>makes philosophy obsolete
>>18416445How?
>>18416446It makes 90% of metaphysical discussions and fart huffing irrelevant because they're simply false, since they presume physicalism to be false (it's not).Thus the only relevant fields that remain are niches like ethics and societal phenomena and such, but you could easily say those aren't even philosophy but rather sociology.
>>18416445Kinda. I can't wait for neurobiology to improve so that we can finally understand what actually are morals and consciousness. By that point, we'll practically have finished most of philosophy.Once that happens, philosophy will be restrained to very specific fields, like philosophy of history, language, law etc and then you won't get retards making the most atrocious arguments known to man to prove that rape is objectively good or something.
>>18416445Bro woke up in 2010
>>18416467You... want to use neurobiology to discover what morals are? What?
>>18416470What do you not understand brainlet ?
>>18416474Do you think morals are physically stored in the brain or something? How retarded can you possibly be?
>>18416474Why are you calling him a brainlet? You're the one who said something stupid.
>>18416475>Do you think morals are physically stored in the brainYes? Or do you have any proof to the contrary?
define morals
>>18416570A set of beliefs and principles, propagated by innate biological constraints and societies
>>18416577Okay so what's the "neurobiological" answer to the trolley problem?
>>18416445People take philosophy too seriously...Just like religion, people take it too seriously, there is some metaphoric truths in the bible but taking the bible as literal truth is cringeworthyThat's how politics and philosophy and religion should be regarded, only people that take these concepts too seriously are troublesome
>>18416467my brother in Christ, le science™ on which physicalism is based cannot explain qualia, because there is no objective metric by which it can be measured; you will quite literally be waiting forever.
>>18416684 qualia is just neurons firing in your braincolor is just photons at a certain frequencywhat are you talking about retard?
>>18416483>hurr abstract concepts have a real existencenta but you are making the claim, show me the list of morals you extracted from the brain
>>18416700>color is just photons at a certain frequencyand there is where you fucked up, not all colors map to frequencies. go ahead give me the frequency of light for brown
>>18416672>so what's the "neurobiological" answer to the trolley problemWhatever that persons genetics and socio cultural upbringings are + a bunch of baseline biological imperatives.>>18416684>muh qualiaJust because there is no objective metric by which qualia can be measured *yet*, doesn't mean they magically become something supernatural metaphysical my little retard.Actually I partially lied, we're already doing first probes into that direction, see Neural Correlates of Consciousness and other scientific methods in neuroscience when it comes to muh subjective experiences.
>>18416700you are performing a fallacy by associating qualia with neuronal activity, when qualia has no observable first-order material quality from which to be observed. tl;dr you can never experience someone else's experience, nor can you observe experience
>>18416711>when qualia has no observable first-order material quality from which to be observedThey do. Spoiler alert, it's neuronal activity.
>>18416720>sensual emission/reception/processing is qualiaanother fallacy. going at it quite strongly today are we?Again, you cannot "experience" another experience. What you are describing is observing neuronal input/output, not [x]'s experience of its own neuronal input/output. You're essentially conflating the effects with the cause
>>18416726>demystify some qualia like image and Color perception>"uhh ok these aren't qualia ackchually, what about THESE qualia?" Lmao disingenuous little retard
>>18416684>cannot explain qualia, because there is no objective metric by which it can be measuredLiterally false. A major paper just came out explaining color geometrically.
How are there still unironiv dualists?? You're mentally retarded if you believe in souls.
>>18416467>Morals are A THING INSIDE YOUR BRAINFumbduck normie, retards like you are the reason trepanations and lobotomies were seen as serious in the past
>>18416732That's not what he did you absolute moron. Do you even know what Qualia are?>hurr nerve lights up on brain chart therefore I now have access to the first person experienceidiot
>>18416732>>18416735you both are retards, so I'll try to repeat myself in simpler termColor = sensual input/processed information/outputColor =/= personal experience of sensual input/processed information/outputAs I said before, experience has no tangible first-order quality from which to observe it in the first place. It is, quite literally, a blind spot, yet it is inferred to exist by virtue of personal experience occuring in the first place.And this is without adding unto it the problem of Information, which basically states that all foundations for knowledge is virtually faith-based.Like, this is philosophy 101, Descartes. How can you not wrap your head around this?
>>18416467>I can't wait for neurobiology to improve so that we can finally understand what actually are morals and consciousnessCracking planck scale and discovering the elixir of life are next, surely. Maybe you'll even make green energy economically viable.
>>18416749>the logical possibility of inverted colorsThere literally is no such possibilityDualismbabbies always come with these circular reasonings which are always so funny to me. P zombies are also one of those things for me.>wot if you imagine that two people would experience as red and green even though the latter is physically impossible?>wot if you imagine two absolutely physically identical persons but one is not identical because it has le soul?
>>18416757>no tangible first-order quality from which to observe it in the first placeAnd we told you it does. You can measure the neuronal activity of two people observing the same Color and see the difference, while then also cross referencing their personal description of the Color. Then also compare it to people who describe it similarly and see that they have similar brain activity.
>>18416762prove there is no logical possibility
>>18416774>cross referencing their personal description of the Colordescribe the color red to a blind from birth person
Thinking that qualia exists in the scientific model(as distinct from "reality" itself, but of course science worshippers would refuse to admit that these are different) is like thinking that numbers exist in nature.
>>18416775>prove there is no logical possibilityWe know how green light comes to be and how the human eye perceives these signals. Sure you could imagine a hypothetical scenario in which you have a super giga rare brain that interprets these signals as an inverted color, but considering how biology works such a thing is factually impossible. We have also no human example of it ever occurring, so the hypothetical is irrelevant. I'm not even sure what it's supposed to prove, that brains can interpret signals differently? Yeah no fucking shit
Finding a morality centre within the brain would be incredibly grim. Just imagine knowing that some people are just naturally predisposed to evil to no fault of their own will. In fact, would that still be evil at that point? Who was it who claimed that the intentions of the action matter, rather than the result? If the intentions were a purely biological imperative the person has no real control over, then can they even be blamed for anythign?
>>18416757You are profoundly mentally retarded. The main argument for qualia is that there exists a category error in equivocation quantitative physical information processing and qualitative subject first person experience, however no such category error actually exists so the entire basis of the position is ill founded and false. The specific electrochemical processes and stimulates of the nerves is indeed exactly equivalent to the subjective experience and just saying "nuh uh" does not change this.There is no "problem of information" which states that "all knowledge is faith based". You're probably referring to the problem of hard solipsism but in any case, you don't know anything about actual philosophy.
>>18416445True. The "hard problem of consciousness" is just solipsism in disguise and solipsism is only for the mentally invalid/braindead.
>>18416774>And we told you it does. You can measure the neuronal activity of two people observing the same Color and see the difference, while then also cross referencing their personal description of the Color. Then also compare it to people who describe it similarly and see that they have similar brain activity.But then you are just cross-referencing the sensual information, not the experience, which is the whole point of my argument : that you conflate two completely different things as one. Again, you cannot -cannot, categorically- experience another thing's experience; whether it be spacially or temporally, because observation requires A) a tangible quality from which to observe, which sensual information is NOT, and B) experience in the first place, you will invariably bias the observation with your own experience, rendering the whole attempt moot.And, again, consider that I do not believe in your foundation of knowledge to begin with, as per the Problem of Information stated in my previous post. I believe in an immaterial, eternal, all-encompassing origin for information, while you seem to believe that knowledge "occurs" in the sensual, which is an absurd position that ultimately explains nothing.
>>18416788>Just imagine knowing that some people are just naturally predisposed to evil to no fault of their own will. There are and if they are predisposed to such a degree we put them into a mental institution.>In fact, would that still be evil at that point? No, which is why we put them in a mental institution >Who was it who claimed that the intentions of the action matter, rather than the result?Both matter, what is this retarded tangent >If the intentions were a purely biological imperative the person has no real control over, then can they even be blamed for anythign?From a universalist perspective sure you can't blame anyone on anything. From an interpersonal perspective we can't predict and prevent these things so the best we can do is judge and blame people.
>>18416789You still do not understand. There is nothing linking the immaterial concept of "Information" to the brain. Commit as many fallacious mental gymnastics as you'd like, there is ultimately nothing linking experience and information to the material occurences observable by science; it's exactly why Descartes' mechanist movement failed, because he couldn't find any evidence of a link between the thinking substance and the bodily mechanisms. No such advancement have been made in the domain since then because there is quite literally no way do quantify experience.
>>18416799>Both matter, what is this retarded tangentImagine someone passes you a glass of poison with the intention of killing you vs someone passes you the same glass assuming they're just giving you some water for you to quench your thirstthe result is the same, you drink poison and die, and you'd say the latter person is still evil despite having no ill will?
>>18416787The human eye doesn't "perceive" any color it just detects a specific combinations of wavelengths which later the visual processing centers of the brain interprets. Anyway that's not even what it is talking about. Given an identical internal circuitry you cannot prove that person A and person B have to see the exact same representation from a first person perspective. At best you can say that from your third person observation the exact same effects are happening in their brains.
>>18416806Information is the sequence or arrangement of a substrate. You don't even know what information is. I didn't commit a single fallacy or mental gymnastics. You're coping and pretending souls exist (they don't and literally can't).Massive advancements have been made and you just saying "nuh uh" is not an argument
>>18416810>Given an identical internal circuitry you cannot prove that person A and person B have to see the exact same representation from a first person perspectiveSays who? Which physical or mathematical law prevents this? You're committing a blatantly retarded fallacy which basically amounts to "science can't do this yet, so *other explanation* must be true"
>>18416445But physicalism itself is a philosophical position.
>>18416684Qualia is an incoherent concept made up by soul believing retards. It can't be measured because it doesn't exist. When soul believers are told this simple fact, they start seething about "p-zombies" and other derangements.
>>18416815>Says who?You? because you haven't given any evidence of your positive claim that doing otherwise is logically impossible as I have requested
>>18416818Nooooo you don't get it, it's special so it doesn't count
>>18416818Like abstinence being a sex position. Or bald being a hairstyle.
>>18416821>qualia doesn't existprove it, I am currently experiencing it
>>18416799I can tell you wanted to put unvaxxed people in camps
>>18416824>doing otherwise is logically impossible as I have requestedIt is, because it'd be breaking the laws of physics and thus laws of logic. You have to presume you can break physics to even give any plausibility to your circular reasons. You basically go like this:>wot if two things identical>physics says these two things will behave in an identical manner >but wot if one is actually NOT behaving identical >this means physics actually can't explain everything, heh
>>18416830Is the "qualia" in the room with you?
>>18416814>Information is the sequence or arrangement of a substrate. brother, are you being purposefully obtuse? Sequences or arrangements are a subjective, preference-based organization dependent on experience. Without an observer -an experience- there is no sequence or arrangement. Information is quite literally impossible in a world without [something] experiencing; and unfortunately for you, such a process does NOT necessarily imply sensual occurences.
>>18416837Are you denying that his experience exists?
>>18416842His experience is just changes in the configuration of the matter making him up. Are you implying that "qualia" is just changes in configurations of matter?
>>18416850you are fallaciously presupposing a relation of subordination in favor of the objective physical occurences over the subjective, immaterial experience, when nothing concretely links either to exist in relation to one another except a preference of belief that what one experience is linked to the senses to begin with.This is why I hate working with people who skimmed through their philosophy classes, they automatically presuppose so many goddamn things as elementary axioms in their worldview it's legitimately tiring.
>>18416850In other words yes, you are denying his experience exists. For the record, as I said here >>18416785 I acknowledge that it indeed doesn't exist in the scientific model. It just means that the scientific model doesn't encompass all of reality, which is a blasphemous idea to you.
>>18416860>nothing concretely links either to exist in relation to one anotherYou keep claiming this despite literally being wrong. We already know neuronal activity represents subjective perception, your subjective perception can change things after your brain gets mashed in etc, people with similar perceptions have similar brain patterns.
>>18416860>fallaciously presupposing a relation of subordination in favor of the objective physical occurencesStating a straightforward consequence of physicalism is not the same as a "false presupposition", sweaty.
>>18416835>the laws of physics and thus laws of logicHow does breaking the laws of physics breaks the laws of logic again? Where are these laws anyway and which ones are being broken?>physics says these two things will behave in an identical mannerOh so you're assuming determinism and a very particular form of it. Is that really so? If I shoot two identical photons at the exact same spot (how could you even achieve this given the uncertainty principle is beyond me) as in pic rel can you 100% of the time predict exactly where it will be detected? Yes or No
>>18416863>you are denying his experience existsOnly by your retarded definition, not by mine. Experience is just changes in configurations of matter as I've already explained.
>>18416868>muh double slitThanks for outing yourself as a popsci 50 is brainlet, you're one of these retards who unironically think observer means consciousness lmfao
>>18416873>idiot doesn't know there are multiple interpretationsNo I don't, I want to know if you believe you can predict the exact spot where it will be detected 100% of the time. Not a probability distribution the actual position. So far you're running away from answering something extremely simple. And obviously no laws were given too, thanks for proving you're talking out of your ass.
>>18416864And I keep telling you that no, neuronal experience =/= information intrinsically, it is a mere inference brought about by your subjective preference in having 100% faith in your sensual inputs>>18416865It is when you are confounding "consequence" with "basis". Physicalism has to start with the presupposition that information is a materially-based existence, which is wholly a preference and cannot be proven. It is an unfalsifiable claim.
>>18416869Yes anon when you redefine experience the Hard problem seemingly goes away, unfortunately reality is not commanded by how we define words and so the hard problem persists.
>>18416878>It is an unfalsifiable claim.Even if it were, an "unfalsifiable claim" is also not the same as a "false presupposition". Aren't philosophers supposed to know these elementary things?>>18416879The "hard problem" is just a mental illness that exists in the heads of those who believe it, akin to schizophrenia. I don't deny that your mental illness exists.
>>18416876>there are multiple interpretationsFor the double slit experiment? There aren't >detectedAlready shows you have a fundamental misunderstanding of physics. Detecting something is already an act of intervention.In a hypothetical undistirbed system and some hyper advanced physical knowledge you could predict it 100% of the time, yes.
>>18416445It's an exaggeration to say that it makes all philosophy obsolete, however among actual philosophers (not retards on 4chan or YouTube apologists) physicalism and atheism are the overwhelmingly held positions because there is no real argument against them and all evidence and arguments are in favor of them.
>>18416838>brother, are you being purposefully obtuse? Sequences or arrangements are a subjective, preference-based organization dependent on experienceLol no they aren't.Information is not "Impossible" without an perceiver. It's the opposite, minds require information but no all information is a mind and thus minds are continent on information in all possible worlds. And yes, all knowledge is sensory.Continue showing you don't know anything
>>18416888Retracting the "false" from my statement will change very little to the fact that your "scientifically-based" philosophy is ultimately based on one very unscientific, circular, preference-based false axiom.
>>18416903>Science is unscientificUmm okay. Hope you get better soon.
>>18416903Saying "things sure seem like this based on all evidence we collected and literally zero evidence on the contrary" is not circular Saying "ok there's all this evidence but assume it didn't matter and other things were true, wouldn't that mean the consequences of those presumably true things are true" sure is circular though, dualistbabby.
>>18416897>Information is not "Impossible" without an perceiver. It's the opposite, minds require information but no all information is a mind and thus minds are continent on information in all possible worlds.>In all possible worldswhat does this even mean? What "possible worlds" exist except the one [one] is experiencing right now?Furthermore, the first sentence is purely a preference-based argument. As I said above, you have no way of verifying such a claim; it is a mere presupposition on the operations of information with literally zero proof.>And yes, all knowledge is sensory.Another presupposition without any substance whatsoever.This is entirely a faith-based argument, can't you even process this?
>>18416907>>18416909You could collect gorillions of terabytes of data and observations, it would not change the fact that you ultimately presuppose experienced information is sensual input/processing/output by claiming it is physically-based when no such thing can be confirmed or infirmed.
>>18416916>You could collect gorillions of terabytes of data and observations, it would not change the fact that you ultimately presuppose experienced information is sensual input/processing/output by claiming it is physically-ba->generates a perfect replica of your brain and surroundings >creates a thought predictor>(Neither of those things are physically impossible btw)ACK
>>18416891>For the double slit experiment?No you idiot I was talking about this "features common across versions of the Copenhagen interpretation include the idea that quantum mechanics is intrinsically indeterministic" Which is exactly what you are denying with no evidence whatsoever to back it up.>Detecting something is already an act of intervention.I was talking about prediction. Can you not read?
>>18416927>retards think I literally transpose [I] into the thought replicatorcan't you understand the difference between first-person or third-person, or are you genuinely sub-80 IQ?
>>18416933>ackchually someone being able to perfectly replicate my thoughts and subjective experiences and even predict them doesn't matter So you don't even argue for free will, you only care about the fact that your identity und feeling of self has some magical uniqueness?
>>18416969>So you don't even argue for free willFree will is entirely irrelevant to the current conversation, yes! What the fuck kind of tangent is that? Where did I even reference will? My point is the experience in itself. Whether a machine can predict or not what I can or cannot do does not matter in this debate because my point is that [I] am not the replicator, retard. I cannot experience BEING the replicator. Or do you believe that magically I begin sharing experience with the replicator because it has predictive programming that copies physical inputs and outputs?
>>18416975>I cannot experience BEING the replicatorActually you can if we make you>Or do you believe that magically I begin sharing experience with the replicator Not magically but we could replace your brain Theseus ship style and connect with the replicator. All of these are completely valid options in a physical world.
>>18416451>It makes 90% of metaphysical discussions and fart huffing irrelevant because they're simply false, since they presume physicalism to be false (it's not).Philosophy is more than metaphysics.
>>18416930It's cute that dualismbabbies think some nondeterminism on the quantum layer means physicalism not real and magical sky fairies exist.No, us saying "ok you'll do thing x with 60% probability and thing y with 40% probability" does not suddenly mean dualism is real.
>>18416982>Not magically but we could replace your brain Theseus ship style and connect with the replicator.You're missing the point entirely. By admitting you need to "hook me up" for me to begin sharing experience, you conceded that you cannot materially observe a shared experience in two materially distinct things. You completely destroyed your own argument, because since for you experience is entirely physical, two distinct things, even if they are ONLY distinct by their spatial position, cannot share the same First-Person experience.You literally cannot ever quantify experience according to your own standard. Ce qu'il fallait démontrer.
>>18416993>By admitting you need to "hook me up" for me to begin sharing experience,We don't, it's just a simple crutch so brainlets like you understand your experience is not unique and can easily be replaced, transferred, duplicated, recreated and destroyed.
>>18417001>We don't, it's just a simple crutch so brainlets like you understand your experience is not unique and can easily be replaced, transferred, duplicated, recreated and destroyed.Again, I ask you to prove to me in a straightforward way, WITHOUT begging for a unity of being that literally cannot be, how [I] and [The Replicator] can share experience in the First-Person.I'm not asking, sharing observation, I'm not asking sharing input/processing/output, I'm asking if [I] experience being the [I] of the Replicator without being a singular unit.
>>18417007We could transplant the replicator in a human identical to you and put him in the same simulated environment, voila, you share the same experience It's really not that hard anon.The only difference is the outsider knowledge that you're two distinct entities within the universe, but that's completely irrelevant to dualism being real. You admitting that I can perfectly replicate your experience is already sufficient to eternally BTFO your dualism copes.
Are there any actually good arguments against it? There's really nothing pointing towards any other possibility
>>18417013>We could transplant the replicator in a human identical to you and put him in the same simulated environment, don't you see that it's exactly my point? You need every single material attributes, whether historic or actual, of [I] to be the same for [The Other] to share experience, which is completely unfeasible. Furthermore, you still don't answer the question of whether "I" experiences [I]'s experience or [The Other]'s. Finally, you imply, by using simulated environment as an escape, to have to presuppose that those experiences cannot exist separately but in the same environment, or else they'd mutually disrupt one another, making them not the same; or else, they'd be in harmony and would experience each other mutually. Am I not right? This is just further proof that there is no true sharing of the First-Person experience here.
>>18417019>Are there any actually good arguments against it?No
>>18417019Not really. Literally all arguments (arguments, not hypotheticals) against it use circular reasoning or have some incredibly obvious fallacy.Knowledge argument -> disingenuous confusion about the distinction between physical knowledge and physical experience, pretending the two are the sameP zombies -> circular reasoningHempels dilemma -> even more retarded, basically assumes the current state of human knowledge is the final and ultimate state of knowledge Argument from first person perspectives (like that one very annoying retard ITT) -> circular reasoning as it assumes personal experience MUST be non physical and then argues that physicalism not real based off of that
>>18416989Yes that's a cool straw man, nobody made that argument you moron. You are now forced to backtrack from your claim about determinism because now you cannot even say "physics says these two things will behave in an identical manner". You simply can't predict that, at best you can give a probability distribution. Of course this has absolutely nothing to do with qualia or the logical impossibility you claim exists, in fact in that example I granted that everything was identical to help your case.
>>18417030>which is completely unfeasibleUnfeasible with current tech ≠ impossible. Nothing in physics says it would be impossible>words words wordsSo your cope basically amounts to >these two entities are not identical in the space time continuum, but identical in their thoughts experience and personal perception (completely fine in physicalism btw) >but because they're not at the same place, im a special babby and dualism realDo you even know what dualism means, retard? Zero of what you said disproves physicalism
>>18417037So why do so many philosophers take the problem seriously then?
>>18417039>a consistent deterministic probability distribution is not a predictionLmaoBut at least you admit that even all of this STILL doesn't disprove physicalism kek.
>>18417037>Argument from first person perspectives (like that one very annoying retard ITT) -> circular reasoning as it assumes personal experience MUST be non physical and then argues that physicalism not real based off of thatCute. I am merely asking you to clarify your own position without assuming your axiom concerning the physicality of experience to be true, retard. Now answer why on Earth you'd believe that the distinct [I] and [the Replicator] sitting in the same room can share the same First-Person experience WITHOUT appealing to an argument where we magically become the same temporal and spatial being - which would disqualify your position.
>>18417050Yep if you had to identical starting positions if you can't say 100% of the time how it will end up . Your point is demolished and now you have to run away
>>18417047>So why do so many philosophers take the problem seriously then?Historical reasons in the field of philosophy. Basically philosophy pre scientific advancements was le thinking and theorising about a bunch of bullshit science couldn't explain in the slightest. Consciousness, earth and space origins, etc etc. not just that, religion played a massive role, so directions arguing against the supernatural were MASSIVELY discouraged.Then, while science made massive advances during the 19th and 20th centuries (physicalism was als born in the 1930s), this posed a massive crisis for philosophers, because increasingly their arguments were made largely redundant or straight up false. But humans are brainlets, so they still hold onto their beliefs and upbringings, so religion and certain other superstitious beliefs lead to trying to disprove physicalism.
Is the qualia guy arguing for dualism? I didn't read the thread but dualism doesn't need to be true for qualia to exist. Dualism is obviously false as it implies a contradiction but that isn't the same as saying qualia don't exist.
>>18417045>>these two entities are not identical in the space time continuum, but identical in their thoughts experience and personal perception (completely fine in physicalism btw)>>but because they're not at the same place, im a special babby and dualism realyou're fallaciously conflating "Place" with "First-Person" here, why are you like this?>Do you even know what dualism means, retard? Zero of what you said disproves physicalismMy point is not disproving physicalism but your "axiom" that all information and all experience is materially-based, it is retarded to just assume so when you can't even tell me what difference there are between two separate objects of same attributes in different space-time position and why they are not each others.
I like how the arguments have changed from "There's no solution to the hard problem!" to "I don't like the physicalist solution to the hard problem!"
>>18417065If you said this among profession philosophers and philosophy fans, you would get accused of scientism or new atheism or positivism.
>>18417060>Yep if you had to identical starting positions if you can't say 100% of the time how it will end up . Your point is demolished and now you have to run awayDualism is not "you can't perfectly predict what happens in the mind", it's literally "the mind is a magical entity separate from the physical".Probabilities are very much physical and me being able to reduce what you're able to think to n static possibilities every single time is still physicalism.
>>18417065>because increasingly their arguments were made largely redundant or straight up falsecan you get an ought claim from what is?
>>18417076The overwhelming majority of professional philosophers are atheists and physicalists.
>>18417091I doubt it, and even lots of atheist philosophers hate the triad of scientism, new atheism, positivism.
>>18417081>can you get an ought claim from what is?Yes.Its kinda funny how Hume actually BTFO himself because this "Guillotine" is an is ought claim, this basically disproving itself >>18417094There are polls about this anon, and you seething about muh scientism positivism atheism won't change things
>>18417094https://survey2020.philpeople.org/survey/results/4842
>>18417100what physical information is Hume using for this supposed is claim giving an ought?
>>18417100>There are polls about this anonI've seen them. You're talking about the philpapers thing, right? Only a slight majority are physicalists according to that /pol/. I don't disagree with what you said, I'm just saying that lots of philosophers will call you a scientismist, etc. if you say these things to them.
>>18416827bald is a hairstyle if you can grow hair. also physicalism is philosophy. it has it's own philosophical history (it didn't pop into the human thought fully formed). give Epicurus, Lucretius, Spinoza and Popper their flowers you fool.
>>18417102Yep, I've seen this poll already. Seehttps://survey2020.philpeople.org/survey/results/4874Only 51% favor physicalism
>>18417112>onlyAnd only 31% are against physicalism while the rest gave cop out answers, so physicalism is by far the most popular view. Compared to 2009 it also keeps increasing.
>>18417115Yeah, only 51%, not an overwhelming majority. If they took another sample, it could easily drop below 50%. If you use any of the philosophy subr*ddits, they would definitely accuse you of scientism, new atheism, positivism.
>>18417105The is ought statement in humes Guillotine is ironically the Guillotine itself. Saying you can/should never deduce an ought from an is, is an ought deduced from an is (the is here is his observations about reality and other philosophic argumentations).So essentially Hume disproves himself, the Guillotine is so retarded it basically applies to itself and is thus a massive contradiction. Meanwhile the opposite statement (you can easily deduce oughts from is) has none of these problems.
>>18416451>It makes 90% of metaphysical discussions and fart huffing irrelevant because they're simply false>they presume physicalism to be false (it's not)2 declarative statements backed by 0 evidence and/or explanations
>>18417133My evidence is that there's no evidence against it, while there's plenty of evidence against the opposite
>>18417133Nta but it's well known. See this statement by hume"If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion."
>>18417121>The is ought statement in humes Guillotine is ironically the Guillotine itself. Saying you can/should never deduce an ought from an is, is an ought deduced from an is (the is here is his observations about reality and other philosophic argumentations).But Hume doesn't deduce it from an observation of [something], which you claim supports your argument that the Guillotine destroys itself. Hume clearly observes that there is a the absence of logical ground for an inference to ought from is. It is quite literally a negative argument, and therefore cannot be considered an "is" because, as Hume points out, there is _nothing_ there to observe in the first place. It is an argument from a "not-is"; therefore, it does not slot in into its own target.
>>18417148>But Hume doesn't deduce it from an observation of [something]From what does he deduce it then? His magical dreams? Lmao>there is a the absence of logical ground for an inferenceThere isn't, the only thing he observed was some other philosophers being retarded but that doesn't mean EVERY inference is false Anyway, Hume was a bit of a retard and clearly didn't give this statement much thought, since it was just a preamble to his third book. Hume was born too early to realize that you very easily can infer is from ought based on biological and physical is statements.
>>18417080>Dualism is notI didn't say it was. You were the one making the argument about the supposed logical impossibility of Qualia differing given identical matter. Now that you know you cannot actually predict how it would behave you can't even make that stupid point. And I already said that for the sake of argument I am going to take your piss poor understanding of QM and assume that it is identical behavior. You still do not have access to the first person experience. We already have a full connectome of the C. elegans roundworm figured out but do you know what it's like to be that roundowrm?
>>18417158>From what does he deduce it then? His magical dreams?From the studying of the process of claiming an ought from an is and there being a gap in explaining the why between the two. An absence. A "No-Thing". Not a "Thing". Something that "Is not", rather than "is".>There isn'tProve it>the only thing he observed was some other philosophers being retarded but that doesn't mean EVERY inference is falseon what grounds? to just claim that in a vacuum is a preference, not an authoritative claim.>Anyway, Hume was a bit of a retard and clearly didn't give this statement much thought, since it was just a preamble to his third book. Hume was born too early to realize that you very easily can infer is from ought based on biological and physical is statements.Again, on what grounds? All I hear from you when it comes to these basic assumptions are faith-based statements you consider to be axioms. Give me an actual irrefutable proof that can't be explained any other way than by your standard, i.e. pure materialism.
>>18417165>falls back to "science doesn't have an answer to this yet, therefore magic" tier reasoning The absolute state
>>18417173>"but I did have breakfast this morning", except this time it's the foundation of a philosophical theory
>>18417171>Give me an actual irrefutable proof No such thing exists when talking about brains, as we're not advanced enough to fully understand them. If we were, I could easily give you one. But it's materialism is the best explanation we have by far. Any spiritual explanation required denying the laws of physics, and then there's VERY obvious mechanisms like brain damage (physical) altering your perception of self and personality (supposedly metaphysical). Chemicals can turn off your consciousness at will. And so on and so on. All of these require insane levels of mental gymnastics to be compatible with any non materialist/physicalist beliefs.
>>18417165Do you think biology is unpredictable?
>>18417179>No such thing exists when talking about brains, as we're not advanced enough to fully understand them. If we were, I could easily give you one.So what you,re saying to me is to have faith in you? "Just trust me bro?" How so very unscientific and ultimately unfalsifiable.
>>18417191Not sure if you're trolling or you're genuinely only capable of black and white thinking Saying "there's much more evidence for this than for that other thing" is not "just trust me bro"
>>18417179>>18417191Bro just admit your position is faith-based - just like those spirituals that supposedly deny the laws of physics that you hate - and there will be an end to the torment.
>>18417192But all of your evidence can ultimately argued against, since it is not irrefutable; therefore, why is your worldview superior to any antimaterialist's, other than personal preference?
>>18417171>Give me an actual irrefutable proof that can't be explained any other way than by your standardAre you retarded? Lol
>>18417201Well that's HIS position; that all manner of philosophical position are not only materialistic in nature but that there is a scientifically-attainable model for each and every one of them. I'm just asking him to be consistent and prove it.
>>18417197>ackchually all positions that have arguments against it are equal, you see a position that has 99 strong arguments against it and 1 weak argument for it is just as plausible as a position with 99 strong arguments for it and 1 weak argument against it Please be baiting, nobody is THIS retarded
>>18417208Hm yeah, you are retarded.
>>18417209I'm not telling you that your position is unjustifiable because other exists, I am asking you that, in light of other positions contesting your own - that there is an ideal state in the future where all knowledge, including the ones that are unquantifiable by modern means, will be explainable by scientific means - to give me a reason why RIGHT NOW I should believe YOUR position when you have provided zero concrete evidence that yours trump others.
>>18417216>zero evidence that yours trump othersThere was a shitton of evidence in this thread, you just willingly choose to ignore it. Ultimately it boils down to no strong argument existing against physicalism. I would go even as far that there is zero proper arguments against physicalism. At the same time a shitton of strong arguments for it. Meanwhile there's a shitton of arguments against other views, and no strong arguments for them.
>>18417223Explain to me what physicalism is, then.
>>18417226>Explain to me what physicalism is, then.Mind, consciousness and personality isn't a separate supernatural entity that exists outside the physical, but is just an emergent property.
>>18417233What is the physical?
>>18417223>"Look, our present scientific means can't actually quantify those concepts, but we will get there, there is no question!">"You presuppose the discovery of a quantifiable quality to a unquantifiable object, the objective experience of the self and unilateral progress of scientific mean as your foundations despite there being no concrete logic on making them axioms">"WE'LL QUANTIFY THEM EVENTUALLY, I SAID! LOOK AT ALL THIS USELESS SHIT SHOWING A CONNECTION BUT NEVER SETTLING CAUSATION."this is ALL your supposed evidences amount to. You're just like Descartes autistically maintaining that thinking matter is connected to and controling the body because CLEARLY there are effects, while not giving a single scientific proof - because there can be none due to the nature of the question - as to how this proves that the Sensual World exists in the first place, or how your model of experience translates to [my] experience not being somebody else's. You blathered for tens of posts and did not settle SHIT.
>>18417237The things studied by physics.
>>18417249All these words words words and yet you're a pussy to even openly say what you think is the alternative, because you KNOW there is none
>>18417173And another straw man. I specifically said we already solved that problem for simple creatures. And even with the solution you still don't know what it's like to be a roundworm. What else is there needed? We already have the perfect full neural mappings and we can emulate the entire animal https://openworm.org/>>18417181No but it's not perfectly predictable this is just the reality we are in.
>>18417261I've never claimed I was afraid of stating the alternative: that information and experience is immaterial, explaining why I cannot experience two times or spaces at once.
>>18417264>but it's not perfectly predictableWhy should it be for physicalism to be true?
>>18417276That's what the retard implied not me
>>18417284I don't think so. You muddled up the topic by bringing up indeterminacy at quantum level in this post >>18417284, when it was clear that the discussion was about determinism at the biological level.
>>18417294*In this post >>18416868
There already is a mathematical quantification of so called subjective color qualia.https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2026/02/260222092302.htmQualitative experiences are quantitative information processing. Information is emergent from matter-energy. Energy/matter is eternal and uncreated and indivisible. It's simply cope to pretend otherwise
>>18417294He implied it's impossible for there to be different qualia given the exact same state of matter because muh determinism and doing otherwise means breaking nebulous physical and logical laws he could not even name. That was his argument for his religious beliefs so follow the reply chain idiot before yapping
>>18417308Stochastic laws at the microlevel can imply deterministic laws at the macrolevel.
>>18417298why does gemini think you are lying to me?
>>18417308Unless you pretend qualia are quantum level entities this distinction is literally irrelevant on a macroscopic level. So far there's no indication that quantum mechanics affect the brain in any relevant way.
>>18417316>relevantProve it. Are you denying that the brain's matter experiences quantum effects?
>>18417319Do you understand what "so far" means, you absolute brainlet?Als once again, the existence of deterministic probabilities doesn't somehow refute physicalism.
>>18417319Is your brain in two places at the same time? Are your neurons in two places at the same time? Are they in a superposition of firing and not firing at the same time?
>>18417326Yes and I want you to prove to me that the "so far" exists outside of your mind. Also that's a straw man, he was the one making the argument that physicalism is proven by absolutely perfect deterministic predictions
>>18417330The matter which my brain is composed of experiences all of those things. You idiots don't know that even simple stuff like photosynthesis absolutely abuses the fuck out of it to work. And here you're telling me that you know for sure that the brain uses none of it?
>>18417333You want a lot of things little retard, maybe apply some common sense.Neurons and their connective components are several magnitudes larger than the quantum scale, and also several magnitudes slower for any significant quantum effects to take place.Thus any quantum brain theories are entirely delegated to super abstract hypotheticals or crackpot theories from people who have no knowledge of the field.
>>18417109Spinoza is a neutral monist, not a physicalist.
>>18417347In fact the brain components are so large that the electrical charge between neurons isn't even carried by electrons themselves, but by ionsJust to make you understand how fucking retarded any quantum brain prepositions actually are.
>>18417345You can know for sure because when you see a red object, you only see it as red and not both red and yellow at the same time.
>>18416467How does physicalism lead to specific moral statements about rape?
>>18417347No I just want you to prove all of the nonsensical claims you are pulling out of you ass. A single photon can trigger a nerve impulse in the rod cells of the eye, I don't know why you think this is beyond the realm of possibility. Anyway I asked for the physical and logical laws this would break and none of you found an answer.
>>18417376Do you think we have rod cells in the brain?
>>18417373If anything physicalism leads to the conclusion that rape is a social construct
>>18417359In this shitty analogy of yours it would be the textbook definiton of a wave function collapse fucking idiot.
>>18417387I think we have nerve cells, and as shown if a single particle can ultimately have an effect on them there it's not much of a stretch to assume that it is perfectly possible even directly within the brain
>>18417390Really? Are you saying you get both red and yellow light from the red object but you consciously decide to only see red light every time?
>>18417397At least read up on why rod cells can detect a single photon before you spout retarded bullshit
>>18417254So the entirety of mathematics and logic are not physical, but are ideas that remain true regardless of the existence of any physical world./thread
>>18417411Ok and?
>>18417411Logic and math are the study of computers (see the curry howard correspondence for example). Computers are physical, therefore logic and math are physical.
>>18416445That's like saying the big bang theory makes science obsolete
>>18417436>logic and math is the study of computerskek, such comedy only on /his/, folks, where humanities retards who can’t take a derivative theorize bs
>>18416475morals are stored in the balls
>>18417401>consciously decideWhat? How in the world did you get that out of what I said? Interacting with any object by measurement/observation/etc will cause the collapse, there will no longer be a superposition of states. There's no choice conscious or not being made by you nor is one needed for perception.>>18417407>faggot tries to obfuscate his blunderIt literally doesn't matter. If a single photon can ultimately cause a nerve cell to act one way or another then your whole point is nonsensical. We know for a fact that within the human central nervous system this is happening. And yes rods are part of that. There's absolutely no reason to assume that similar mechanisms don't exist elsewhere there. Anyway YOU are the one making a positive claim this is impossible without providing any sort of evidence
>>18417138feel free to offer any instead of making yet another unsubstantiated statement>>18417143nice quote, what is the relevance?
>>18417613I can tell you have never studied math beyond high school.
>>18417836>similar mechanismsDescribe them using LaTeX.
>mind, life, language*stops physicalism*nothing personal kid
>>18417298judging from the abstract this paper doesn't address at all what you are talking about
>>18417903As a matter of fact I did, but there’s no point in talking about the intricacies of field theory here. Do you have anything other than empty bait?
>>18417918Who was talking about field theory? Did you just try to name drop shit you watched on a dumb youtube video? Lmao. Embarrassing.
>>18417923Lmao, quantum mechanics has been mentioned several times in this thread. I’m not gonna bother pointing the connection out since you can “watch it on a dumb youtube video” yourself.
>>18417929>discussing philosophy of math>some retard starts throwing out buzzwords like "field theory" and "quantum mechanics" that he picked up from his favorite schizoslop youtube channelsI'm truly embarrassed for you.
>>18417836>ackchually, the existence of highly specialized photon sensors in the eye proves that the brain will internally also be affected by quantum effects, you see there's no reason to assume it won't even though there's literally ZERO biological evidence for it (like the existence of rod cell like structures in the brain for example)The absolute state of this retard
>>18416707>and there is where you fucked up the nervous system is more complex than I can imaginekekaroo
Dualists/idealists try not to come up with the most retarded basic bitch ass objections to physicalism challenge: impossible>magenta is not a wavelength bro>math needs magic to work bro>your consciousness is collapsing the wavefunctions bro
>>18418050Dont forget the funniest one to me>okay presume physics wouldn't matter and two identical objects are actually not identical, wouldn't that disprove physics and physicism? Checkmate heh
>>18418020>hurr it's physically and logically impossible but I can't name the laws that this would contradict nor explain howNo wonder a moron who can't understand what a first person perspective is can't do a simple google search. Is that why there is a "growing body of empirical evidence" of such effects?
>>18418105There are no laws to condtradict an imaginary soul because it's imaginary. It's basically being a religiouscuck, you can always come up with excuses why this specific contradiction doesn't apply to your imaginary scenario.Anyway, at least postulate a framework how a supposed dualist system would work. But since you clearly can't, physicalism it is.
>>18418116>There are no laws to condtradict>conflating souls with consciousness Great so the argument given previously just flat out fails you have absolutely zero logical or physical laws that will contradict. Now you even take back yet another absolutely unproven claim. I have no idea why you retards are so butt flustered by what I said. It is in fact dualists who hate the idea>David Chalmers has argued against quantum consciousness, discussing instead how quantum mechanics may relate to dualistic consciousness.[61] He has expressed skepticism that any new physics can resolve the hard problem of consciousness[62][63][64] and argued that quantum theories of consciousness suffer from the same weakness as more conventional theories. Just as he has argued that there is no particular reason why specific macroscopic physical features in the brain should give rise to consciousness, he also holds that there is no particular reason why a specific quantum feature, such as the EM field in the brain, should give rise to consciousness.[64]
>>18418113I don't even need to read this wall of text to know most or all of these aren't even empirical, but just theories and conjectures that are quack adjacent
>>18418128>by what I saidYou didn't say shit you just try to poke pathetic holes into physicalism and your current last straw is muh quantum effects
>>18418135Or in other words you'd rather stick to your religious beliefs. Thanks for playing
>>18418136Nope I showed you that your pathetic claims about how identical objects should behave have no basis in reality. I even granted your absolutely retarded understanding of the subject for the sake of argument. And you still can't address the actual problem. Enjoy being in the same boat as people denying the brain has anything to do with conscious experience lol
>>18418139Your cope is a fundamental misunderstanding of quantum mechanics, because you think probabilities aren't predictions.Unless you LITERALLY argue that free will emerges from the uncertainty principle (dubious at best, but fine let's accept it for the sake of the argument), it's still an incredibly physicalist definition. You can make extremely consistent predictions with a strong enough physical prediction model, since at the end of the day it's just static probabilities.So you're not even a single step closer to a dualist worldview.
>>18418142>probabilities aren't predictions.Nope never said that! There's a difference between a probability distribution and your claim that you know for certain 100% of the time the outcome of every interaction.>it's still an incredibly physicalist definitionAnd that's exactly what I told you earlier you idiot. I am working from within your paradigm. Only dualists really have any right to challenge this on metaphysical grounds. Because this is exactly what you are forced to believe. And you can't even defend your claim about the supposed logical and physical impossibility. You have nothing to counter with. I never even attempted to prove dualism just that your understanding of the hard problem is absolutely moronic.
>>18418147>understanding of the hard problem is absolutely moronicWhat do you even think my understanding is, brainlet? You keep arguing in circles against some strawman
>>18418154It's very simple, you cannot distinguish between the easy problem and the hard problem for the same reason you don't know what the first person perspective is. Then you started attacking arguments nobody ever made and making up bullshit about absolute determinism in physical/logical systems and qualia to justify your faith
>>18418159>muh first person perspectiveProof it exists and is not a hallucination of your brain? Yeah I fucking thought so
>>18418162>b-but what if we are brains in a vat bro!Are you saying you don't have a first person experience? That explains a lot.>hallucinationEven if it was, it's still an immaterial conscious first person experience lol. Not that this even makes sense for so many reasons like it being a wasteful use of resources and even the fact that this seems to require what it explains in a circular manner but whatever I will grant your completely unproven faith based claims for free.
>>18418178>Are you saying you don't have a first person experience?No I'm saying there's no proof it's some magical mumbo jumbo. Is your vision part of your personal experience yes or no? You'll probably say yes, and yet vision is a clearly defined physical thing. So you'll have to keep reducing the term of personal experience down to nothing and constantly moving goalposts >it's still an immaterial conscious first person experience lolProof it's immaterial? Just because you say so?Time to admit you've got literally nothing
>>18418187>NoYou were literally asking for evidence that it exists. You clearly don't believe you have a first person experience and that makes sense, since you clearly don't know what conscious beings are talking about.>illusions are actually real material things brolol guess you believe in all of the ghosts schizos see then
>>18418192>neuroscientist Yair pinto >look him up>Doctor of PsychologyEvery single time lmao Nice blog post btw, totally believe that patients without a brain (assuming he doesn't lie and they literally have zero brain tissue) are conscious, kek
>>18416451Advice for you anon: start with the Greeks
>>18418210>Yair Pinto is an assistant Professor in Cognitive Neuroscience at the University of Amsterdam with a background in Physics (MSc) and Cognitive Psychology (PhD)I don't believe he ever said there's no neural tissue at all, just above the brain stem. What's so difficult to believe about that? Don't you believe much simpler animals experience some form of consciousness? Are you one of those retards that believe fish and babies don't feel pain?
>>18418218>consciousness is when pain You keep btfoing yourself and it never stops being funny
>>18418222wtf do you not think you need a conscious experience to feel pain? In what way are they different from mammals in this regard?
>>18418229>conveniently ignores the sentence after the highlighted one because it completely BTFOs his argument
>>18418234How does it do that you idiot? It demonstrates my point that you need a conscious experience for pain. Insects afaik have not been proven to have such a thing so they don't feel pain even if they do experience nociception. Of course it's entirely possible they still experience it but since they are so alien to us it isn't immediately clear
>>18418237looks like I was wrong https://www.animal-ethics.org/the-new-york-declaration-on-animal-consciousness-stresses-the-ethical-implications/
>>18418237>wtf do you not think you need a conscious experience to feel pain>2 Posts later >Of course it's entirely possible they still experience it
>>18418243I knew you weren't aware but reading comprehension issues too? Yes because I was doubting they entirely lacked a conscious experience but I didn't have proof for it. However it seems that this is what the consensus is shifting towards
>>18418247It doesn't demonstrate shit you little fucking brainlet, imagine unironically thinking reactions to pain means consciousness
>>18418253>“realistic possibility” of consciousness in insects">doesn't demonstrate consciousnessahahahaha okay buddy>According to the U.S. National Research Council Committee on Recognition and Alleviation of Pain in Laboratory Animals, pain is experienced by many animal species, including mammals and possibly all vertebrates.[5] Overview of anatomy of the nervous system across animal kingdom indicates that, not only vertebrates, but also most invertebrates have the capacity to feel pain.[6]>In nociception, intense chemical (e.g., capsaicin present in chili pepper or cayenne pepper), mechanical (e.g., cutting, crushing), or thermal (heat and cold) stimulation of sensory neurons called nociceptors produces a signal that travels along a chain of nerve fibers to the brain.[1] Nociception triggers a variety of physiological and behavioral responses to protect the organism against an aggression, and usually results in a subjective experience, or perception, of pain in sentient beings.[2]>Regarding animal consciousness, in 2012 the Cambridge Declaration of Consciousness stated that many non-human animals possess the substrates of conscious states, and can exhibit intentional behaviors.[a] The declaration notes that all vertebrates (including fish and reptiles) have this neurological substrate for consciousness, and that there is strong evidence that many invertebrates also have it.[2]
>>18418253also nice strawman, I specifically said there's a difference between pain and nociception. You're the one denying that consciousness is needed to experience pain and conflating between the two. Is this all physicalists are capable of?
>scientists often use pain as a stand in for consciousness, explains Heather browning >she's a philosopher >she studies animal consciousness
>>18418273>retard is so buttmad he got decimated he doesn't even want to reply directly to the posts anymoreahahaha fucking bitch
All dualistbabbies can do is seethe about physicalism while silently ignoring how easily one can BTFO all non-physicalist "alternatives". As is evident ITT
>>18416445>>18416451Yet another village atheist doctrine that relies on projections into infinity to explain away philosophical issues that are too hard for midwits to answer.
>>18418318>philosophical issues that are too hardSurely you can name one (1) of those
>>18416475>>18416745>Do you think morals are physically stored in the brain or somethingThis has already been proven. Morality are assessments made subjectively. What I'm waiting for is the discovery of how we define it. Or, in other words, why is it that the category of "goodness" emerges in our brain in response to certain situations.>>18417121Jesus christ why is 4chan so retarded. Hume is not saying there's an imperative that you shouldn't, he's simply saying that you can't.>>18416684There's been multiple advances, this is why dualism is slowly dwindling in numbers. Science will eventually prove it once we discover a way to perfectly model the brain. >le qualia o algo proves my contrarian theory right!Dualist theories are the exact same as physicalist theories : they create hypotheses. None of them have been proven to be true or verified. The whole field is in a big "idk" while waiting to see which model is correct.The whole argument is essentially that given physicalism cannot prove qualia, therefore they must be part of le soul(tm) (stored in god's balls).
>>18418337Also to expand on the hard problem of consciousness, most of it rests on conceivable scenarios being granted to be physically possible, which is a big non sequitur.Notably, the philosophical zombies and the inverted qualia are both good examples. The zombie one rests on the premise that it is conceivable to imagine a human being operating normally without consciousness. But this is no different than saying that we can conceive of a human being without any organs being able to operate normally. As such, the claim that therefore qualias must exist because we can think of a situation with a difference is dubious.Similarly, the argument for the inverted spectrum rests on the notion that 2 individuals could somehow percieve the same color but have different color-ness. This again rests on the belief that the brain could possibly just make up a new qualia afterfact of his sensory inputs.
>>18418337I think that the dualist account you gave is not as bleak. The theories that we have about consciousness that are testable to even a vague degree (such as integrated information theory), rely upon a dualist hypothesis. I’d love to call the theory panpsychist, but its authors have repeatedly argued against it and the theory cannot be properly called physicalist.Then there’s the majority of neuroscientists, who refuse to use the loaded term consciousness, do not bother with qualia, and instead argue that such things are pure subjectivity, which means they do not fall under the realm of scientific falsification and testing. According to these (and this is the majority view), emergence is certainly possible, but there is no evidence for it other than some statistical physics theories hastily applied to explain neurological phenomena. Said theories make a lot of handwavy assumptions about interactions and if we know anything about neurons, interactions (connections) are incredibly important.And so if consciousness and qualia are purely subjective and scientifically untestable, there’s no point discussing them as such and they might as well be souls. Platonic realism has no problem with this, and provides a rather good framework of the relationship of man’s essence to man’s body without appeal to god’s balls.
>>18418464>integrated information theoryLiteral pseudoscience
>>18418561Didn’t deny that it was, just that whenever physicalists are asked for a physical theory of consciousness and realize neuroscientists gave up on it, they turn to IIT. Popper would be turning in his grave in agony, and Kuhn would be laughing at how hopelessly caught up in the paradigm of “brain=computer” we are.
>>18418651>physicalism>iitIIT is not physicalism
>>18418724It’s not, I don’t claim it is, it’s not panpsychist either, but physicalists love to turn to it because they assume physicalism for every testable theory.
>>18418727>physicalists love to turn to itWho? >testable theoryIIT is not testable
>>18418731>Who?An example: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CokrncnNaLE&pp=ygUtUHJvZmVzc29yIGRhdmUgYmlvcHN5Y2hvbG9neSBvZiBjb25zY2lvdXNuZXNz&ra=mGo to the point in the video where he peddles IIT like it’s settled scientific consensus. Many others do this as well, but I’m not gonna flood you with links.>IIT is not testableIt doesn’t matter. See this thread for examples of “x scientific theory is not testable rn but surely it will be testable in the future, so it’s still somehow scientific”. You’re expecting a literacy in scientific philosophy which the physicalists often lack.
>>18418751>as an example: this random YouTuberThe absolute state
>>18418756>random YouTuberYes, the same guy who high schoolers and college kids in STEM turn to for crash courses. In that field, he’s not random at all, and other “science educators” have peddled IIT as scientific elsewhere. I’m not going to bother giving you links considering you have nothing but snark to answer with.
>>18418761>using a literal science educator YouTuber as proof IIT is a commonly held belief among physicalists>seething when people point out this is retarded
>>18418770No, but it is proof that amongst the type of people who create threads like these, it’s a common belief. Give me your proof to the contrary and I’ll change my mind.
insane how dishonest retards talk about qualia (a theory laden term, defined in such a way that it's incompatible with physicalism - question begging) but when pressed it's suddenly the neutral term 'experience'
>>18417119It's like the 1 thing they agree on, after there being a world outside their own mind
>>18418775Show me how it’s question begging. If anything, only physicalists cry about it being so.
>>18418773>resorts to ad hominemsYour arguments are getting more and more pathetic with each post, dualistbabby.What's even funnier is that the biggest champions of IIT (Koch and Chalmers) are non physicalists. Really makes you think.Anyway, since I'm being nice to you:>picrelatedI accept your concession.
Notice that how a lot of arguments kinda take the form of demanding explanations?I think people should consider what they are *really* asking for, when asking for "a physical explanation of consciousness", etc As far I'm concerned, explanations are sentences in English language.. that satisfy some kind of subjective curiosity itch? Maybe it enables you to do something you couldn't before, because you learned something new. That's how I use the word 'explanation' People got this highly superstitious view of explanations, like they are a real thing that actually exist. Suddenly they are Platonists or something. Demanding for Aristotelian grounding relationships, all that nonsense But I don't see it as a entailment of physicalism at all, that for everything that exist there would be some kind of uber-explanation you could break it down toPhysicalism is the thesis that everything is ontologically reducible to the physical. Not that everything is epistemically reducible.If you take my view of explanations, where they are this human psychology thing instead, where if something satisfies your curiosity or not, a lot of problems for physicalism evaporates.Take the 'hard problem of consciousness' for example, no matter what kind of English language sentence explanations I provide you with, you could always respond with "that's not good enough", "I want more explanation", "this doesn't satisfy my curiosity" That is exactly what the hard problem is, the promissory note that no matter what explanation could be provided, even in principle, it will always be met with this kind of response? Else it would just be a normal problemIt's the preemptive refusal that makes it hard
>>18418781I'm having a qualia right now (by which I mean a private and unmeasurable experience) how do you explain that on physicalism?
>>18418791>wall of names with no context or summary of argumentsSuch peak argumentation skills, and all you have is more snark and name-calling, while accusing me of ad hominem somehow. Maybe bait harder.
>>18418791If you want some explanations behind the names, here's some highlights:>Stanislas DehaenePioneer of neuroimaging, winner of the brain prize (basically the fields medal but for neuroscientists). I don't like bringing the muh citations argument but he has an absolute shitton of them and an h index of almost 200.>Joseph LeDouxMade important contributions to neuroscience like discovering the amygdala’s role in fear conditioning, also extremely recognised and has a shitton of citations>Scott AaronsonNot a neurologist but an accomplished quantum theorist, which is particularly funny considering all of the dualistbabby "muh quantum" discussions ITT.>Michael GrazianoMade important contributions regarding motor cortex and spatial attention.And so on and so on.
>>18418798I don’t have to, I’m not a physicalist kek.
>>18418801>with no contextThe context is that this wall of names signed a letter literally saying IIT is pseudoscience.
>>18418804Good. Perhaps you missed my replies:>>18418464>>18418651where I say IIT is not science.
>>18418803Well, you couldn't. Because if it was physical, it could be measured Which is why I'm question begging
>>18418807>can't even concede a single point like he said he would in >>18418773God you're pathetic
>>18418808Ok. Enjoy the (You)s with your question begging, it works well on chan threads.
>>18418809You never had a point to begin with anyway
>philpapers I think metaphysics are determined by what's currently in vogue among academic philosophers
>>18418324He can't and won't
>>18418796There’s also the problem of the definition of “the physical”. If the physical is that which is created by the fundamental forces of physics, then there is little room for multiverses or beyond standard model physics. If the physical is that which is observable via the methods of experimental physics, we are talking of an amorphous field of inquiry that changes as new techniques and technology enter the field. If the physical is the “common denominator” world that we observe through our senses, well, there’s Iron Age refutations to that. A clear definition of the physical is needed, but I haven’t seen one yet.
>>18418819>academic philosophersaka, the guys with the most awful track record about getting anything right whenever their shit could be tested now largely pushed back to talking about the unfalsifiable
>>18418824I'm only a "physicalist" when I talk to retards that believe in ghosts, etcit's that simpleSad, but true
>>18418828Anon dualism IS believing in ghosts etc
>>18418831Yes, I will call myself a "physicalist" when talking to retards who believe in ghosts, to signal in-group/out-group
>>18418796>That is exactly what the hard problem is, the promissory note that no matter what explanation could be provided, even in principle, it will always be met with this kind of response? Else it would just be a normal problemIt's the preemptive refusal that makes it hardThat sounds a lot like plain denialism then, not a problem.
Physicalism is obviously false
>>18418860Nope, so far there is not a single solid argument against physicalism
>>18418860Damn, we must declare Total Physicalist Death
>>18416451You sound like someone who's already answered the omnipotence paradox with 100% certainty.But you understand...how that sounds to those who are aware of philosophical dead ends.90% is not 100%, come when it is 100%...for now your topic means nothing but a lure.Metaphysics, and especially philosophy, will exist because they provide answers to questions that go beyond cause and effect.
>>18418884>Metaphysics, and especially philosophy, will exist because they provide answers to questionsThey provide exactly zero answers, they make up shit >that go beyond cause and effectNo such questions exist
>>18418884Made-up answers to made-up question. "Omnipotence" is whatever you define it to be, any answers will trivially follow from your definition
Not a physicalist, buuuuuutwhat I know is, that anytime something has been explained to me, it has been a physical explanation
>>18418899There is no point in arguing with a midwit like you who thinks there are no such questions. Where did you crawl out of, r/atheism? 10/10 bait tho, and if this board was properly janitor-ed this thread won’t even be up. This same thread on /lit/ seems to be getting gangbanged on all sides tho.
>>18418975Can you name such a question? Should be easy considering how much you're seething
>>18418980>seethingThere was no seething -_-Mostly yawning, are you clicking the refresh button so fast to immediately reply and compensate?
>>18418984>no responseI accept your concession. No such question exists
>>18418988Not gonna do your reading of theory for you, only a redditor would act like any and all sources must be present in a reply. This is basic phil 101 shit, go read a textbook.
>>18418337>This has already been proven. Morality are assessments made subjectively. What I'm waiting for is the discovery of how we define it. Or, in other words, why is it that the category of "goodness" emerges in our brain in response to certain situations.Okay so what's the physicalist answer to the trolley problem?
>>18418994Name 1 question you had where philosophy provided the answer
>>18418975>This same thread on /lit/ seems to be getting gangbanged on all sides tho.Link? Can't find it
>>18419187see >>18419100 and trolley problem
>>18419200What answer did philosophy provide you with?Did it come in handy? Do you often stand next to trollies about to run people over
>>18419199>>25185608he really copypasta'd the same thread on two different boards. /lit/ is thankfully not as retarded to engage with obvious bait.
>>18419187For me? It was Descartes telling me that it wasn't possible for me to not exist if I existed
>>18419204My answer is irrelevant, only that philosophy provides the answer. And yes, similar choices do occur in my life and work, unfortunately.
>>18419187Why is the Sensual World worth considering or contemplating?That's a question that can only be answered by philosophy. No amount of physical evidence can answer the obvious question of why I shouldn't just not exist and not experience anything anymore, effective immediately.>inb4 but you'll hurt/kill/demean/lessen yourself!And? Those are preferences based on sensual input. One can reject them all utterly.
>>18419199>>18419207>it got archived due to it being ignored in /lit/ kekhttps://archived.moe/lit/thread/25185608/
>>18419214You claiming that philosophy provides you with answers, and refusing to give an examplemake it seem you're full of shit
>>18419226What answer did philosophy provide?
>>18419261I fail to see how it’s making me full of shit. You asked me in >>18419187 if philosophy provided me an answer to any questions at all, and I’m only obligated to say yes or no as an answer. I went further and said yes, it was also relevant to my life. You now want me to divulge more, and I see no reason to when it’s unrelated to your original challenge.In fact, it makes you full of shit since you’re attacking and asking all the time and moving goalposts.
>>18419262The answer philosophy offers is : Because the option to proceed so is offered to [I].Can Science explain why I should care about the Sensual World?
>>18419267>You asked me in >>18419187 if philosophy provided me an answer to any questions at all, and I’m only obligated to say yes or no as an answer.Meanwhile what the post asked>Name 1 question you had where philosophy provided the answerYou're such a disingenuous little retard it's not even funny lmao
>>18416445Is this rebranding of materialism? Aka peak retardation?
>>18419187It's very telling that no one so far can answer your question.
>>18419437Materialism was a bit of a shitty term because obviously not everything is purely matter, we've got waves and shit >peak retardationLet me guess it makes you seethe because you can't refute it?
>>18419462>you can't refute it?I judge them by their fruits. If it makes its main proponents commit mass murders then fuck off with this "philosophy". It doesn't pass the sanity check.
>qualia - unfalsifiable>sovl - unfalsifiable>p-zombie bullshit - unfalsifiable>consciousness - unmeasurable, its presence unfalsifiableas a layman, what do non-physicalist narratives actually achieve? which relevant questions do they provide useful answers to? from this thread, it seems like you are just presupposing a bunch of unfalsifiable and untestable ideas for their own sake
>>18419479>I judge them by their fruits.Their fruits are literally a bit majority of modern scientific achievements.Nobody discovered anything by saying "btw there's spirits and shiet" kek
>>18419482>consciousness - it’s presence unfalsifiablebro is actually an npc kek>>18419442>>18419462>>18419482samefag gtfo
>>18419495>no worthwhile response>schizo namecallingwhy are you so rattled by this simple question?
>>18416445Anyone that earnestly studied astrology knows that physicalism is a delusion. These are the people that gave us the tabula rasa delusion and democrazy.
Physicalism won. >>18419504Yeah, it can only explain 99.999% phenomena. I'm sure that remaining percentage will completely destroy it.
>>18419504>astrology
>>18419437>Is this rebranding of materialism?Yes, because it has been refuted so they cope by moving the goalpost to including everything under the sun (except what they don't like) under the term physical. These retards are just having a fedora tipping knee jerk reaction to sovl, even though there are Abrahamic physicalist understanding of that idea
>>18419516>einsteinwas based as a socialist. I’ll take dialectical materialism and critical realism any day over plain physicalism and scientism
>>18419510>it can only explain 99.999% phenomenaYou can not even differentiate between physicalism and physics. This really showcases the level of intellectual peril physicalists are in.>>18419515>Low quality baitI'm not baiting. If you want to study reality, you should throw wittgenstein's literature in the garbage bin and read his natal horoscope instead to understand what led to him coming up with such ideas.
>>18419187Karl Popper's: Falsification Theory answering what is science. Without it science would have to deal so much pseudoscience LARPing as it. Even the physicalists in this thread can't help but use his ideas, proving philosophy is useful. You can't arrive at falsifiable theory through science alone, you need to use philosophy
>>18419528>the last relevant contribution philosotards can come up with was made in 1959>this makes philosophy relevant in 2026HOW DARE YOU STAND WHERE HE STOOD
>>18419567>>the last relevant contribution philosotards can come up with was made in 1959Actually I think Alignment problem has some philosophers working on it. Yeah, we can build AI(eventually, we just have LLMs but they have their issues), but no one wants to create a rouge AI that isn't aligned to human interests.
>>18419591>rouge AIfictional stories about human greed are not reality thougheverbeit
>>18419521>You can not even differentiate between physicalism and physics.Anon, what exactly do you think philosophy was discussing 200 or 300 years ago?Pretending the study and propagation of physics isn't physicalism is massive cope
>>18419638>Apple falls from the tree, therefor the only thing that exists is matterThe only massive cope that exists here is you coming to terms with your profound lack of intelligence.
>>18419642>cope and seethe, ad hominemMany such cases for dualists
>>18419648>Ad hominem is when insultsQin Shi Huang was onto something, we really need to burn the books and burn the scholars if we want to build an Empire that lasts a thousand years.
>>18419638>Anon, what exactly do you think philosophy was discussing 200 or 300 years ago?Just so you know, it is not worth the paper it was unfortunately documented on.It can barely be called philosophy, even. “Enlightenment philosophy”, what a joke. This is the epitome of hubris.
>>18419657It was not all worthless, the more materialist philosophy gave way to scientific disciplines.Meanwhile dualismbabbies were entirely worthless and have zero contributions to human existence, yes.
>>18419528Wow, no one could do science before popper invented his theory of science! Praise the lord and saviour and evolution denier karl popper!
