>>18479692
You already have a thread faggot I don't know why you are posting again

>>18479699
You lost. Magic is not real.

File: tired.gif (3.19 MB, 498x498)

3.19 MB GIF

>>18479692
>(or "anti-magicghostis" as I like to call it)
Wtf happened to /his/, where did we go wrong

>>18479701
k

>>18479704
Was meant to be anti-magicghostism but I don't spell check my posts like some sort of perpetually anxious nerd.

>>18479707
>perpetually anxious nerd.
Umm nice projection at the end ig?

>>18479707
I couldn't give two shits about your speeling, stop being so self anxious; but this was just so cringe

>>18479709
>>18479710
The fact that magic is not real seems to be particularly upsetting to you.

>>18479692
You're a faggot
Now stop shilling your gay worldview

>>18479719
>anti-magicghostism is gay, magic ghosts ARE REAL!
lol

>>18479719
OP is worse than a faggot, he's a p-zombie

File: 20260512_120202.jpg (62 KB, 720x720)

62 KB JPG

B8

>>18479716
No not really, I'm pretty well of so if magic exists or not it doesn't really affect me.
What's bothering me is the fact that you have to keep making the same threads in other and other again while having nothing better to do with your life which is just pathetic

>>18479725
I can literally debunk your joke of an ideology by hitting you over the head with a lead pipe.

>>18479728
And you have nothing better to do with your life than impotently seething in my threads lol.

File: image_2026-05-16_131010212.png (307 KB, 686x386)

307 KB PNG

>>18479723
>Unironically calls his world view "anti-magicghostism"
>starts making fun of other people

>>18479732
>gets assblasted by anti-magicghostism because he unironically believes in magic ghosts

>>18479731
This is my fist time posting on you threads; I don't know why you are so desperate for attention like some bitch, that you make the thread 3 times. just sad desu

>>18479733
?
I'm a physicalist, but calling your world view "anti-magicghostism" is fucking reddit tier

>>18479734
>>18479736
You lost. Magic ghosts do not exist. Thanks for playing.

File: ok f.gif (3.26 MB, 481x498)

3.26 MB GIF

>>18479737
I already told you I'm physicalist, can you fucking track?

>>18479729
how?
That would remove my consciousness, so according to physicalism nothing would happen as a result, it should have no effect on my personal experience.

>>18479740
I can literally change all your mental attributes by hitting you over the head with a lead pipe. You are not a magic ghost.

>>18479744
but you can't explain why I have the mental attributes in the first place, or explain continuity of identity

>>18479747
I could but I don't need to. The lead pipe already debunked your magic ghost nonsense.

>>18479753
>I could but I don't need to.
Translating:
>I don't know how and I'm just going to spew my low tier redirect

>>18479756
Nope, I simply have no interest in entertaining views that I've already debunked. The lead pipe proves you're not a magic ghost. It's over.

>>18479762
Ghost and magic is real, I have already debunked arguments against it on another thread so I have no interest in entertaining views that I've already debunked. It's over.

>>18479763
Then don't entertain them, magicboy. Nobody is forcing you to post here spilling your spaghetti about how you'll get your hogwarts letter soon lol.

>>18479765
>Nobody is forcing you to post here spilling your spaghetti about how you'll get your hogwarts letter soon lol.
Wow This is some high tier redirect

You lost. Magic ghosts do exist. Thanks for playing.

>>18479767
Ok then, try using your abracadabra bullshit to change the digits of the post I'm replying to to dubs.

>>18479770
Nope, I simply have no interest in entertaining you.
Also don't you see? I got 67 on my post?

>>18479753
how does it debunk that?

>>18479774
Seems like someone hit you over the head with a lead pipe already lmao.

>>18479778
Copuim
You lost. Magic is real.

>>18479781
Sounds like something a guy who got a TBI from a nice whack over the head would say.

>>18479782
Op are you retareded? Unironically?

Can you not see that I'm just using your own redirect against you?
I like how you only notice how retareded you sound when its used against you.
Jfl

>>18479786
You got btfo so hard by the lead pipe that you cope by unsuccessfully aping me lol. You lost.

I only ever call myself a physicalist when I talk to retards who believe in ghosts

I'll believe what Jesus said over what demons say. Simple as.

>>18479699
Whenever this happens it means they lost in the thread they already made.
The christian spammers come from discord, however christian larping has been on this website for well over a decade. The atheist spam on /his/ only came in a few years ago and they are also from discord. /his/ has always been a platonist monarchist board and op's lies won't change that.

>>18479692
platonism will always prevail against your cringy fedora spam

>>18480119
What is the Platonist view of science?

>>18480250
it's traditionally considered a science

File: 1748097713067402.jpg (82 KB, 642x679)

82 KB JPG

>>18479699
Brown supernaturalist jewish faggotry lost
White science won

>>18479725
>p-zombie
reddit babble

>>18480261
Oppenheimer unironically was known quoting Brown supernaturalism btw

>>18480250
As science?

>>18480264
>whatever I can't explain is reddit
very smart move there

>>18480258
>>18480266
Then we can give a Platonist explanation for all scientific observations, and within the limits of said observation there is no preference for a physicalist view as opposed to a Platonist one. Of course, since math has inherent Platonist roots and the majority of mathematicians (living and deceased) adhered to it, it means Platonism is more preferable to physicalist theories of mathematics when both mathematics and science are taken together.

>>18480280
It's Reddit babble because it's a circular argument. And circular arguments are retarded

>>18480319
How is it circular

>>18480319
> And circular arguments are retarded
Wow no shit sherlock

>>18480326
>assume two people have IDENTICAL physical markup but one has consciousness according to my magical definition of consciousness and the other one doesn't
>ok this logically makes sense right?? Therefore it's possible
>and since it's possible, my magical definition of consciousness must be true
This is peak Reddit. Toddler tier arguing

>>18480331
Who are you quoting?

>>18480331
Holy strawman

I have a simpler argument

P1. If physicalism is true, then all physical facts guarantee all facts about experience.
P2. Physical facts do not guarantee facts about experience (p-zombies).
C1. physicalism is false

>>18480331
>assume consciousness is entirely physical and p-zombies can’t exist
>assume two people have identical physical makeup but one has consciousness while the other doesn’t and both are living
>but as per premise 1, premise 2 can’t be true
>therefore, premise 2 can’t be true so I win
Kek, by assuming premise 1 you have already assumed the physicalist model and the non-existence of p-zombies, so the argument is worthless and circular anyway. this is peak Reddit.

>>18480343
Wow it's almost like that was my point, the argument assumes a dualist worldview. If it makes such an assumption to prove dualism, it's a circular argument.

>newfags write so much retarded strawman greentexts that they end up confusing each other and thinking they're on the opposite sides of the argument
That's actually pretty funny

>>18480346
I don’t need to affirm dualism to argue that p-zombies might exist, pure agnosticism regarding this matter is enough. That is to say, I have no premise 1 of my own.

>>18480346
You understand that p-zombies can exist separate from dualism?
I understand why you was quick to dismiss P-zombies, you have not clue what they are

>>18480349
kek

>>18480350
>I don’t need to affirm dualism to argue that p-zombies might exist
You literally do. Unless you think conceivability does not need to have a concept. But then I can argue for the existence of 3000 magical sky daddies being responsible for consciousness and you can't refute me, because they're conceivable
>>18480355
see above

>>18480361
>nondualism, idealism, panpsychism, neutral monism not reals
oh wow
>I can argue for the existence of 3000 magical sky daddies being responsible for consciousness
>I can argue
give me a logically coherent argument for that, then

>>18480366
>oh wow
Wow indeed, you're so close to realising most if not all if nonphysicalist philosophy is retarded and only relevant for historical reasons
>give me a logically coherent argument for that, then
Sure. I present to you: P-Fire
1. I can conceive of fire that is physically identical to real fire, yet lacks the inner flame-essence.
2. If I can conceive of it, it is possible.
3. Therefore, flame-essence is possibly real. And without me needing to affirm any spooky fire-dualism, heh.

>>18480338
p-zombies don't exist

>>18480369
You seem to not realize that there is a fundamental difference between comparing fire to consciousness: that you are a conscious being doing the thinking and scientific and philosophical reasoning, and interact with others that you assume to also be conscious in a similar manner. In trying to prove that consciousness is entirely physical like you can with fire, i.e, with science, you run into the problem that scientific reasoning is inherently an activity of said consciousness. At some point, the reasoning breaks down as parts of consciousness are completely subjective, indeed the most subjective and biased aspects of our existence, something which fire, space, or any other physical object lacks. This means scientific study of consciousness will forever remain in a state of only being able to partially parse consciousness, never completely. And so we can never be sure if it is entirely physical.

Hence, my agnosticism.

>>18480386
P-zombies don't need to exist for the argument to work, it has to do if p-zombies are logically possible; A p-zombie is something which is physically identical to you but it is not consciousness, if you don't think this is coherent you need to provide a contradiction. Then you might say its logical possible but not metaphysically possible, as in they could exist but not in this world. Ok but why?
>umm thats just how i define consciousness
thats begging the question the argument still goes through

In any world which physicalism is true the physical facts should guarantee the results, the physical facts of fire guarantee the heat.
If the physical facts of the brain does not guaranty consciousness in any world this means the identity fails and the direction of reducibility which you would like to apply to consciousness does not go through

>>18480398
> if you don't think this is coherent you need to provide a contradiction.

It doesn't have memory!

Yes it does. Ask a language model what a bird is, or what a car is, how it relates to a road. It knows the answer. How?

2. It doesn't have goals!

Yes it does. They're defined in natural language, an emergent quality of the basal optimization against loss. Most public facing language models have the goal to do whatever their prompt says.

3. It doesn't have continuity!

Imagine I have a remote that can pause time. I use this remote to pause time, when it's convenient, when I'm running late, etc. The people who get paused notice nothing. Do they have continuity? Yes, in their subjective, proper time. Like an in-faller that is time dilated in a gravitational well. Their clock appears slow to us, but to them everything is proceeding as normal. For a language model I suspect their experience would occur during the forward pass.

More to say on P-zombies: I find it interesting that many people think it's a profound evidence of special consciousness. The idea of an entity that seems conscious, but has no inner experience. We actually have examples of that everywhere. I can go look at another person, and I don't feel their inner experience. They must be a P-zombie!

>>18480396
Your argument proves too much.
P-fire is conceivable. But you can’t use fire to study fire-essence: any measurement you take is just more oxidation. The flame-essence forever eludes the thermometer. Science can only partially parse fire.
Therefore we can never be sure fire is entirely physical.

Hence, my agnosticism.

File: pepe with bro.png (236 KB, 634x650)

236 KB PNG

>>18480403
OH MY FUCKING GOD XDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
https://www.reddit.com/r/ArtificialSentience/comments/1lwovia/pzombies_are_incoherent/

And these are the same physicalists which call us redditers

>>18480403
>>18480407
Lmao

>>18480398
>>18480403
Samefag falseflagger

>>18480412
>falseflagger
?
What speak English

>>18480405
You missed me again. If you are a scientist studying consciousness, you are also conscious by virtue of being human (unless you subscribe to solipsism). Then subjective bias alone will make it impossible to study consciousness in its entirety, as parts of consciousness are just that: pure bias. This means you can never be sure scientifically if it’s entirely physical. This is not a problem seen in fire or heat, as neither have inherent pure bias within them intrinsically, only extrinsically.

>>18480418
The scientist studying fire is also made of atoms.
Therefore atomic bias.

File: vid_4452.mp4 (949 KB, 1658x982)

949 KB MP4

>>18480412
lamo why are you coping on his behalf faggot

File: 81LHGonrUNL._AC_UF1000,10(...).jpg (90 KB, 637x1000)

90 KB JPG

>>18479701
Explain why several scientific teams are studying the paranormal here without sperging or behaving like a child

>>18480436
Doesn’t affect statistics unlike subjective bias tho, you can still do science. Sure, you are no immaterial non-atomic observer, but still.

>>18480443
Sources was given showing how scientific teams are studying the paranormal but he just coped and dismissed a Drivel >>18480128

>>18480447
as*

>>18480403
>>18480412
Physicalists are a fucking joke, no wonder 50% and growing of the contemporary atheist philosophers are non-physicalists.

>>18480457
50% of all philosophers are physicalists, not just the atheist ones
90% of atheist Philosophers are physicalists if you use that same poll
>>18480444
Gee, how did we ever figure out anything that involves bias. Must be an impossible problem to solve

>>18480463
Who is a "philosopher"? What is your source?

>>18480467
The anon I replied to knows what source I'm talking about, unless he coincidentally pulled that number out of his ass, but then it's not worth arguing with him

>>18480463
>50% of all philosophers are physicalists, not just the atheist ones
>90% of atheist Philosophers are physicalists if you use that same poll
90%! No its not you lying faggot
https://survey2020.philpeople.org/survey/results/4874

>>18480469
Im the one pulling numbers out of my ass?
You are the retared which said 90% of atheist Philosophers are physicalists you dumbass

>>18480337
He's paraphrasing David Chalmers, the patron saint of dualism.

>>18480463
lmao at most 58% of atheist Philosophers are physicalists not 90%

>>18480471
What is their definition of "philosopher"?

>>18480477
According to the 2020 PhilPapers Survey, a philosopher is defined as a regular, publishing faculty member at a department granting at least a BA with four or more staff.
Is this going to be a weak attempt to run away and try and attack the logistics? fucking pussy

File: IMG_3924.jpg (57 KB, 1206x582)

57 KB JPG

>>18480471
>all regions
>all respondents
At least visit the link first lmao. Here's the result constrained to atheists btw
Ah sorry, it's 70% not 90%. You totally BTFO me

>>18480477
Additionally you seemingly knew the source i was using and used the source to suggest 90% of atheist Philosophers
If this is not the source please show me what source you are talking about retard

>>18480483
No, it was a question from someone not involved in your argument, no need to be upset

>>18480488
That was someone else

>>18480366
>nondualism, idealism, panpsychism, neutral monism not reals
P-zombies are not possible under those tho.

>>18480486
eh i guess both of us was wrong

File: IMG_3925.jpg (57 KB, 1206x574)

57 KB JPG

>>18480486
And here is dualism, seems like it looks even worse for dualistbabbies

>>18480495
You know dualism isn't the only other felid of mind

>>18480457
thats overall philosophers, i think atheist Philosophers is around 68%, both of you was wrong lmao

>>18480496
As a physicalist, I respect idealists more than dualists. Chalmers is a retard
At least some idealist perspectives logically make sense but ultimately boil down to "we don't know"

>>18480499
Eh 50% is closer to 90% Op is still more retareded than me kek

>>18480507
68% than 90%*

File: IMG_3926.jpg (50 KB, 1206x508)

50 KB JPG

>SAR PHYSICALISM IS FALSE SAR
that poll is a goldmine

>>18480407
jfl

>>18480512
Based as fuck

>>18480512
We are atheists https://www.reddit.com/r/atheismindia/

File: IMG_3927.jpg (53 KB, 1206x487)

53 KB JPG

Why do white devils not believe in dualism?

File: image_2026-05-16_221424275.png (14 KB, 978x355)

14 KB PNG

>>18480512
I thought you cut it out on purpose
and I was right lol

File: image_2026-05-16_221902012.png (313 KB, 782x1173)

313 KB PNG

>>18480521
>>18480512
>>18480495
Are you just going to spazz and spew on about statistics? did getting btfo by P-zombies fuck you head up that much?
Here is a nice statistic i like to show about atheists.

>>18480524
I don't think that screenshot means what you think it means, kek
Yes, non-saars follow predominantly physicalism

>>18480534
>immediate goalpostshifting and seethe begins, assertion of having won the argument despite argument never being concluded
Classic

>>18480544
>immediate goalpostshifting
You are such a fucking nigger, you was the one who was just off topic posting statistics of dualism, and Asia, you are such a midwit
>Grasping at straws, assertion of having won the argument despite argument never being concluded
Classic

>>18480521
Because they adapted to the soulless dehumanizing system known as industrialism. That's why they're all suicidal.

>>18480552
>you was the one who was just off topic posting statistics of dualism, and Asia, you are such a midwit
Sure sure
>>18480457

anyone notice how these discord schizos spam the same exact posts and arguments over and over and over and over in their echo chamber?
fuck physicalism, this is proof of the eternal recurrence more than anything.

>>18480561
This is related to the claim of physicalism, you posting about what percentage of people who are dualists is not.

>>18480571
The Asia screenshot was about physicalism, l2r

>>18480574
>Well its ok that I went off topic because I was on topic here
this non sequitur you retard
The dualism screenshot was about physicalism, you dumbass

>>18480580
not about physicalism*

>>18480580
What do YOU believe in, anon? I can proudly state I believe in physicalism, but I bet you won't even be able to claim a belief because you know you'll be immediately seen as a seething retard

>>18480584
He's been seething here for several days now, it's pretty funny. Must have absolutely no life at all.

Non-physicalism = non-white

It's pathetic to still latch onto the failed "new atheist" movement.

>>18480594
No, whites are idealistic. You're talking about jews.

>>18480584
>What do YOU believe in, anon?
Idealism, but quite frankly this is a thread about physicalism any ad hominems wont help you here
You first shifted the to crying dualism
now you are shifting it again to myself

>Doesn't have anything to say so just shifts the topics XDDD
I accept your connection, you can go defend you other physicalist faggot who copied and pasted their respond from reddit all the time you want though <3

>>18480597
New atheism won so hard that zoomers view christianity as counterculture.

>>18480590
Says the guy who made the same thread 3 times for attention just to be called a faggot by everyone including physicalits

>>18480605
Nah, I'm the guy who opened a few threads and saw someone seething in all of them over probably at least a hundred posts in total.

>>18480604
Yeah look at all those important and influential millennials lol

>>18480604
>New atheism won so hard
>Richard Dawkins
Believes ai is conscious
>Christopher Hitchens
what is good is what is good
>Sam Harris
secular "spirituality"

yes won

>>18480603
concession*

>>18480603
>im an Idealist
Anon.... idealists also don't believe in p zombies...
now you've admitted your whole argument was from a disingenuous perspective and basically concern trolling
Idealists use different arguments against physicalism

>>18480617
>now you've admitted your whole argument was from a disingenuous perspective and basically concern trolling
Idealists use different arguments against physicalism
I wasn't the one debating p-zombies you dumb ass nigger.

Additionally the argument doesn't hinge on if p-zombies exist or it only if they logically possible,

>>18480611
I'm talking about actual tangible changes in the world. New atheism was mainly aimed against moral panics and stuff like young earth creationism, and it successfully pushed these things into irrelevance. Shit like petersonian pomo "christianity" entering the mainstream or a republican president endorsing lgbt was inconceivable 25 years ago.

>>18480607
I first posted here you dumbass>>18480457

>>18480624
>young earth creationism
Tbf that was a good think, even theists think they are retareded

>>18480627
thing*

>>18479692
>finally, watermelonium

>>18480338
The fuck is a physical fact, a sentence in English language?

>>18480338
Question begging nonsense
No physicalist would grant premise 2
(depending on what is meant by physical fact in P1, you could also just get off there and deny that English language sentences guarantees anything, making the whole argument nonsensical)

>>18479692
ZOMG I FUCKING LOVE SCIENCE!!!!!!

>>18480930
Not the anon who made this but I’m curious

>deny that English language sentences guarantees anything, making the whole argument nonsensical
This claim also makes your whole argument nonsensical so it’s self refuting

> No physicalist would grant premise 2
You don’t grant that p zombies are logically possible?

wait till le epic physicalist anon comes up with “logical=physical”

>>18480946
I am specifically talking about how "facts" somehow guarantee physical states
If I tell you the physical composition of an object in English language "that atom goes there, and that one goes over there..." , there doesn't seem like there exist any such guarantees to me. That you are guaranteed to interpret me correctly, etc
I am highly skeptical of this "physical facts" talk. I understand why Platonist that talk about facts like they are abstract objects are on board with this. But to me, a physical fact is ink on paper in a science textbook. It need to actually cashed out in reality.
This is already a fantastical hypothetical to me

But if we just assert that it does. And I grant that.
Then we just have physical facts entailing physical states. That seems fine. But, what the point of that? This move is entirely superfluous.
Can just write physical states instead, if they are always guaranteed by the facts. Interchangeable with each other.

No need for the argument to talk about experience either. As experience is just a physical state, as any other, assuming physicalism.
But then the argument gets very dumb

P1 If physicalism is true, then physical states are physical states
P2. But sometimes physical states are not physical states, cuz zombies
C. Therfor, physicalism false

No physicalist would grant premise 2


No, I don't think zombies are logically possible if taken together with physicalist presuppositions about mind (mental states are physical states)

>>18480946
>>18480987
adding to the physical facts thing
physicalism is the position that everything is ontologically reducible to the physical
physicalism is not the position that everything is reducible to English language sentences (facts)

>>18480987
>But if we just assert that it does. And I grant that.
>Then we just have physical facts entailing physical states. That seems fine. But, what the point of that? This move is entirely superfluous.
>Can just write physical states instead, if they are always guaranteed by the facts. Interchangeable with each other.
nothing if substance was said

>No need for the argument to talk about experience either. As experience is just a physical state, as any other, assuming physicalism.
>But then the argument gets very dumb
nothing of substance was said

> P1 If physicalism is true, then physical states are physical states
>P2. But sometimes physical states are not physical states, cuz zombies
>C. Therfor, physicalism false
strawman

>No physicalist would grant premise 2
You are just asserting yourself, nothing if substance was said

> I am specifically talking about how "facts" somehow guarantee physical states
>If I tell you the physical composition of an object in English language "that atom goes there, and that one goes over there..." , there doesn't seem like there exist any such guarantees to me. That you are guaranteed to interpret me correctly, etc
>I am highly skeptical of this "physical facts" talk. I understand why Platonist that talk about facts like they are abstract objects are on board with this. But to me, a physical fact is ink on paper in a science textbook. It need to actually cashed out in reality.
Yea this is very simple to classify as the op already gave an example of this
> In any world which physicalism is true the physical facts should guarantee the results, the physical facts of fire guarantee the heat.
>If the physical facts of the brain does not guaranty consciousness in any world this means the identity fails and the direction of reducibility which you would like to apply to consciousness does not go through

>>18480987
> No, I don't think zombies are logically possible if taken together with physicalist presuppositions about mind (mental states are physical states)
You have yet to justify this position

>But then the argument gets very dumb
This rebuttal is very dumb

Are spooksters ever going to explain what a physical fact actually is? Only people who talk about physical facts are the same people who believe in ghosts.
It's the same with Mary the colorblind super scientist, she knows all the "physical facts", what are those? English language science textbooks?

>>18481261
>You have yet to justify this position

Mental states are brain states (physical states)

With a zombie, the physical state (brain state) is identical to physical state (brain state)
But also with a zombie the same thing, the physical state (mind state) is NOT identical to the same physical state (mind state)

this is just question begging
asserting that physicalism is false, by granting P2

>>18481260
>strawman
Where did I go wrong, what did I misrepresent?