File: boss pepe.gif (82 KB, 640x640)

82 KB GIF

>>18481291
Jfl we love to see it

>>18481291
Do you want me to send the sources for ghost and parapsychology here?

At lest for metaphysicalism there are actually interesting things to talk about other than the physicalism general which was just made to op to digitally masturbate about his theory of mind

File: IMG_34234.jpg (50 KB, 1024x683)

50 KB JPG

>>18481291
Recap of previous threads
>>18478124
>decide to make a thread about how retareded everyone is for not believing in your world view
>Make a new thread about the some extremely vague topic with some retareded name
>purpose of this ""general"" is to just circle jerk each other and give yourselves a pat on the back for your previous efforts
>First post explicitly calls Op a retared
>Second post calls implicitly calls op pathetic
>Third post calls explicitly op a faggot
>Non-physicalists call op a faggot
>physicalists call op a faggot.
>Evidence for Mind effecting matter and non-local mind gets brought up
>Op just calls it drivel without engaging in it
>Op names scientists/physicists in his original post parsing their world view, Both of them aren't physicalists

>>18479692
>Op made this thread after he wasn't getting enough attention on his second one
>Everyone calls op a faggot again
>P-zombies get brought but, Op is too scared to respond
>His fellow physicalist does
>Gets BTFO so hard that he copies and pates a reddit post unironically
>Op cant track who made what
>Strawman's thrown around

Its over

>>18481305
P-zombies are just begging the question against physicalism thoughbeit.

>>18481310
No it didn't, also you never gave an logical objection to why P-zombies aren't logical and just strawman the fuck out of the original argument

>>18481316
I should clarify; why P-zombies aren't logically possible.

>>18481316
You have me confused for someone else.
P-zombies obviously aren't possible if mental states are physical states, so a physicalist can easily do something funny like:
P1: P-zombies are possible iff mental states are not physical states.
P2: Mental states are physical states.
C: P-zombies are not possible.

>>18481324
>You have me confused for someone else.
Oh sorry then

I should clarify the argument which was presented (granted i didn't make it so i might not fully represent it)

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

The argument is not asking if P-zombies exist or not, only if they are logically possible

>>18481330
Right, and the argument I provided proves they are not logically possible.

File: suhs.gif (4 KB, 245x366)

4 KB GIF

>>18481332
this unfortunately isn’t engaging with the argument — usually the argument goes
( 1). (P&Q) is conceivable;
(2) If (P&Q) is conceivable, (P&Q) is 1- possible;
(3). If (P&Q) is 1- possible, then (P&Q) is 2-possible ;
(4). If (P&Q) is 2-possible, Physicalism is false.
(5) Therefore, Physicalism is false.
This is almost identical to original argument, just mine makes it clear as to how the second premise of original argument works — first you have the in the background that conceivability entails metaphysical possibility specifically, that if you can coherently conceive of a world physically identical to ours but lacking phenomenal properties entirely, that conceivability is evidence that such a world is genuinely metaphysically possible, not merely logically contradictory.
Now, notice what your objection actually does. Saying ' p-zombies can't exist under the physicalist perspective' treats this as an empirical claim — as if that’s the relevant dispute the anti-physicalist is saying when they say 'p-zombies probably exist somewhere in the universe.' But the argument never asserts they exist. It only requires that they be conceivable without contradiction, which is a conceptual claim, not an empirical one. You saying — 'brains generate consciousness, therefore p-zombies can't exist' — is even more problematic, because it straightforwardly begs the question. The entire dispute is over whether the physical facts necessarily give rise to consciousness, or whether they do so only contingently (or not at all), so if we follow your logic it’s either you beg the question or you’re misunderstanding the argument.

>>18481291
>schizo general
>>>/x/ is that way

>>18481344
Metaphysics isn't sctzio you dumbass, just because it doesn't fit with your world view doesn't mean it is

Can a metaphysicist please give me an example of an empirically verified and tested discovery of metaphysics?

>>18481338
>Now, notice what your objection actually does. Saying ' p-zombies can't exist under the physicalist perspective' treats this as an empirical claim — as if that’s the relevant dispute the anti-physicalist is saying when they say 'p-zombies probably exist somewhere in the universe.'
That is not what my objection does. My objection is that they are logically impossible by virtue of the fact that mental states are physical states.
>It only requires that they be conceivable without contradiction
They are not conceivable without contradiction.
>You saying — 'brains generate consciousness, therefore p-zombies can't exist' — is even more problematic, because it straightforwardly begs the question.
That's exactly my point and why I gave the cheeky argument. It works both ways, to assume the opposite is begging the question in exactly the same way, which is why p-zombies beg the question against physicalism.
Anyway, it's really disappointing that you trust your own faculties so little that you offload intellectual labour to an LLM. I'd your next post isn't actually written by you, I will disengage.

>>18481347
Yea sure here let me get it up

>>18481348
>That is not what my objection does. My objection is that they are logically impossible by virtue of the fact that mental states are physical states.
Again, thats begging the question

>They are not conceivable without contradiction.
Thats just an assertion

>That's exactly my point and why I gave the cheeky argument. It works both ways, to assume the opposite is begging the question in exactly the same way, which is why p-zombies beg the question against physicalism.
Again you fall into my promblem
>The entire dispute is over whether the physical facts necessarily give rise to consciousness, or whether they do so only contingently (or not at all), so if we follow your logic it’s either you beg the question or you’re misunderstanding the argument.

>Anyway, it's really disappointing that you trust your own faculties so little that you offload intellectual labour to an LLM.
just an empty Ad-hominem

>I'd your next post isn't actually written by you, I will disengage.
Learn how to spell and actually engage (because obviously you are not and this is just a dead debate so there is no point in engaging) before you spew retareded assumptions lmao
Also you don't have to be worrying about me doing that you physicalist have already done that XD>>18480403

>>18481349
https://archive.4plebs.org/x/thread/42353055/#42353055

But we can look at this https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228712565_Exploratory_study_The_random_number_generator_and_group_meditation

>>18481356
>Again you fall into my promblem
You fall into that problem yourself. In order to say that p-zombies are logically possible, you must necessarily assume that mental states are not physical states. That's literally my entire point.
Thanks for not using an LLM for this one btw, that's very kind of you.

>>18481361
> In order to say that p-zombies are logically possible, you must necessarily assume that mental states are not physical states.
Omfg, in order to say that p-zombies EXIST — you must necessarily assume that mental states are not physical states. Their being logically possible is a different thing.

>Thanks for not using an LLM for this one btw, that's very kind of you.
LMAO nice cope, run this through latterly any ai detector

>>18481362
They being*
literally*
you are so disingenuous it actually hurts there is not point in continuing this

>>18481362
>Omfg, in order to say that p-zombies EXIST — you must necessarily assume that mental states are not physical states. Their being logically possible is a different thing.
No, you must assume it even just to say they are logically possible. P-zombies are possible if and only if mental states are not physical states. The question of whether p-zombies are actually logically possible rests on whether mental states are physical states or not. If mental states are physical states, then p-zombies entail a logical contradiction.

>>18481372
Just use an absurdity argument that usually gets through to the densest retards. So basically replacing consciousness with "retarded thing x" and then claiming it might exist because it's conceivable and possible. Then they just sperg out

>>18481372
we can conceive of a zombie without any logical contradiction — they must be logically possible. its as simple as this you running begging the question and coping with ai isn't going to help.
This debate this over

>>18481378
>we can conceive of a zombie without any logical contradiction
If and only if mental states are physical states. So you must assume mental states are physical states to claim that p-zombies are logically possible, therefore begging the question against physicalism.

>>18481382
>So you must assume mental states are physical states
*are not