>>18420345
I'd say faith rather than religion, and physicalism falls into this category too because it asserts, without it being a self-evident truth, that the Sensual World providing the foundation of the given worldview exists.
As I've stated in countless other threads, eventually we have to face that the most that we can affirm as a self evident truth is that [Thinking occurs in First-Person], and that any further epistemic inference is entirely based on preferential assumptions.

>>18420345
I don't know what kind of Monism is right, but I just know that any of them is closer to the truth than Dualism.

>>18420345
No, its a way to account for the mind. Physicalist is a primitive look at the world. A dualist is a patchwork for physicalist, but introduces mind-body problem. Monism fixes them, one way or the other. And there's a final ontology thats missing here. Sunyata. Buddhist position that rejects all 3, with anti-substance take.

>MATTER > Mind
Huh? I'm pretty sure 'Mind = Matter' is entirely compatible with physicalism

I'm a panspychist/dualist because it enables me to rationally believe that I get a to live forever

>>18420499
>it asserts, without it being a self-evident truth, that the Sensual World providing the foundation of the given worldview exists
this is a good and useful axiom thoughever
on the other hand, why in the world would you assume otherwise? what do you get out of >it ain't real maaaaaan

>>18420548
>useful
If you reject the Sensual World in the first place, what exactly is the point of usefulness?
My point is not that due to Cartesian doubt nothing is real, it's that ultimately rejecting any epistemic worldview due to it relying on faith-based argument is hypocritical and self-defeating since ALL worldviews depend on it.

>>18420548
>Useful
Ngmi

>>18420345
All metaphysics is religion, because it's just based on conjecture without ultimate objective grounds.
Reminder that Aristotle himself, the one who supposedly created this field, called it "theology", not "metaphysics", which is a title posthumous to his work.

Physicalism is also based on faith alone, since we can't assert the existence of anything outside our senses.
Solipsism is still not refuted, mind you (even if I don't believe in it).

>>18420555
>Sensual World
am I supposed to guess what you mean by this gibberish?

>>18420587
>even if I don't believe in it
Based on faith alone?

>>18420606
Read Descartes, bro. This is literally the first thing people do when it comes to studying the Moderns in Philisophy 101, what were you doing, sticking your thumbs up your ass?

>>18420610
Yeah, but as I said, that's actually kinda the point, duh

>>18420606
Are you 12 or just retarded?
You shouldn't even be in this thread, bro

>>18420610
I think you can make a resonable inference, but you cannot disprove it.

>>18420693
>make a resonable inference
Okay. So it's not faith alone. You're doing something more

Something that is very often missing from these discussions, that I think is important - is range and scope
It seems perfectly fine to assume physicalism when trying to provide a physical explanation for combustion, you don't want miracles, ghosts or magic to be a part of that explanation - that those things would be outside the scope of the theory
you can do all that, while at the same time, not endorsing grand overarching metaphysical principles

>>18420606
>lil bro has not taken phil 101
many such cases

>>18420499
>physicalism falls into this category
From a historical perspective, physicalism keeps getting proven right more and more, while any non physicalists postulations keep getting BTFO.

>>18421091
Just to name a bunch of examples:
>Vitalism
>Phlogiston Theory
>Humorism
>Luminiferous Ether
>Theological Cosmology
>Pneuma
And so on and so on

>>18420499
Why should I prefer what you call "self evident" truths over scientific truth?

>>18421091
>*keeps on assuming the presupposition that the Physical World exists at all to argue his faith*
*yawns*
>>18421098
>why should I prefer truth being reliant on as little external bias or error as possible?

>>18421116
When was the last time we had two competing theories and the non-physical theory won out?

>>18421116
>external bias or error
You believe in external reality? I thought you said you only believed in "self evident" solipsism?

>>18421116
>watch me deny the existence of reality to own the physcalists
please be bait

File: 1478825548024s.jpg (6 KB, 237x223)

6 KB JPG

>>18421153
>still using the Sensual World as some kind of precedent when it comes to evaluating if it exists in the first place
>>18421161
a self-evident truth needs no external input. [Thinking occurs in First-Person] needs not rely on any external sensual observation to begin with.
>>18421185
again, not my point. Refer to >>18420555

You all claim Physicalism is some sort of all-encompassing truth when it cannot prove the existence of the Sensual World and instead trust it to exist in the first place. You are not scientists establishing a settled theory; you are preachers trying convince others that your worldview is true "because it just is, okay??!?!1?"

>>18421228
>a self-evident truth needs no external input. [Thinking occurs in First-Person] needs not rely on any external sensual observation to begin with.
What does this have to do with what you were asked? You still have no answer for why I should prefer what you call "self-evident truth" over scientific truth.

>>18421237
I'll make it very simple: because what you call "scientific truths" are faith-based -on the trust one puts in the existence of the Sensual World- while self-evident truths, being internal to the First-Person Self, are evidence-based.

>>18421260
Is this claim another of your "self-evident truths"? Why should I prefer it over scientific truth?

>>18420345
>Is non-physicalist philosophy just religion?
More like meaningless babble.

>>18421266
>why should I trust (self-)evidence (of the [First-Person]) over faith?
And there we go. Physicalism destroyed, because it cannot abide by its own logical standards. Thank you for playing.
>>18421267
Hard materialism is meaningless babble because its foundations in epistemology are non-existent. There is no internal evidence for the Sensual World to exist in the first place other than preference.

>>18421287
>Thank you for playing.
I don't know what game you're referring to, but it seems you still cannot answer the question: Why should I prefer what you call "self-evident truth" over scientific truth?

>>18421292
Your question does not matter because, if you noticed, you slipped in preference as your standard, which was exactly my point, that the hard materialism Physicalism preaches is preference-based on faith; all that mattered in your posts were your objections, which I've answered. As I said, this game is over.

>>18421296
I see, so you are admitting that solipsism is just a preference and not a "self-evdient truth", like you initially claimed? It would indeed be surprising if a "self-evident truth" had to wait until the 1600s to be invented.

>>18421298
You are conflating metaphysical solipsism with epistemological solipism, and because of that, assume I have to take position on the issue of whether the Sensual World exists or not *before* positing on whether self-evidence is superior to empiric evidence, when I have no such obligation. This is a logical fallacy.

>It would indeed be surprising if a "self-evident truth" had to wait until the 1600s to be invented.
This is a fallacious conflation of "develoing" and "inventing". Check your definitions, anon.

>>18421317
Wow, you seem to rely on a lot of faith-based metaphysical biases and theoretical frameworks to support this "self-evident truth" of "epistemological solipsism"!

>>18421324
Quite the opposite. All I ever said was that only [Thinking occurs in First-Person] is self-evident, and because of that all epistemic worldviews are faith-based, from the very beginning. That has been the only position I have ever held in this thread. You are the one who introduced semantics -such as deliberately introducing the notion of solipsism, in an attempt to deliberately trap me into admiting the Sensual World did not exist to dismiss me- in order to conflate and detract from the original position and assert your faith-based external "Physicalism", without providing evidence for it, over the very simple internal truth.

>>18421336
>only [Thinking occurs in First-Person] is self-evident
Is "only [Thinking occurs in First-Person] is self-evident" also "self-evident" (so there's actually more than one "self-evident truth", unlike what you claimed initially?)? Or is it just a faith-based metaphysical view invented in the 1600s?

>>18421345
>Is "only [Thinking occurs in First-Person] is self-evident" also "self-evident" (so there's actually more than one "self-evident truth", unlike what you claimed initially?)?
No, since it is not reliant on its own internal concepts to confirm itself. It relies on the concepts presented and confirmed in the axiom it is based upon, [Thinking occurs in First-Person], to begin with.
That does not mean, however, that it is untrue, exactly because of the point I am trying to put across in this thread: because it is based on an irrefutable axiom, and is logically consistent according to the concepts preceding it, it is demonstrably true.
You are free, however, to continue to attack an epistemological truth with your faith-based -and non-equivalent- Sensual World arguments for as much as you like, however. You'll simply never be able to disprove an internal truth with the empirical, by definition.

>>18421228
idk, it sounds an awful lot like you're denying the existence of reality to own the physicalists
This shit is why noone takes philosophy seriously anymore

>>18421357
>No, *insert metaphysical filler*
Okay, so it's just a metaphysical view invented in the 1600s. I have no reason to take it seriously over scientific truth.

>>18421359
>idk, it sounds an awful lot like you're denying the existence of reality to own the physicalists
No, I am trying to find a basis for the existence of truth without RELYING on a Sensual World whose existence isn't even in question yet.

>>18421360
No one takes you seriously either, considering you keep using "inventing" wrong.

>>18421363
Are solipsists allowed to refer to the existence of other peoples' opinions to support their arguments?

>>18421365
Again, you conflate metaphysical solipsism with epistemological solipsism, and assume I do not believe the Sensual World exists. I *have faith* that the Sensual World exist; I simply do not rely on its existence to supply me with what would be a false axiomatic reference for what constitutes truth.

>>18421365
>>18421369
>I simply do not rely on its existence to supply me
I simply do not rely on the assumption of its existence with no internal basis* makes more sense, sorry

>>18421369
>I *have faith* that the Sensual World exist
Sure, in the same way you have faith that the statement "only [Thinking occurs in First-Person] is self-evident" is true.

>>18421377
Trust is a non-issue when even the disproving of each and every concepts internal to the self-evident truth leads right back to it being true.
>"Thinking" does not exist; yet [Something] occurs in First-Person, therefore Thinking exists.
>"Occurence" does not exist; yet Thinking occurs in First-Person, therefore "Occurence" exists.
>"in" does not exist; yet Thinking occurs "in" First-Person, therefore "in" exists.
>"First-Person" does not exist; yet Thinking occurs in "First-Person", therefore "First-Person" exists.

>>18421381
Too bad you're relying on your personal, faith based metaphysical framework to make all these statements.

>>18420345
lol what are you talking about xD xD xD

>>18421383
>Too bad you're relying on your personal, faith based metaphysical framework to make all these statements.
>Supporting your worldview on these statements rely on personal faith, therefore they can be dismissed as evidence
>Yet [Thinking occurs in First-Person]; therefore, [Thinking occurs in First-Person] is true
bro, the point of a self-evident truth is that even its criticism end up reinforcing its status as an axiom. You can't win this argument since all of its internal concepts are existent and reaffirming each others.

>>18421410
>all of its internal concepts are existent and reaffirming each others.
Nice faith based metaphysical framework, bro. I'll stick with the scientific truth though.

>>18421415
Still no trust involved, the axiom simply is.

>>18421418
>axiom
Yes, you chose that axiom based on your faith in a metaphysical framework invented in the 1600s. I reject it in favor of scientific truth.

>>18421410
>that even its criticism end up reinforcing its status as an axiom
Surely you can provide even a single example of this

>>18421431
Very easy. [Thinking occurs in First-Person]. If that were to be disproven, surely my [First-Person] would not experience [Thinking occuring], yet it does.
>>18421425
>choosing an axiom
bro, you should go back to Philosophy 101

>>18421446
>Very easy. [Thinking occurs in First-Person]. If that were to be disproven, surely my [First-Person] would not experience [Thinking occuring], yet it does.
are you too retarded to even get what you said yourself? you said:
>even its criticism end up reinforcing its status as an axiom
where is the criticism in the statement above?
I'll give you one more change:
>even its criticism end up reinforcing its status as an axiom
Surely you can provide even a single example of this

>>18421446
>>choosing an axiom
>bro, you should go back to Philosophy 101
Sorry, I didn't know you were forced by someone (in your Philosophy 101 class?) to accept that faith based metaphysical axiom.

>>18421450
>that faith based metaphysical axiom
okay so we're just straight up modifying language now to escape an internal truth that isn't language-based, cool
>>18421449
I did provide examples earlier in >>18421381, stop begging the question and instead explain why you think those examples somehow magically don't qualify

>>18421454
>an internal truth that isn't language-based, cool
Woah, calm down with all that faith based metaphysics!

>>18421454
>begging the question
disingenuous little retard, you said yourself the word criticism. an imaginary circular argument in favor of something is not a criticism.

when you say, "thinking does not exist, yet x" it's not a criticism. a criticism would be "thinking does not exist BECAUSE x, yet thinking exists therefore first person real BECAUSE y"
start with that first before muddying the ground with retarded 6 year old reasoning. Also physicalism doesn't even deny any of those thingks (thinking, occurence, etc.). The discussion is about where they originate from and how they work.

>why should I believe in the physical world outside my own mind?
for the same reason you're not a solipsist

Wtf is this guy talking about? Minds are collections of phenomenal experiences. Experiences are dependent on senses. Minds literally are contingent upon senses and thus the "sensual world" is a necessary precondition for minds or "first person self" to exist in the first place. There is literally no such thing as a non contingent mind. Nothing I've written here is "faith based".
Religious apologists have gotten to the point where they're outright saying reality isn't real.

>>18421641
the dualist cope is basically that le real world is transmitted through the brain to your consciousness. they can't really explain why or how that is supposedly happening (just trust us bro), and why brain damage in specific parts affects specific parts of your consciousness (must be the transmitter being responsible for that specific part of the brain, bro), but you just have to trust them, mhkay.

There is some other fringe theories, but ultimately dualists know that their justifications sound incredibly dumb, so they just focus on trying to disprove physicalism by building up retarded "gotchas" like p zombies and shiet.

>>18421651
Yea it's cringe. Dualism and all non-monist ontology literally can't be true as they imply contradictions.

So far everybody is proving OP right

>>18420345
Materialism is a religion too. Anything can be a religion if it becomes dogmatic enough.

File: jp_frog.jpg (198 KB, 1371x758)

198 KB JPG

>>18422177
Anything can be a religion if you use non-standard definitions of words

>>18422177
>materialism is religion too
Non materialist cope. Materialism is the only world view that gets proven more and more over time