the value of one thing as you keep trying to say it does 1+0 = 1 by the definition of the additive identity.

> the way you are defining it leads to contradiction.
No, the way the axioms of arithmetic define it leads to contradiction since it makes zero its own negative meaning it is self-negating and the word for something self negating is contradiction or paradox.

>Equivocation.
Yes 0! is equivalent to 1 because it is equal to it because nothing can be arranged in exactly one way since one unit of nothing is equal to two units of nothing is equal to three units of nothing is equal to negative units of nothing.

>you are specifically holding nothing
But I am holding nothing and there is only one way to hold nothing and holding something is directly done with the senses, so nothing is empirically demonstrated by the simple act of holding nothing, but it can be observed with every sense and every meter.

>I clued into this by correctly operating
You didn't do the math correctly at all, you didn't equally apply division functions and you didn't take into account the fact that division by zero is not defined.

Anonymous Mon Jun 12 16:33:42 2023 No.15497003

>>15496989
>He wanted to claim nothing is something
It is, it can be arranged in exactly 1 way.

>then claim he didn't say that,
I have always maintained that nothing is something and it is the thing we are talking about,.
You are the one who spends hours talking about something, then claims it isn't even something.
What do you even think you are talking about if nothing is not something we can actually discuss?

>All to avoid defending his idea.
I am defending my idea fine, you are the one who has to take side bars to spew ad hominems without ever actually furthering your argument that the thing we are actively talking about isn't a think we could ever possibly talk about.

>>	bodhi Mon Jun 12 16:34:06 2023 No.15497005 >>15496991 you suck so much wenis

Anonymous Mon Jun 12 16:35:01 2023 No.15497008

>>15496951
This is a common misconception; such experiences occur whilst the mind is deprived (remember, unconsciousness occurs seconds after cardiac arrest) and also we have verified NDE events where the person correctly describes events around them beyond their current (and in fact normal) human comprehension.

Also we have Peak in Darien cases (where they encountered someone not known to have died at that point).

These all occur independent of culture or time period (even Pliny the Elder references them).

So nope, I think they're evidence of a legit phenomenon.

Anonymous Mon Jun 12 16:37:28 2023 No.15497012

>>15497008
I should also add that studies have been done comparing them to hallucinations. Interestingly the experiencers regularly claim that their NDEs were "realer than real" or "hyperreal", and interestingly, a two part study (one done 25 years after the initial study) showed no major differences in the accounts told by survivors (i.e. no embellishment/elaboration, memories of the event were still very vivid).

Anonymous Mon Jun 12 16:38:55 2023 No.15497017

>>15497008
People have done that kind of stuff on drugs too, though, isn't that why CIA did all those experiments with drugs? Couldn't a lot of people just be describing a lot of things and by coincidence some small fraction of it actually happens, then you count the hits, but ignore all the nonsense people see in psychotic episodes or fever dreams or drug trips or the dying process?

Anonymous Mon Jun 12 16:39:10 2023 No.15497019

>>15497012
I actually know of one NDE caused by an overdose; the person hallucinated initially due to the OD (seeing little men around himself) but then when his NDE kicked in the little men disappeared and he witnessed himself out of body hallucinating at these little men (if that makes sense).

Very fascinating stuff!

Anonymous Mon Jun 12 16:40:46 2023 No.15497022

>>15497003
>It is, it can be arranged in exactly 1 way.
Which is, as noted, a red herring. Your claim, remember, is >>15496770
>NOTHING is SOMETHING
This is a contradiction.
>>15496996
"You're the one claiming -0 and +0 are two different things."
>No I am not
>NOTHING is SOMETHING
Yes, you are.
>I am saying that the value of 0 is specifically a self contradiction because it and its negative are all the same value.
If and only if you (wrongly) assert nothing is something. I've had no trouble following your logic so there's no point playing this semantic game to try hiding it.

If nothing is something, then -nothing and +nothing must be different. Therefore, they must have different locations on a graph. You, however, claim they don't by reverting back to treating nothing as nothing. Pure equivocation games and sophistry.

You are not "proving a contradiction in arithmetic", you are creating a contradiction by equivocation. You've been caught, so stop trying to pretend you haven't been caught.

Anonymous Mon Jun 12 16:42:39 2023 No.15497026

>>15497017
Yep; some people argue that these experiences are actually real as well funnily enough!

It could be coincidental, but some of the explained events are frankly so specific that theres no way it's coincidence.

Moreover, these experiencers STRESS that they leave their bodies, encounter a loving "light" of some kind, are totally at peace and that it was not a hallucination.

For example, google Dr. Bruce Greyson and the spaghetti stain on his tie, or Pam Reynolds and the "toothbrush".

It's such a fascinating subject

Anonymous Mon Jun 12 16:51:18 2023 No.15497048

>>15497022
>This is a contradiction.
No its not.

>>claiming -0 and +0 are two different things."
>>NOTHING is SOMETHING
>Yes, you are.
No I said that those are the same thing, nothing, the absolute origin point (0) and the smallest possible value of magnitude (+0, -0), which is the exact thing that nothing is which I have been saying this entire time and why we can talk about nothing for so long, it is in constant fluctuation between those states, it is a contradiction by mathematical definition since it is self negative and its own opposite number.

>If nothing is something, then -nothing and +nothing must be different.
Ok, so using the actual value of nothing, 0, what is the difference between +0 and -0, what does +0-0 equal if not 0?
You are confusing different ways to represent the same thing as being different things, like how 1 can be 1 or 1+0 or 1! or x/x, they all are just different ways of writing the same value, so not only is nothing something, it is something multifaceted and complex since 0i+0=0 as well..

>You are not "proving a contradiction in arithmetic",
Then prove that +0-0 is not equal to 0 and you will prove that it is not a self negating contradiction, otherwise the math shows that +0-0=0 and it is a self negating paradox, by definition.

Anonymous Mon Jun 12 16:56:36 2023 No.15497064

>>15497048
>No, its not
To explain, since I can actually see how you could be confused, its because saying nothing is something is not the violation of logic since they can be defined in a way so as not to be opposites, so that they don't self negate (ie nothing is the smallest amount of something).
0, however is formally defined with arithmetic semantics, and those definitions leads to an explicit contradiction where 0 is a self negation by being its own opposite number, so the formal contradiction is not in saying nothing is something, it is in math axioms asserting that 0-0=0.

Anonymous Mon Jun 12 17:13:21 2023 No.15497088

>>15495711
Once again the subject of discussion has devolved into arguing about nothing. You guys really are something. You got nothing to worry about but something is always the matter with you. 'Nothing is the matter with me!' you say as if there's no matter at all. Ideally you matter to me anon.

Anonymous Mon Jun 12 17:17:42 2023 No.15497096

>>15497064
>its because saying nothing is something is not the violation of logic since they can be defined in a way so as not to be opposites
Thanks for admitting that you're equivocating like I said you were. Saying "something is something", not "nothing is something". Took you long enough.
>To explain, since I can actually see how you could be confused
So what you mean by "confused" is also a semantic game I suppose. Since in plain words you clearly mean "I wasn't confused at all and explained that I knew you were equivocating from the start to dodge criticism", given I confronted you on this from the start.
>>15496969
"You can stop with the cute semantic games already. Obviously I'm wise to it and it doesn't work. Maybe go try to trick some undergrads and give someone a headache who has to deal with undergrads."
Back to your bullshit,
>>15497064
>0, however is formally defined with arithmetic semantics, and those definitions leads to an explicit contradiction where 0 is a self negation by being its own opposite number
Citation needed.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 12 17:20:08 2023 No.15497105 >>15497088 Its everything we know along with nothing more and nothing less.

Anonymous Mon Jun 12 17:36:06 2023 No.15497139

>>15497096
>equivocating
Nope, it is semantically equivalent, nothing is something, but verbals equivalents are not mathematical equals which is why it is not a contradiction to say nothing is something, but it is a formal contradiction to say that 0 is self negating.

>confused
I meant that I knew you would have trouble understanding why I would say "nothing is something" is not a contradiction, but I would say that a self negating number is a contradiction and I was right and you are still clearly confused.

>undergrads
But you are the one who can't explain your position clearly because it seems entirely based on bad math and misquotes.
If you think there is a non zero difference between +0 and -0, now is the time to prove it, otherwise the additive identity means zero self negates because it is its own negative number, so nothing more and nothing less are all still the same thing, nothing.

>Citation needed.
Additive Identity. +0-0=0.
Otherwise you are saying that 0-0 equals something else besides nothing. Do you have a source on that?
Where is your proof that there is a nonzero difference between +0 and -0?

Anonymous Mon Jun 12 17:44:37 2023 No.15497160

>>15497139
>Nope, it is semantically equivalent, nothing is something, but verbals equivalents are not mathematical equals which is why it is not a contradiction to say nothing is something, but it is a formal contradiction to say that 0 is self negating.
So you're equivocating. Like I keep pointing out.
>I meant that I knew you would have trouble understanding why I would say "nothing is something" is not a contradiction
Because you're equivocating, like I said in the first place. I have no trouble understanding you at all.
>If you think there is a non zero difference between +0 and -0, now is the time to prove it
If you mean "approaching zero", if it's symmetrical the difference is also zero.
If you mean additive, the proper definition is "add nothing" AKA "do nothing".
>otherwise the additive identity means zero self negates
Only if you equivocate by assuming "nothing is something". Otherwise, "adding nothing to something doesn't change anything because you didn't add anything".

There is no sense to "+0 and -0" as units except by equivocating and assigning them values. AKA "assuming zero is something".

Which is it? You're equivocating, or you don't understand the additive identity?

Anonymous Mon Jun 12 18:01:22 2023 No.15497181

>>15497160
>So you're equivocating. Like I keep pointing out.
I am saying that nothing is equivalent to something, so it is not a contradiction to use the phrase nothing is something semantically because something is such a broad category as to be nothing specific.

The actual mathematical fact is that zero is self negating according to the axioms, its negative actually equals itself, there is no equivocation in the contradiction, it is proven to be self negating by definition through the additive identity and the fact that 0-0=0

>If you mean "approaching zero"
I don not, but also you can not actually prove that an infinitesimal is different magnitude than zero because your measurements have limitation and quantum fluctuations are just a reflection of measurement limits since you have no way to measure infinitesimals.

>if it's symmetrical the difference is also zero.
So there you go, you finally admit that zero is self negating since 0-0=0 meaning +0=-0 and that is the only actual quantum fluctuation of nothing, the fluctuation between the contradictory positive and negative quantity of zero .

>add nothing
Yes and if you can add it to something, that means it is something else.

>Only if you equivocate by assuming "nothing is something"
Nothing is equivalent to something, it is specifically the smallest possible amount.

>adding nothing to something doesn't change anything
So it doesn't change anything if nothing is something or something else?

>There is no sense to "+0 and -0"
Except for the fact that +0-0 =0 because zero is its own negative, so its redundant to even write.

>Which is it?
Once again:
Nothing is equivalent to something, so semantically it is no contradiction to say nothing is something.
If its not something, what is it, something else?

Contradiction means self negating, zero is self negating due to the additive identity, what don't you understand?
If zero is not self negating, then what is the nonzero negative number for zero?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 12 18:01:38 2023 No.15497182 >>15496974 I'm married but I don't have sex. My wife is cooking food and cleaning the house while I read books and play video games.

Anonymous Mon Jun 12 18:19:15 2023 No.15497224
File: 50 KB, 300x255, 1W8FshphRj-91621.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>15496808
>Where are -0 and +0 on a graph?
See how all those axis lines that define 0 for each dimension extend in the positive and negative directions? Basically every thick dark line extending to positive (+0) and negative (-0) directions are present on the graph and they all are on some part of some dimensions origin point which is all equal to 0 whether it be x=0, y = 0, or z=0.

>>	bodhi Mon Jun 12 18:22:23 2023 No.15497231 >>15497182 one of the only reasons to put up with a woman's shit is the pussy. you are gay and retarded

Anonymous Mon Jun 12 18:25:29 2023 No.15497244

>>15497181
>I am saying that nothing is equivalent to something
As I pointed out you said multiple times. No shit.
>So there you go, you finally admit that zero is self negating
Another equivocation, and lying so blatantly to boot.
What I wrote: "If you mean "approaching zero", if it's symmetrical the difference is also zero."
You just admitted you don't mean that,
>I do not
Since what I wrote isn't talking about what you wrote, obviously I am not admitting to what you wrote. Do you think you're fooling anyone?
>Yes and if you can add it to something, that means it is something else.
By definition of additive identity, no.
1+0 = 1 = 0+1
Note "1" in the middle there, which hasn't changed by adding 0. If it does, then you've assigned a value to the symbol "0" and "0" is by definition not an additive identity anymore.
>Nothing is equivalent to something
Meaning it isn't an additive identity anymore.
>So it doesn't change anything if nothing is something or something else?
If you equivocate and assign a non-zero value to the symbol "zero" dishonestly like a twat, then it is whatever value you've assigned and it is not an additive identity as a result. That does not, however, mean "nothing is something". It means "your dishonest redefinition of nothing as something is something" and still means "something = something" and "nothing != something" to everyone else. Also, it means "0" isn't the additive identity anymore.
>Except for the fact that +0-0 =0 because zero is its own negative, so its redundant to even write.
There's no such thing as "positive zero". Unless, again, you dishonestly equivocate and assign it a value.
>Nothing is equivalent to something, so semantically it is no contradiction to say nothing is something.
Yes, you can be dishonest. We've been over this.
>Contradiction means self negating, zero is self negating due to the additive identity, what don't you understand?
Equivocating between normal 0 and your "non-zero valued redefinition of the symbol 0".

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 12 18:25:36 2023 No.15497245 >>15497231 Your woman's pussy is full of shit? How much shit do you put up with in her pussy? You sure she is a woman with a pussy and not something with a cloaca?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 12 18:27:07 2023 No.15497249 >>15497224 >I can redefine things to mean other things Obviously. Not what I meant nor is it relevant.

Anonymous Mon Jun 12 18:38:52 2023 No.15497265

>>15497244
>Another equivocation
Yes because nothing is something, they are equivalent nothing is some type of thing.

>hasn't changed by adding 0
It doesn't change if you remove 0 instead of adding it either because +0 and -0 are the same thing, so 1-0 = 1 = -0+1, by zero's self contradiction definition.

>Meaning it isn't an additive identity anymore.
Right because the additive identity is a formal contradictions where saying nothing is something is not because nothing and something are equivalent where as zero is actually defined as its own negative due to the additive identity.

>you've assigned a value to the symbol "0"
The value of "0" is paradox, self-negating, it removes itself as soon as you add it to itself or anything else or adds itself as soon as you remove it, by definition.

>assign a non-zero value
I am not pointing out that zero is a non-zero value, i am pointing out that zero is its own negation, the difference between adding or removing zero IS zero because it self contradicts.

>There's no such thing as "positive zero".
0+0 is defined by the additive identity.
Positively adding or negatively removing zero from itself leaves zero, itself.

>dishonest
But I am not, you can't refute the type of thing I have honestly defined nothing as, it is the smallest possible amount.

>non-zero valued
I haven't defined anything as nonzero, I have defined zero difference between adding zero and subtracting zero, what do you think the difference is, if not zero, and how are you concluding I am saying it is nonzero when my entire point is that zero is self refuting, its addition and negation are the same thing as itself, adding or removing nothing of value is nothing and that is the |absolute| smallest possible amount you can add or remove.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 12 18:40:05 2023 No.15497270 >>15497249 I didn't redefine anything, when you draw the axis, you are drawing dimensional zero points in both positive and negative direction from the center origin point that unifies all dimensions.

Anonymous Mon Jun 12 18:56:53 2023 No.15497309

>>15497270
>I didn't redefine anything, when you draw the axis, you are drawing dimensional zero points
They all cross the same origin, AKA one zero. Not multiple. So either you're wrong, or you are redefining things.
>>15497265
>Yes because nothing is something
Only if you equivocate such that "nothing = something" so identity is not violated, like I said you were doing. We've been over this.
>It doesn't change if you remove 0 instead of adding it either because +0 and -0 are the same thing, so 1-0 = 1 = -0+1, by zero's self contradiction definition.
Only by your non-zero dishonest redefinition of the symbol "0".
>The value of "0" is paradox
I don't care about your definitions.
>I am not pointing out that zero is a non-zero value, i am pointing out that zero is its own negation, the difference between adding or removing zero IS zero because it self contradicts.
I don't care about your definitions.
>0+0 is defined by the additive identity.
I don't care about your definitions.
>But I am not
You're "just" totally honestly explaining the banal fact "something is something" by "just" contradicting typical semantic definitions and "just" redefining words on the fly however you please. Like every honest person totally does.
So by the phrase "I am not", you meant opposite day where that really means "I am"?
>I haven't defined anything as nonzero
Something by definition is nonzero in ordinary terminology. I don't care about your definitions.

More boring games from the boring idiot who thinks himself clever.

Anonymous Mon Jun 12 20:03:57 2023 No.15497420

>>15497309
>Not multiple
No, either x, y, or z equals zero on any point on those six axis lines (there is [0,0,0], [x,-y,0], [x,0,-z], etc), three that go positive in each direction of each dimension and three negative where the absolute origin bisects each axis.

>nothing = something
yes, specifically nothing = |floor(something)|, nothing about their identities are violated if nothing is the smallest amount of something, what is the violation?

>Only by your non-zero dishonest redefinition of the symbol "0".
The prove there is a difference, I say the difference is zero, you claim there is some difference between zero and it opposite number, but you can't name it, while math specifically defines zero as its own opposite number.

>your definitions
They are not mine, they are arithmetic definitions,
0-0=0, x-x=x
The only possible answer for x is 0 because 0 self negates pr you would have math definitions that proved 0 was not its own negative and no point engaging further until you know another number that is zero's opposite.

You are clearly seething that you don't have valid definitions proving otherwise, you haven't proven any claims, there is no measuring infinitesimals with quantum effects, there is no mathematical difference between adding or subtracting zero because it negates itself, so adding it to any other value leaves only the other value remaining, because 0 is self-annihilating.

Nothing being something barely matters compared to the fact that arithmetic is contradictory and you have no defense for that, you just have to bury your head in the sand and pretend math isn't math.

>Something by definition is nonzero in ordinary terminology.
Something just has to be measurable or permutable and zero can be measured by any meter and has exactly one permutation, 0!=1.

>contradicting typical semantic
No, you are ignoring formal mathematical semantics, since arithmetic is the self contradicting logic, not the definition of nothing as the smallest amount.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 12 20:14:01 2023 No.15497446 >>15495711 Pain is a lack of flow

Anonymous Mon Jun 12 20:16:58 2023 No.15497454

>>15497420
>>15497420
>No, either x, y, or z equals zero on any point on those six axis lines (there is [0,0,0], [x,-y,0], [x,0,-z], etc), three that go positive in each direction of each dimension and three negative where the absolute origin bisects each axis.
According to your redefining zero, like I said, which I don't care about. I am not using your definitions. Cry about it.
>They are not mine, they are arithmetic definitions,
Using your redefinition of zero, which is not the regular one. Stop equivocating. I don't care about your definitions.
>You are clearly seething that you don't have valid definitions proving otherwise
Lol no dude I just don't care about your word games.
>No, you are ignoring formal mathematical semantics
Based on your redefining zero. As I keep pointing out: Equivocating. You don't have to keep repeating yourself.
>not the definition of nothing as the smallest amount.
All you did was change definitions and are equivocating between the symbol's regular definition, and therefore regular usage, and your different definition of the symbol. That does not imply there's any contradiction, it just shows that you're dishonest. I don't care about your word games.

Anonymous Mon Jun 12 20:20:10 2023 No.15497464

>>15497454
All I see is that you can't name zero's opposite number as anything other than zero or disprove that 0-0=0 is valid mathematics, so you are crying about wallowing in your own retardation instead of trying to think of a valid argument of your own of how zero is not self negating.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 12 20:21:08 2023 No.15497465 >>15497464 >All I see is that you can't name zero's opposite number The regular definition of 0 does not have an "opposite number". Keep equivocating, liar, and I'll keep effortlessly slapping you around for it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 12 20:22:33 2023 No.15497470 File: 2.65 MB, 700x394, huh.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15496791 >0 = 0+1/1

Anonymous Mon Jun 12 20:25:52 2023 No.15497478

>>15497465
>The regular definition of 0 does not have an "opposite number".
Then why does it negate itself and no other number does?
You said there is a difference between additive 0 and subtractive 0, instead of it being exactly equal, not just equivalent, so prove it.

What is 0-0 if I am lying about it being 0?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 12 20:28:49 2023 No.15497488 >>15497465 >If I just ignore the obvious contradiction, it does not exist Keep burying your head in the sand. You will never come up with another number that exactly negates zero besides zero.

Anonymous Mon Jun 12 20:35:18 2023 No.15497505

>>15497470
He redefined "zero" to not be zero. That's why I did that. I explained that later. Results in all kinds of unintuitive nonsense unless you don't treat the symbol "0" as you ordinarily would.
>>15497478
>You said there is a difference between additive 0 and subtractive 0
Based on your redefining zero. I don't care about your definitions.
>Then why does it negate itself and no other number does?
I don't care about your redefined zero.
>>15497488
>Keep burying your head in the sand. You will never come up with another number that exactly negates zero besides zero.
I don't care about your redefined zero.

You can either use standard definitions to communicate yourself or you can stop pretending you're being anything but dishonest.

Anonymous Mon Jun 12 21:06:06 2023 No.15497587

>>15497505
Nope, I pointed out 0-0=0 which means that 0 = -0 and your math is the only math that is obviously dishonest and retarded as pointed out by >>15497470 and explained bu your improper use of division by 0 and failure to divide both sides by zero equally, you haven't actually pointed out anything dishonest about my definitions such as 0-0=0 or x-x=0 means x is self negating, you just say you don't care that you are obvious wrong and dishonest and until you can come up with an opposite number for zero that is not zero, you are just conceding that you are wrong and that 0-0=0 which is self negating.

The standard definition of 0-0 is 0, and you haven't even tried to prove otherwise without openly dishonest lies like saying these are valid steps.
>1+0 = 0+1 ->
>0 = 0+1/1 ->
>0/0 = 1/1

I don't care about any non argument or openly dishonest math you come up, I haven't redefined zero, you did when you said 0 = 0+1/1 and you have no proof and unless you can present a nonzero opposite of zero or prove that zero doesn't self negate and satisfy x-x = 0, your logic is garbage.

Anonymous Mon Jun 12 21:17:14 2023 No.15497617

>>15497587
>Nope, I pointed out 0-0=0 which means that 0 = -0
Nope.
Nothing subtracted by nothing = nothing.
DOES NOT MEAN: Nothing subtracted by nothing = negative nothing
>The standard definition of 0-0 is 0, and you haven't even tried to prove otherwise
Because it does mean 0, because you haven't changed anything. It does not mean -0, which implies you changed something.
>>15497587
>and your math is the only math that is obviously dishonest and retarded as pointed out by >>15497470 and explained bu your improper use of division by 0
If the symbol "0" no longer means "nothing", you can divide by it. It is not my fault you either don't understand the consequences of your own bullshit or aren't being honest about it.
>I don't care about any non argument or openly dishonest math you come up, I haven't redefined zero,
Yes you have. You do so explicitly,
>0-0=0 which means that 0 = -0
This is changing the definition of 0 by redefining the symbol "0" and treating it like a variable, or other quantity, rather than as the origin or nothing.

In ordinary terms, what you did was wrong. An incorrect operation. 0, minus 0, is 0. There is no such thing as [negative 0]. If you think there is, again, point to me where it is located on the graph. What you find is there is only a single 0, the origin point, not "negative 0". What you are doing is, ordinarily, just a mistake. Wrong. Cope and seethe about it I don't care.

Anonymous Mon Jun 12 21:27:05 2023 No.15497650

>>15497617
Subtraction is negative.

0, -0, and +0 all mean nothing and are all exactly equal because adding and subtracting 0 is equal which is only possible because 0 negates itself, its not your fault you don't understand, I am beginning to believe, its just your unfortunate retarded condition.

>redefining
I am not, it is a variable known as nothing or the additive inverse, you are the one using semantics instead of math to poorly disprove that 0-0=0 when that is entirely mathematically correct.

>minus 0
That means negative 0, minus is the negation operation.

>If you think there is, again, point to me where it is located on the graph.
I did and you just didn't care about it when you realized it proves you wrong.

0 can be negated or added to any other value and the value doesn't change because 0 negates itself and is the only number that satisfies x-x=0, the self contradiction test.

>Wrong. Cope and seethe about it I don't care.
I am the one with the valid math equations, 0-0=0 is 100% true, you are the one using a bunch of words to avoid admitting you can't find any fault with the fact that 0-0 = 0.

You will never find an opposite number for zero that isn't zero, you are the one coping and seething and being openly dishonest with bad math.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 12 21:42:28 2023 No.15497714 Bro what the fuck happened to this thread. I had to go to bed and wage. Now it's 0 autists talking about accounting. Is physicalist anon still out there?

Anonymous Mon Jun 12 21:45:26 2023 No.15497730

>>15497650
>Subtraction is negative.
Nothing subtracting nothing = nothing.
>0, -0, and +0 all mean nothing
You cannot have negative and positive nothing and still have it mean the ordinary definition. Point to me where 3 different locations are on the graph. Can't do it, can you?
>I did and you just didn't care about it when you realized it proves you wrong.
You literally showed each dimension sharing the same origin point. A single zero. Not three different zeroes. "approaching nothing" != "nothing". Stop equivocating.
>I am the one with the valid math equations, 0-0=0 is 100% true,
Sure it is. Your assigning negative and positive values to 0, however, is not. Not unless you redefine 0.

It's really very simple.
Nothing subtracted by nothing = nothing.
The value or sign of "nothing" does not change because it has no value in the first place. If you are assigning it a value, or a sign of a value, you're not using the standard definition. If you claim that you are, you are lying or too stupid to understand it.

Anonymous Mon Jun 12 21:50:38 2023 No.15497752

>>15497714
>accounting
Paradox actually, its just this retard >>15497730 actively failing to realize that 0 is a self contradicting value without having any mathematical proof that 0-0=0 is not true or offering up how any other number can be zero's opposite satisfying x in 0-x=0 with anything other than 0.
He never can prove any of that and never will be able to, he doesn't even understand negatives signs or something as simple as draw axis lines to represent all the zero points from every dimension because each dimension is capable of being zero rather than simply all having to be zero at once.

Anonymous Mon Jun 12 21:54:25 2023 No.15497767

>>15497752
>0 is a self contradicting value
Not by ordinary definition. Only your retarded attempts to redefine it.
>without having any mathematical proof that 0-0=0 is not true
You literally just (you)'d a post where I explicitly said it's true while claiming I'm saying it isn't true.
>>15497714
As you can see, the liar happened to this thread. I'm just slapping him around for fun. Blame the jannies for not banning the obvious troll.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 12 22:05:37 2023 No.15497792 >>15497714 >Is physicalist anon still out there? Which physicalist anon?

Anonymous Tue Jun 13 05:13:23 2023 No.15498399

>>15497767
Nothing has been redefined, 0-0=0 by arithmetic axioms, you redefined 0 as 0+1/1 to make your shitty point when that is false logic and not accurate arithmetic at all.

>You literally just (you)'d a post where I explicitly said it's true while claiming I'm saying it isn't true.
Thank you for the concession and finally admitting what I have been saying is explicitly true and your logic is false. I am not lying about 0 being self negating because you can't solve 0-x = 0 for any number other than x=0.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 13 14:43:02 2023 No.15499053 >>15498399 >Nothing has been redefined, 0-0=0 by arithmetic axioms Keep lying bitch. >Nope, I pointed out 0-0=0 which means that 0 = -0 Now you're embarrassed and avoiding your own redefinition. How pathetic.

Anonymous Tue Jun 13 14:52:19 2023 No.15499061

>>15495721
I'm not sure you understand what science is
No one in science claims to know, the highest level a belief can readh through evidenciary and logical support is "theory"
Your god of the gaps argument is silly, as is your assumption that we cannot observe brain states

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 13 16:35:06 2023 No.15499202 >>15496657 only smart person on this board

Anonymous Tue Jun 13 17:43:27 2023 No.15499303

>>15495711
A few truth bombs for you people:

>our separate personal realities are purely mental, and composed of qualia, conceptualizations, feelings, etc.; nothing about them is physical
>the "physical world" is essentially disconnected from our reality and does not exist in any way that is meaningful to us, since we can't perceive it directly nor experience its true nature
>we can study it, conceptualize it and try to mentally visualize it, but that's just part of our mental experience
>the self an illusory construct and free will does not exist, at least from a conscious point of view
>the mind is separate from consciousness (ergo, it is in itself unconscious), and it is through the partial overlapping of the two that the "self" arises
>consciousness is merely the act of perceiving, it doesn't affect the workings of the mind and therefore doesn't influence decisions
>therefore, if free will exists it must be an unconscious process

Anonymous Tue Jun 13 18:02:51 2023 No.15499336

>>15499303
>truth
Truth about reality is that which corresponds to reality. Knowledge is a justified true belief. You presented no justifications for assertions of truth, and no demonstration of correspondence. You don't know what truth is.
What you have is a just-so story https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-so_story
>nothing about them is physical
100% of all the evidence in all science suggests the mental is generated from and by the physical. This is like saying music isn't physical because you've translated it from a record player to sound waves.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_division
>the "physical world" is essentially disconnected from our reality
As 100% of all of the evidence in science demonstrates the mind is a product of brains, the physical world is directly responsible for your reality. Including the degree to which it does, or does not, correspond to reality.

To recap,
1. Truth about reality is that which corresponds to reality.
2. Knowledge is a justified true belief.
3. Assertions of truth, claims of knowledge, require justification.
4. A just-so story is not justification.

Anonymous Tue Jun 13 18:23:39 2023 No.15499369

>>15496164
>Nothing does exist, I am holding nothing right now.
No you are not, you are surrounded by billions of molecules, atoms and energy fluctuations, whatever nothing manifested in this reality would get filled with material things
>Noting is empirically observable with every classical sense by seeing darkness, feeling numbness, hearing silence, smelling odorlessness, and tasting blandness.
You are a retard of the highest order, please stop posting

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 13 18:25:19 2023 No.15499373 >>15495856 neither can anyone else

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 13 18:30:49 2023 No.15499385 >>15499369 >you are surrounded by billions of molecules, atoms and energy fluctuations I don't think he's surrounded by words and concepts.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 13 18:59:35 2023 No.15499442 >>15499385 >I don't think he's surrounded by words and concepts. He's surrounded by what the words and concepts correspond to.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 13 20:21:59 2023 No.15499667 >>15499442 And what is that?

Anonymous Tue Jun 13 21:04:27 2023 No.15499765

>>15499667
>And what is that?
https://www.khanacademy.org/science
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/ms-physics
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/high-school-physics
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/ap-college-physics-1
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/ap-physics-2
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics
Here you go. Happy to help. Shame some adults reach adulthood knowing nothing but you can always choose to learn later.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 13 22:35:21 2023 No.15499909 >>15499765 >words words words >concepts concepts concepts Back to square one.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 13 23:04:15 2023 No.15499965 >>15499909 >Back to square one. What is back, what is square, what is one and what does to mean?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 13 23:05:13 2023 No.15499966 >>15499965 And just like that your materialist copes evaporate into thin air.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 13 23:05:26 2023 No.15499967 >>15499909 Sorry no idea what you mean you just used words and concepts

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 13 23:06:38 2023 No.15499970 >>15499966 What is air? What is materialism? Ehat is cope? What is evaporstion? What does into mean? What is thin? Air? Whhhhaaaat

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 13 23:06:52 2023 No.15499971 >>15499966 Weird more words and concepts huh what is he saying? Bunch of strange meaningless letters hey >>15499965 Any ideas? Maybe the mythical languange of Retardia?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 13 23:07:40 2023 No.15499972 >>15499971 Idea? Wut is that? Mythical? Language? Retardia? Sir you are tallking giberish

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 13 23:10:48 2023 No.15499978 >>15499966 Mooom moooom look i made unjustifiable claim about materialism!!!! I.. i told em. I told them only thing we know is konšusnes...mooom. and then and then i proceded to tell them everything else because i can do anythimg in fairytale world..

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 13 23:11:37 2023 No.15499980 >>15499978 Are you having a stroke?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 13 23:12:58 2023 No.15499983 >>15499980 Yes. Your existance finally has some meaning. It is used to give me stroke. Im imagining your mom noe giving me a "stroke". For if i imagine it its reall. I am your daddy now

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 13 23:14:01 2023 No.15499985 Why are theists so terrified of materialism, the ideology which has overwhelming evidence from the sciences?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 13 23:15:21 2023 No.15499990 >>15499985 >>15499985 Spooooky atoooms. Booooo

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 13 23:15:59 2023 No.15499992 >>15499985 >Why are theists so terrified of materialism They aren't. >the ideology which has overwhelming evidence from the sciences? It doesn't.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 13 23:16:55 2023 No.15499993 >>15499992 >They aren't They are >It doesn't Tis does

bodhi Tue Jun 13 23:22:31 2023 No.15499998
File: 609 KB, 1354x2056, MaterialismIsNotScience.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>15499985
You have zero evidence and zero capability to produce any moron, you are just too fucking stupid to realize it. Your entire worldview is built upon the premise that everything you perceive is factual when you have no way ever prove it but you arent smart enough to understand this. You are actually a schizo in a psycho ward heavily medicated and have been there for 2 decades. You can never prove this accusation false so stfu schizo

Anonymous Tue Jun 13 23:23:04 2023 No.15500000

>>15499985
>Why are theists so terrified of materialism
The more self evidently absurd the idea the more lies are required to keep believing it. Up to and including lying and declaring all of reality fake and retreating to total solipsism.

Sort of like with narcissists where the less capable and dumber the narcissist the more delusional they have to be to maintain that narcissism. Coincidentally, ALSO tends to retreat to pure solipsism.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 13 23:24:59 2023 No.15500003 >>15500000 >The more self evidently absurd the idea the more lies are required to keep believing it. Based and true. Materialists are delusional liars.

Anonymous Tue Jun 13 23:26:43 2023 No.15500009

>>15499998
Idealism in a nutshell
>Doubts percieved reallity because
>Insert: Our senses trick us

Not single one of them ever thought. Its not senses that trick us rather our mind. Yet the mind is holly place of idealism HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Imagine refuting your own worldview in start. My god i cant.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 13 23:28:29 2023 No.15500014 >>15500000 >>15500003 >Materialists are delusional liars Bruuuuuh HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

bodhi Tue Jun 13 23:29:36 2023 No.15500016

>>15500009
As I said. You are incredibly stupid. The level of stupid this post is on is absolutely mind boggling.
>the senses cant be fooled
So I guess mirages don't exist? I guess you have never thought you smelled something you didnt? Thought you heard something you didnt? You a stone cold retard

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 13 23:29:40 2023 No.15500017 >>15500014 Are you having a psychiatric episode? We can call help for you.

>>	bodhi Tue Jun 13 23:32:00 2023 No.15500022 >>15500009 conversely, your "mind" as you put it convincing you things exist that cant be psychically proven to exist does not negate idealism you stone cold fucking retard, that is precisely the point. The mind creates the reality

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 13 23:33:00 2023 No.15500025 >>15500016 >mirages >heard something you didnt HAHAHAHAHAHA HE KEEPS REFUTING HIM SELF I CANNNNTTT LOOORRRRD >>15500017 psychiatric episode That is really good way to describe reading your posts anon. Thank you. I shall call my book as such.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 13 23:34:03 2023 No.15500026 >>15500025 I eagerly await the publishing of your schizo vixra manuscript.

>>	bodhi Tue Jun 13 23:34:34 2023 No.15500027 File: 1.79 MB, 355x343, joker6.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15500025 imagine thinking I would read this after you showing everyone you are a stone fucking retard. I dont associate with retards

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 13 23:34:40 2023 No.15500028 >>15499998 Kys schizo

>>	bodhi Tue Jun 13 23:35:58 2023 No.15500030 >>15500028 the projecting schizo who never leaves is here. Imagine my shock. Which day of the week do you change you crusty underwear you psycho freak?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 13 23:36:13 2023 No.15500033 >>15500022 >things exist that cant be psychically proven to exist does not negate idealism OH NONONONONONONO PHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA He does not even know what his view is built on. Man... no mind can create fool like you. You are priceless.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 13 23:37:08 2023 No.15500034 >>15500030 What happened to your handlers?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 13 23:37:46 2023 No.15500035 >>15500027 I cant. For i dont even have proof you can read at all for starters HAHAHAHAH

>>	bodhi Tue Jun 13 23:39:10 2023 No.15500038 >>15500034 I just dropped a hot steamer after I ate some soup. I saved you two scoops shit eating schizo. You can squish on your troon retard bf's dick here >>15500035 and lick it clean just the way you love it.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 13 23:40:27 2023 No.15500041 >>15500038 >Continous to show of his fragile mind My God man.. spare your self... But thank you.. i needed this laugh.

>>	bodhi Tue Jun 13 23:41:46 2023 No.15500043 File: 2.67 MB, 414x322, joker4.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15500041 >Continuous

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 13 23:43:19 2023 No.15500046 >>15500043 >Pic rel Bodhi in psych ward last year HAHAHAHAHAHA

>>	bodhi Tue Jun 13 23:49:53 2023 No.15500056 >>15500046 you are the shit eating schizo samefag. Imagine my surprise that you are DID. You love eating shit

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 14 00:43:17 2023 No.15500125 >>15499909 Nothing says "I'm the main character" like thinking you have it all figured out and nothing more to learn.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 14 01:00:05 2023 No.15500149 >>15500000 shit thread shit post good number

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 14 19:13:01 2023 No.15501399 >>15499336 you are working from your presupposed conclusion. try again.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 14 22:34:24 2023 No.15501855 >>15501399 You are presupposing there's a presupposed conclusion. Try again.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 14 22:38:30 2023 No.15501862 >>15495711 >literally no evidence for magical souls or free will >materialism BTFO epic style Absolute state of /sci/.

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

/sci/ - Science & Math