>''Materialism refutes itself''>''Scientifiscism refutes itself''Huh?
>>18504549Scientism is a metaphysical claim about anon-metaphysical system.Science is based on fact. Facts - observable datum - are the "cell" of any scientific theory. A theory explains these facts and makes predictable conclusions. "Scientism" tries to say that these facts and the theories correlate to reality. That is not true, as never any room in science to claim any theory is 100% correct or represents reality - scientific theories only try to replicate data that nature would generate. Materialism - I don't know.
>>18504549>materialismI think they're going with the angle that if all your thoughts are the product of chemical reactions, you have no reason to trust that those chemical reactions arrive at truth. thus you have no reason to believe any of your thoughts are true, including the thoughts that tell you that your thoughts are just the products of chemical reactionsthat's not really a refutation. materialism could still be true, we just could never prove it to be true>scientificismI assume they mean scientism, and by that I assume they mean logical positivism, "only those things which can be proven scientifically can be considered true". this one does refute itself, since you can't scientifically prove that statement. philosophers of science themselves reject this view today because of that glaring issue, and pretty much take a weak form of it. "only those things about the natural world that can be proven scientifically can be considered true". since that statement isn't about the natural world, its logically sound
>christianity refutes itself>Nietzsche drake smile
>>18504717>>''Materialism refutes itself''Not necessarily, but it quickly situates as a stranglehold for any concept or idea outside the immediate purview of materialism.
>>18504791*situates itself
>>18504791>any concept or idea outside the immediate purview of materialismYes, because non materialist ideas are retarded. This only makes you seethe if you believe in ghosts and shiet >>18504717>philosophers of scienceNoooo, not le philosophers of science!!!
>>18504843>Yes, because non materialist ideas are retarded. "Non materialist" ideas are the only reason Jamal hasn't brained you with a club yet, my retarded friend.
Gödel etc can't observe a thing by means of that thing, circular reasoning proves nothing: if materialism is true it would be impossible to know if materialism is true or false.It's why the Neoplatonists defined immaterial as 'that which can turn upon itself' aka know itself.>Know yourself and you shall know a God.
>>18504989>Gödel etc can't observe a thing by means of that thing, circular reasoning proves nothingThis is a fundamental misunderstanding of what Gödel said.Also assuming it were true, you also can't prove gods existence. Therefore radical agnostic atheism is the only objectively correct worldview.
>>18504549Both of these assert that a human narrative concept's (such as "matter" or an institution's topic) descriptive envelope equals the sum of all possible truths.Both of their core dogmas are outside of it. Materialism does not derive from matter, scientism is not scientific.
>>18505041What's the alternative?The most objectively correct worldview is agnostic atheism, yes. As your own image points out
>>18504717>that's not really a refutationIt clearly is, when you're making a truth claim and expect it to be taken seriously when the very content of the claim implies there's no basis to take it seriously.
>>18505048It really isn't. There is a difference between "humans can have false thoughts about reality" and "there are no true thoughts about reality"
>>18505041>procreation is science or somethingokay bozo
>>18505105There is a difference between "materialism is possibly true" and "materialism is true", imbecile. Now guess which claim materialists are actually making.
>>18505154>Now guess which claim materialists are actually makingThey make both. Some materialists say it's empirically well confirmed to be true, some are more direct. What unifies materialists isn't an irreducible belief in that materialism is the be and end all of all worldviews. It's this statement:>there is no good reason to posit anything non-physicalAnyone who tried come up so far with such a reason, miserably failed.
>>18505170Ok, I can see you're mentally ill.
>ACK-chually, identifying as a materialist doesn't mean I believe materialism is true
>>18505171>no argument I accept your concession.
>>18505173>I accept your concession.Is materialism true?
>>18505172L2R my little brainlet. Posting a soijak is not an argument btw
>>18505174>Is materialism true?There is no good reason to think it is false.
>>18505177>t-t-there is n-n-no good r-r-ea...Is materialism true?
>>18504717I don't really understand how all your thoughts being the product of ghost-soul reaction is supposed to help with this
I only call myself a materialist when talking to retards who believe in ghosts
>>18505179>i don't understand how [retarded strawman I made up] is better than my self-refuting ideology
>>18505178>spams more soijaks>too retarded to comprehend that not every answer needs to be a 100% binary Holy shit I really hit a nerve lmao
Imagine having a belief system that falls apart the moment someone asks you if your beliefs are true and getting so mad about it you have a schizophrenic episode and start hearing voices talking about ghosts.
>>18505184>Holy shit I really hit a nerve lmaoOf course. Anyway, is materialism true?
>>18505183How is that a strawman of dualism?Dualist don't have theories, they don't make prediction, they don't put anything on the table - there's no content or detail that I left out, or for me to engage with
>>18505185Yes, it's true that I don't believe in ghosts
>>18505189>dualists are whispering to me through the walls
>>18505190>yes, it's true that i'm replying to the voicesImagine having a belief system that falls apart the moment someone asks you if your beliefs are true, then getting so mad about it you have a schizophrenic episode and start hearing voices talking about ghosts.
>>18505185Nothing fell apart, the beauty of materialism is that it's the most plausible of beliefs. You don't even need to strongly believe in it, but literally nothing else comes close in terms of plausibility. It's seething about a 99.9% answer not being 100% while the other answers are like a 0.1% or less.
>>18505194Is materialism true?
>>18505195100%ghosts are not real
>the beauty of materialism is that I'm not beholden to truth, so I can just make empty claims and enjoy the chemicals in my brain telling me how smart I am
>>18505207You keep seething and posting images, yet you have no alternative more plausible proposition. Because you know there is none.
>>18505202It's 100% true that you may not have the capacity to judge truth at all?
>>18505208>stop posting heckin' images on an image board!!!!!I will, if you answer my question: is materialism true?
>>18505212>if you answer my questionhe won't, though. holy shit, you don't see someone getting owned like this every day
>>18505230See >>18505177>b-but it's not a binary answer so it doesn't count!!!!
>>18505233that's an answer to a different question no one asked. it was funny scrolling through the thread and seeomg you refuse to say if materialism is true or not like a dozen times while attempting to defend it. keep losing
>>18505209100%Ghosts not real
>>18505243Um, sweaty? Truth is nonbinary, ok? I can't answer an invalid question.
>>18505246>It's 100% true that i may not have the capacity to judge truth at allOk. Thanks for conceding your ideological incoherence.
>>18505251sorry man ghosts aren't real. I don't make the rules. You can have fun playing pretend.
>>18505243>a different question What question is that? If you want a strictly binary answer sure it is true, because it's much more true than any other worldview. Although I'm not a fan of reducing things to binaries without prior definition.
>>18505256>sure it is trueIt's true that you may not be able to judge if it's true?
>>18505263>deflects to different question
Moldovan schizo is having a meltdown again? Tell it that its his handlers are gonna euthanize it soon.
>>18505264Why do you claim "sure it is true" if what you claim to be true implies that you can't know if anything is true?
>>18505256>What question is that? the one you were asked?>>18505264holy kek, can you lose harder?
>>18505267>Why do you claim "sure it is true" if what you claim to be true implies that you can't know if anything is true?Cute little performative contradiction, sure let me bite the bullet. Sure, in materialism, “knowing” is just a reliable causal process, not some special rational insight. But what now? What alternative do you propose? And why do you refuse to answer this question?
>>18505279>in materialism, “knowing” is just a reliable causal processIs this statement true?
>>18505281NTA but why not? Where's the contradiction?
>>18505291What "reliable causal process" makes that statement true?
>>18505292Are you retarded? He defines it that way. It's true by definition under his framework.
>>18505295That's not a "reliable causal process". That falls squarely under "rational insight", which he rejects. All pure logic does.
>>18505301It does under any framework, hence the question what fucking alternative do you propose
>>18505303>It does under any frameworkIs that a true statement?
>>18505303I propose that materialism should be discarded because as indefensible, as your pathetic replies demonstrate repeatedly.
>>18505310>should be discarded In favour of what?
>>18505312Any coherent framework that allows you to make true statements and also claim they're true.
>>18505328>Any coherent framework that allows you to make true statements and also claim they're true.Surely you can name at least a single one
>>18505339Dualism. Any monism that's non-reductionist wrt. reason. A hypothetical brand of physicalism that makes rationality necessary rather than contingent. Make your pick. Materialism is a unique bottom-of-the-barrel position to take. Almost anything else does a better job.
>>18505344>dualismWhat guarantees the reliability of the soul? You just outsourced the question to another plane, try again.
>>18505355>baited into revealing his mentally ill obsessionThat was easy.>You just outsourced the questionIf rationality isn't reducible then it's not a question.
>>18504558So it doesn't refute itself then, not in the philosophical sense being talked about. You'd have to equivocate on the meaning.
>>18505362I asked you to name one, you named dualism, I said it doesn't actually ensure that. Now you're back to seething again >If rationality isn't reducible then it's not a questionWhy not?
>>18504791Just provide the evidence of something immaterial.
>>18505373>I asked you to name one, you named dualismI named a whole bunch of things. You have a mentally ill obsession and I just wanted you to confirm it, which you predictably obliged. :^)>Why not?It doesn't involve seemingly self-contradicting premises so it doesn't raise the same issue.
>>18505375Non-material objects have been part of mainstream physics for over 100 years. Your delusional ideology is a vestige of 18th century pseudoscience.
>>18505377Ok seems like you don't care about dualism and actually don't consider it a valid answer or accept my refutal. Sure let's look at the other examples.
>>18505391>my refutalYour "refutal" is based on your still failing to grasp why your ideology is self-refuting and projecting it other philosophies where it inherently doesn't apply.
>>18505393>uhhh you fail to grasp sar >why?>heh I just wanted to bait you ackchually Which one is it?Anyway, let's look at the other "non reductive" monisms and how your impossible claim doesn't apply to them either:>idealism: mind or experience is fundamental part of reality, and thus is rationalityCircular argument, presupposes reality being perfectly rational. >neutral monism: there is a magical neither mind nor matter thingy Ok and where does rationality come from them? Doesn't answer shit. Why would neutral elements, combining in physical-ish ways, produce reliably truth-tracking reasoning? >Panpsychism: experience everywhere Doesn't mean rationality everywhere. Has the same problems.What'd I miss?
>>18505406>retarded word saladLook, I don't know how to dumb it down for you further. Do you comprehend that there's a difference between the two following questions?>How do I know I can distinguish truth from falsehood?>How can I justifiably claim anything is true when my core presupposition implies I can't know if I can distinguish truth from falsehood?
>>18505448>How can I justifiably claim anything is true when my core presupposition implies I can distinguish truth from falsehood?Same inverted question for any other worldview. You think you defeated physicalism, but this circulatory reasoning applies to literally any worldview. You're saying presupposing things in materialism means it's self refuting, but so would be presupposing things in literally any other worldview.
>>18505457>Same inverted question for any other worldview.This is nonsense word salad.>You're saying presupposing things in materialism means it's self refutingNo, I didn't. I know I said you're mentally ill but now I'm starting to suspect it's literally true.
>waaaah this is nonsenseKek at least you admit you're a retard. I'm trying so hard to engage with you yet you keep seething and crying >no I didn't >>18505393>your still failing to grasp why your ideology is self-refuting
>>18505464>impotent seethingLook, I don't know how to dumb it down for you further. Do you comprehend that there's a difference between the two following questions?>How do I know I can distinguish truth from falsehood?>How can I justifiably claim anything is true when my core presupposition implies I can't know if I can distinguish truth from falsehood?Yes or not? >inb4 incongruent drivel that doesn't address the simple question
>>18505474You really like saying it's a simple question (because you really badly need it to be to refute materialism) but it's not. In fact, not a single worldview can properly answer these two questions completely without relying on some sort of circular logic. This is where your retardation stems from.
>>18505482>incongruent responseConfirmed mentally ill.
>>18505474>Do you comprehend that there's a difference between the two following questions?Hmm... First one is for people who delude themselves that there might be a convincing answer besides "you can't". Second one is for people too dumb see the answer is in the body of the question.
>>18505518>First one is for people who delude themselves that there might be a convincing answer besides "you can't".If you're a dualist or an idealist or something, it's an open question. If nothing else, you can dodge it by requiring an acknowledgement of reason as a prerequisite for any legitimate discussion. If you're a materialist, the answer to the first question is given in the body of the second. You can't even do so much as crudely postulate that you know you can judge truth from falsehood without contradicting the materialist premise.
>>18505544>it's an open questionNice cop out, so dualists or idealists aren't certain about shit either. Btw materialism has a very simple answer to your refutation cope >natural selection produces reliable belief formation mechanisms because the non reliable ones literally die >while we cannot say things with certainty, we can calibrate confidence, and other world views entirely fail that pragmatic calibration mechanism
>>18505595>i'm a mentally ill retard
>>18505544>If you're a dualist or an idealist or something, it's an open question.Ok and do you think there's ever going to be an answer that wouldn't be immediately disputed? Because if not, the de facto answer is that you can't know if you can really judge truth from falsehood, you just assume it.
>>18505312Polytheism with a bit of panpsychism.
>>18505625>Ok and do you think there's ever going to be an answer that wouldn't be immediately disputed? Disputed by whom? Thinkers will continue to undermine each other's axioms for eternity. They can do that legitimately, so long as their own axioms don't undermine the very possibility of doing so. Materialists deny themselves that privilege by maintaining that they don't know if they're lunatics or not, so they aren't even part of the discussion.If you want to be a honest and coherent materialist, leave Truth alone and go invent a new framework for judging propositions instead of parasitizing on the Western intellectual tradition while undermining its very basis.
>>18505595>>natural selection produces reliable belief formation mechanisms because the non reliable ones literally dieThis is just crypto-monism.
>>18505658>admits that no philosophy knows 100% about truth claims>seethes about materialists because they're the only ones honest about it
>>18505661>mentally ill retard continues getting filtered
>>18505658>Disputed by whom? Thinkers will continue to undermine each other's axioms for eternity. They can do that legitimately, so long as their own axioms don't undermine the very possibility of doing so. Materialists deny themselves that privilege by maintaining that they don't know if they're lunatics or not, so they aren't even part of the discussion.So let me get this straight: materialists drop out of the race early, because their premise isn't even consistent with making truth claims, while the rest just continue in a mad dash towards a practically unreachable finish line? How is that a win for anyone?>leave Truth alone and go invent a new frameworkMaybe that's not even a bad idea. But if someone did this, you'd dismiss them for dismissing truth.
>>18505661>seethes about materialists because they're the only ones honest about itNah m8 we are annoyed by materialists because they are wrong but certain they are right.
Last thursdayism btfos materialism.
>>18505718How does believing in ghosts fix any of this?
>>18505691>So let me get this straight: materialists drop out of the race early, because their premise isn't even consistent with making truth claimsYes.>while the rest just continue in a mad dash towards a practically unreachable finish line? How is that a win for anyone?Most of the time they're not even on the same track. The finish line is an internally coherent framework that satisfies you and has demonstrable merits for interpreting and organizing knowledge.>if someone did this, you'd dismiss them for dismissing truth.If someone did it in a way that still maps to the normal concept of truth in all the situations where that concept works, maybe I wouldn't be so quick. But self-contradicting nonbinary tranny question-dodging ain't that.
>>18505709>Nah m8 we are annoyed by materialists because they are wrong but certain they are right.Materialists are smug, but for good reason. The strongest refutations of materialism apply to the majority of other metaphysical beliefs. Even the attempts of self refutation seen ITT turn out to be generalistic problem statements for philosophy none of the other beliefs have a proper answer to. What allows materialists to be so smug is that they're just honest about it and say "yeah we don't know, so what? Let's focus on the material"
>>18505750>The strongest refutations of materialism apply to the majority of other metaphysical beliefs.Is this a true statement?
>>18505752Nope. Can't have truth without ghosts.
>>18505755>>Is this a true statement?>Nope.I accept your concession.
>>18505752>He's back to this seethe againI guess calling everyone mentally ill by virtue of projection got boring huh
>>18505787>everyoneYou're not everyone. You're just one retard and not everyone is a retard like you.
You can't have truth without ghosts.
Notice how the obsessed psychotic patient keeps screeching about "ghosts" incoherently.
>>18505808You better believe in ghosts, else you can't have truth
Notice how the obsessed psychotic patient WILL keep screeching about "ghosts" incoherently.
>>18505837Why should I care about anything you say?You don't believe in ghosts. Nothing you say can be true.
>>18505857Ngl you do sound a bit deranged
>>18505729Yes, materialists believe in spooky things like deep time even though we can't actually prove the past exists.
>>18505808We are "ghosts". It is amazing if the physical body was created by the spirit. But it would be completely mind-blowing if the spirit was somehow created by the physical body. Honestly, I am stunned that something of such immense value has ended up living inside something so inadequate.
>>18505888>schizo materialist retard develops a split personality disorderI see I did some real damage here.
>>18505892He's just poking fun at your retarded worldviews
>>18505969>my split personality is just p-p-poking fun at the voicesI see I did some real damage here.
>>18504999Without eternity there is no knowledge, by knowing anything we know eternity exists, if we know of eternity we know of the gods.
>>18506219Without ghosts* there is no knowledge
>>18506292That's correct, ghosts exist and there is nothing you can do about it. Dilate.
