What is physicalism? It is the claim that there is nothing beyond the physical i.e. no immaterial souls, no platonic phantasms, no supernatural events like zombie prophets, flying prophets, flying-horse riding prophets, and so on. Thus, physicalism invalidates most of the philosophies and religions followed in the past and all the major religions followed today. Approximately 52% of English speaking philosophers were physicalists according to this survey, with 15% being agnostic. https://survey2020.philpeople.org/survey/results/4874Some texts if you want to understand physicalism in more detail: modern physics textbooks; books explaining the theory of evolution also help; definitions of basic philosophical terms like ontology and epistemology which can be learnt from Wikipedia and/or LLM-enhanced search engines.
So what's the point of making this thread? Because you're a faggot that hates life, beauty, and goodness?
>>18527950>no immaterial souls, no platonic phantasms, no supernatural events like zombie prophets, flying prophets, flying-horse riding prophets, and so on.All of these things are physical, yes even the immaterial soul. That just says it isn't matter not that it can't be anything else physical
>>18527957>All of these things are physicalThat can't be true since they're missing from the physics textbooks.
>>18527962before any physics textbooks were written physical things existed
>>18527993Ok, and? Those ideas have been around for some centuries and failed to make it into the physics books.
>>18527955>accidentally admitting that denial of physicalism is just an exercise in wishful thinkingNice.
>>18528013>if you don't let me spill barrels of sewage into your garden, then that means you didn't believe the garden was worth preserving to begin with!
>>18528018>once again admitting his denial of physicalism is rooted in what he'd like to be trueNice.
>>18528022Go spread more counterfactuals, demonic retard.
>>18528026You don't even know what a counterfactual is lol.
>this entire threadImagine making it/replying to it unironically.
>>18528030You invented a conditional scenario by claiming I am against atheism because I wouldn't like it to be true, because that's the only scenario you can fathom someone pointing out your malevolent intentions for making this thread.
>>18528038That's not a counterfactual. A counterfactual looks at the implications of some different possible state of affairs than the actual state of affairs. Simply presenting a different state of affairs than the actual state of affairs is in principle not a counterfactual because it doesn't follow he "if-then" form. Plus you are actually denying physicalism because you don't like the implications.Beyond that, nobody itt mentioned atheism other than you just now lol.
>>18527998Let's take a look at your silly argument.>If P (X is physical), then Q (X is included in physics textbooks)>Not Q (X is not included in physics textbooks)>Therefore, not P (X is not physical)You might think this is brilliant because you have made X to be the things you have listed in the OP. But X was also the world before the very first physics textbook was ever written, therefore you believe before the very first physics textbook was written the world was not physical and that invalidates Physicalism as a necessary conclusion of modus tollens. You can fix your error by admitting things in the OP could exist in physics textbooks which is by making Q to be "discoverable and capable of being written in future physics textbooks" or something to that effect. However at that point I don't think you will ever find anyone denying that could be possible and so your argument no longer has any real teeth. In addition you also have to make assumptions you cannot prove. Good luck!
>>18527993There are different models of phyisalism, but usuallly they would phrase it as if it could be in principle be found in a physics textbook. Physicalism is a claim in metaphysics.Here is a recent documentary where philosophers and neuroscientists defend physicalism.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYAdtfRFI3M&t=62s
>>18528300Too bad for you 'the world before the first physics book was written' is included in the physics books. It's called big bang cosmology. That's why, if you want to understand physicalism, you're supposed to spend more time reading physics books instead of making up dumb Aristotelian syllogisms as some sort of gotcha.
>>18527950Debunked by Mary's room
>>18528300Physicalists are not necessarily committed to scientism. Physicalism is a claim about metaphysics while scientism is really more a folk claim about epistemology. With that said, it does look like phyiscalism would rule out a lot of models of theism. It does not in itself rule out theism, much less religions. Some religions like Buddhism pic related may more reductive than physicalism broadly construed. Even if you believe in angels, demons or devas etc, the issue for the physcialists is can you in princniple explain them in total using physics. This is called physical closure.
>>18528313>Mary's roomDebunked by the guy who invented it, and others too.
>>18527950This has got to be one of the most retarded generals I've seen on here in a while. Why do you keep making these?
Most people think in terms of physicalist reductionism but it is not necessarily the case that physicalist have to be reductionists. They can emergentists or many other things. What they do have to say though is that the mental is not some other essential layer that exists outthere in some way. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLtjQrQvuD4&t=895s
>>18528319This is the first time I've made this general. Someone else did it the two previous times I've seen it.
>>18528312That doesn't address the error of your argument in the slightest. In fact many people who believe in the things you have falsely listed in the OP as being non-physical also believe in big bang cosmology so they aren't even mutually exclusive but anyway that is irrelevant.
>>18528322It addresses the error in your argument, not mine (which is error-free)>but anyway that is irrelevant.So why did you feel the need to say it?
>>18528314>With that said, it does look like phyiscalism would rule out a lot of models of theism.I just don't see how. There is nothing necessitating that "angels, demons or devas etc" cannot be explained physically in total using physics in the major religions. Unless of course you appeal to some concept of eternal mystery
>>18528320>it is not necessarily the case that physicalist have to be reductionists.Given that physics is always a moving target, physicalism means little more than reductionism to begin with. Take that away and you're left with some vague monist feeling you associate with Physics(tm) - Current Year Edition. >They can emergentists That's still reductionism unless you start slapping scientifically unnecessary ontological claims about actual extra entities coming into existence.
>>18528326You are the one who felt the need to bring in the big bang. A theist (who believes in the stuff you've mentioned in the OP) proposed theory that atheists initially rejected because it resembled genesis lol. Notice though how you aren't even attempting to fix the flaw you have made and that's because you're dishonest and dogmatic about your false religious beliefs
>>18528336>You are the one who felt the need to bring in the big bang.Yes, as a refutation of your really mentally retarded claim that physics books don't describe what the world was like before physics books existed. You then started rambling about the connections of the big bang with religious fairytales for no discernable reason.>A theist proposed theoryThe theory was already developed by Friedmann before Lemaitre, but Friedmann died before he could see Hubble's observations. And in any case, the theory is based on general relativity, which was developed by a guy whom you called a "prophet of scientism".
>>18528329Believing in angels in so on is one thing. Believing in an essence that has aseity and grounds metaphysical reality, the key part of classical theism and some variant of which exists in personalist theism is another. The big issue is that most accounts of theism don't simply say there is a being who plays by the laws of physics but rather said being make, sustain and can exist outside of said laws.>>18528333You can be holis and physicalist as well. The general idea is that an emergentist holds that new kinds of things come about in existence based on laws or law like probalbities in physics. They would not say new kinds of entities though. They are not reductionists because said enities cannot be said to reduce to said laws in a mechanical way.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-R5wT1rBLS0>>18528336You could in priniciple beliieve in all sorts of cosmologies and be a physicalist or non-physicalist. Maybe many of the reasons why a person would accept such models might be rooted in your metaphysics but that is not really a good reason to believe in a cosmology. However, it does look like certain views in metaphysics like metaphysical founationalism of a theistic varienty for example has to believe in a specific model if they want to believe God is a creator. Squaring that with other cosmologies might be difficult. The big issue is not the big bang but actually the nature of inflation.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhbULagUKhA
>>18528357>new kinds of things come about in existenceThat's a metaphysical invention, not a physically informed one.
>>18528357One way to think about it is that when you posit theisms in which God is a creator or doing some explanatory work you start leaving the physicalist metaphysical position unless you can prove that either being is explained via physics. That explanatoin part is ok for some religions like Buddhism for example, hence their non theistic label, but would go against other religions like Islam, where God necessarily wills every single thing to exist and actively wills things to happen via qadar or divine destiny. This is besides the epistemological challegnes of any such account as well.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ew_cNONhhKI
>>18528353>physics books don't describe what the world was like before physics books existedThat is not my claim at all, you cannot even understand your own argument that's impressive. It just seems like you feel your religion is shaken by the bullshit argument you have spewed. So you resorted to saint big bang in deep worship to help save you from this humiliation.>And in any case......people like you rejected it because it resembled religious claims. sounds familiar
>>18528363Not necessarily. Although, people make a big deal of conciousness or something like that. For a philosopher of physics and physcists this has more to do with interpretations of various equations and which interpretations are more parsimonious. This would only apply to weak emergentism. They would absolutely reject strong emergentism. This talks about the difference and provides some exampels of what non-reductive physicalism looks like. A civil engineer for example studying why traffic jam happens appeals to non-reductive emergentism.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlnaS83CwB8
>>18528368>God necessarily wills every single thing to exist and actively wills things to happenHow does this even go against physicalism? Nothing is saying this process can never be explained by the laws of physics.
>>18528375>Not necessarily.Yes, necessarily, because the Standard Model doesn't require or imply any "holistic" extra entities, it just supports different levels of description, even if it all reduces to particle interactions. Be consistent and don't be shy about your implicit mereological nihilism.
>>18528382OK I'm a physicalist and reductionist. Let's see your cope now and how I'm wrong and why your made up bullshit is more true than reality itself
>>18528370>...people like you rejected it because it resembled religious claimsWeinberg, and many others, was initially unconvinced of the theory because the data of just the Hubble redshifts wasn't conclusive and could also fit other models such as the steady state model. The really strong evidence for the big bang came with the uniformity of the CMB. Naturally, like any good scientist, he changed his mind and he even wrote a popsci book on the big bang theory. Only a dumb fairytale believer can liken this to the behavior of his own cult.
>>18528357>The big issue is that most accounts of theism don't simply say there is a being who plays by the laws of physics but rather said being make, sustain and can exist outside of said laws.Those are not contradictory claims. There are no magical laws of physics floating somewhere in nothingness that can be exited and entered as if they were a box. Nor is the concept of them being generated/sustained by reality an irreconcilable framing that excludes reality from having to abide by them in any sense
>>18528389>OK I'm a physicalist and reductionistOk. But really, you're just a reductionist because "physicalism" has no other intellectual substance, what with it having no ideas of its own about what it means to be physical and being dependent on the evolving physics.
>>18528394You keep seething and saying it has no substance but what's even your point?Sure, saying "reality is what we should focus on" seems self evident and has seemingly no substance, but you say that to explicitly reject "made up bullshit xyz".
>>18528376Because physics doesn't explain anything ever in theological voluntarism. God's will, a mental state does. You simply mistake whatever physical law for God's will, technically the apperance of it . This is why educated theists toss out any account of theological detemrinism epistemically unless their theology forces them to accep it. This is besides breaking God's attribtues.>>18528382You could hold for example that there superstructural laws that make our law like regulariies appear as they do and those regularities are the particle reactions. This would be a type of neo-Spinozist view for example.
>>18528392>just ignore his own words broEveryone looks for evidence for their religious beliefs. His just so happened to be particularly antagonistic towards genesis so he did everything possible to look for errors and discredit anything resembling it. For people like him their religious bias dictates the way he views the world
>>18528395>what's even your point?I literally just spelled it out for you: "physicalism" tells me nothing about what it means for reality to be physical. To an 18th century "physicalist", quantum fields are no more physical than souls, but far more offensive, because the basic premises of QM would seem to undermine the rational structure of nature (at least to the learned minds of that age). And yet you have a ton in common with those people philosophically because most of what you attribute to "physicalism" is sufficiently accounted for by reductionism.
>>18527950This seems like it should be on /lit/ or /sci/
>>18528393The issue with that especially for the personalist theist is that suddenly your God is not so special. You can define God in such a way but really, he is just as limited as you are and there is nothing categorically saying you can't acquire his powers if the physical causes obtain. This is sometimes called the "limited God". Below is a debate about this view. This is espeicaly problematic if you have a process metaphysics, or some type of metaphysical anti-foundatoinalist like loop quantum gravity suggests. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8AzS4kmMts
>>18528400>you could make up metaphysical shit that has nothing to do with the empirical science of physicsOk, and I'll even grant you that you'd still be a perfectly good "physicalist" while you're doing it, reflecting physicalism's inherent lack of substance.
>>18528400>Because physics doesn't explain anything ever in theological voluntarism.Great! But there is no inherent issue with God's will being physical laws and vice versa in fact that's how they are often described
The big bang disproves Genesis, I don't know why people refer to the big bang as though it helps support the bible.
>>18528401>so he did everything possible to look for errors and discreditAKA applying it to scientific criticism like you should in the scientific method. Why does this trigger the religious mentality? Is it because religious beliefs fall apart at the slightest scrutiny?
>>18528417God's will being physical laws breaks God as a concept. You also don't have an explanation. In otherwords, you don't appeal to God's will ever to understand something and can't measure that. You don't have anything that can be disconfirmed like a real science and can't have law like predication and it is worthless. You run into problems of measurement as well and will break any theology unless you don't mind a Spinozist God or Azathathoth from Lovecraft. This is a being who is simply being, that is a metaphysical predication, who does not think, feel, will or anything else, have any moral attributes or anything. Below explains it a bit more. Even if you did say that was ok the big problem then is why processes exist and actually explaining things.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ew_cNONhhKI
>>18528412>You can define God in such a way but really, he is just as limited as you are and there is nothing categorically saying you can't acquire his powers if the physical causes obtain.That's just another way of saying there's nothing stopping you from being God other than the ability to become God. Anyway in Abrahamic religions at least his power is described in relation to the rest of the beings in a superlative manner. I have no idea how this in any way implies him being limited, unless you assume things that are impossible to achieve because they are nonsensical to be limits.
Should be law like prediction.
>>18528426Why would it be triggering to see atheistic religious beliefs fail so spectacularly once you actually take a look at reality? There's nothing stopping you from applying scientific criticism based on anything else other than your dogma
>>18528431If you have a limited God this means the explanation for his being lies in physics itself. You can basically make another one if the causes obtain. It breaks the metaphysical assumptions behind creator Gods in general and breaks both personalist and classical theists. You might be able to have an panentheist God, a god that is in eveyrhting but also beyond eveyrthing but in this case God is not a thinking thing but something like a part of everything and even maybe how everything holds togehter like the Stoic Logos. It would be without feeling or moral attributes.
>>18528431One thing to keep in mind is that in classical theism ultimately the nature of God is rooted a prori rationalitst reasoning. The justification for that idea behind seen that it is some type of necessary and universal truth of reality itself. Disconfirmation goes aganist that. This also means you have to be capable of saying God can cease to be God permanently.
>>18528433Which atheistic beliefs fell apart because of the big bang, exactly? You think the big bang validates the mentally defunct religious theory of the skydaddy making a skygarden and creating the ribwoman from the man?
>>18528404>ackchually physicalists were the ones who hindered science lately!!!Lmao Now let's look at reality:>muh quantum opposes physicalismThe quantum field is LITERALLY the direct descendant of exactly the kind of entity an 18th-century natural philosopher already accepted without embarrassment: imperceptible to the senses but inferred from precise, repeatable, measurable effects>quantum fundamentally rejects le physicalism by being le abstract!!!Gravity is literally action at a distance my little brainlet. are you trying to claim physicalists of the 18th century tried to refute newton?
>>18528445Ok, I can see you've devolved into incoherent psychotic rage. I have no idea what you're screeching about or what it has to do with my post.
>>18528434>If you have a limited God this means the explanation for his being lies in physics itself.And vice versa, just like how the universe is an account of physical laws. This is not an issue >You can basically make another one if the causes obtainWhich isn't saying much because the physical laws might dictate that to be impossible to achieve and therefore just impossible>beyond eveyrthingthat is meaningless everything includes God>It would be without feeling or moral attributesWhy?
>>18528438>The justification for that idea behind seen that it is some type of necessary and universal truth of reality itselfJust like the laws of physics/reality/logic?>This also means you have to be capable of saying God can cease to be God permanentlyWhy would you make that assumption?
>>18528445>>18528448By the way, Newton himself had some misgivings about "action at a distance".
>>18528448Kek, are you the lolcow who calls everyone psychotic and mentally ill when you don't have a response?Been seeing a lot of these posts lately
>>18528455Take your meds and then literally look at your own post. What are you screeching about?
>>18528443Thanks for conceding that the big bang demolished your atheistic beliefs. It's not the only one that fell though. You'll just have to cope with your science God leaving you in the dust
>>18528458>Thanks for concedingI suppose you're having one of those religious hallucinatory episodes. Get well soon.
>>18528458The big bang does not "demolish atheistic beliefs". You just don't know what you're talking about. There is nothing about the big bang that says god exists, nor is the big bang the "beginning of the universe". The big bang also has nothing whatsoever to do with Genesis, they do not even remotely describe the same thing, so trying to use it as evidence for the bible is nonsense.
>>18528461>b-but gaytheism is just le hecking lack of belief in god(s) Not my fault gaytheists were so opposed to it because it resembled genesis>And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was lightdos this piss you off?
>>18528473It doesn't resemble genesis.>And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was lightThis is not the big bang. So it seems like you are showing that you don't know what the big bang is. It also isn't genesis. In genesis, god is floating on top of the ocean (the waters) then makes light and builds a dome that be puts half the water on the outside of. It is nothing remotely similar to the big bang, which describes the inflation of a scalar field in a high-energy plateau, which creates a massive repulsive force due to its energy density. They're not even remotely similar, neither poetically or rigorously.
>>18528481>hurr it's speaking about oceans on an earth that was formless That's literally the Photon epoch you're tripping if you think you know better than the atheists who were buttmad that science was on the side of genesis
>>18528013>exercise>wishful >thinkingThese are the three components ofability, motivation, and knowledge Which are required to actualize.
>>18527955>Because you're a faggot that hates life, beauty, and goodness?This sounds like a strawman until you spend some time in atheist circles and see that it's literally true. Antinatalism, veganism, modern art, moral degeneracy, AI worship, you name it...
>>18528460Why are gaytheists so upset that they just got it wrong? imagine how wrong you'd be in the afterlife
>>18528496>That's literally the Photon epoch you're trippingNo it isnt>you're tripping if you think you know better than the atheists who were buttmad that science was on the side of genesisThe big bang is not remotely on the side of genesis. You don't know what inflationary cosmology is.
>>18528516Holy shit you're a retard
Picrelated is the canonical order of creation according to the bible btw. Yep, you heard that right, the sea came before the sun and plants came before the stars. But the big bang totally proved abrahamictards right!
>>18528559Exactly. The big bang literally disproves genesis. The guy's "argument" is:>"The scientist who was a priest hypothesized the big bang, and the other scientist who wasn't a priest hypothesized a steady state, and the priest's hypothesis turned out to be correct so therefore, the bible is true!"It's like saying that because all the quantum mechanics guys were Hindus/inspired by eastern religions and philosophy, then that means that Hinduism is true because quantum mechanics is the most well proven model in science. It simply doesn't work that way.
>>18528547Yes it is! And that's why atheists were so unbelievably butthurt that they did everything in their power to discredit it>>18528551Ad hominem, concession accepted
>>18528559It makes sense when you think what the writers of that book thought the universe was. They thought the stars were stuck like decorations to the firmament which separated the earth from heaven. The sun and moon were bigger decorations hanging from the firmament. Even the mainstream greek view wasn't any better. Plato thought the stars were stuck to a big sphere with the earth at its center, but at least his earth wasn't flat. (He also thought all the good people would get reincarnated on the stars and the bad people would be reborn on the earth)
>>18528511For all its worth modern art is way more pro life than any of the nihilistic spectacular and symbolic representations of the past.Instead of wanking it over the signified, art now as a tendency takes care of the signifier, the form, the rhythm, the image in itself and not the idealistic story it portrays. Of course you wouldn't like "modern"(wrong term) art, because it shows you a retard. Everytime someone is caught trying to analyse an "abstract" painting, they get enraged because it makes them feel stupid, not knowing that it's not supposed to have a meaning or a use.It exposes the tragic retards whose brain is so weak that they desperately need someone to make up meaning for them to survive this cruel world only made of representation.No, god doesn't exist, morality is not absolute, consciousness is not real, but there's nothing to be worried about because life has always been that way wether you delude yourself or not and it can actually be pretty comfy at times
>>18528576>modern art is way more pro lifeRight. I wouldn't be surprised if multiple atheists had independently gotten the idea of smearing an aborted fetus on a canvas and calling it art.
>>18528564>Yes it is!No it isn't, as has been explained multiple times now.
>>18528580Shut the fuck up you fucking retarded monkey at what point will you stop wasting your life being a fucking retarded monkey chasing illusions
>>18528572>He also thought all the good people would get reincarnated on the stars and the bad people would be reborn on the earthThat's a cool idea desu
Why are religious fanatics obsessed with quote mining?
>>18528590I disagree, it's stupid.
>>18528591>Why are religious fanatics obsessed with quote mining?Their entire religion is based on a single argument by authority lmao
>>18528511Veganism is in favor of life because it's against needless killing, and it's in favor of beauty because fields and gardens are more beautiful than factory farms and slaughterhouses. I imagine it's associated with atheism in the west because it's opposed to the unfortunately common Christian view that non-human animals are only NPCs God put here for our use, though veganism was apparently God's ideal in Genesis 1 and it may be returned to in the Messianic Kingdom when the lion shall eat straw like the ox.Antinatalism may not be especially life-affirming, but it isn't rooted in a hatred of goodness or beauty. It's rooted in the recognition that a life can be less than worth living due to the extent of the universe's (or God's, if he exists) indifference to the welfare of sentient beings, so it shouldn't be taken for granted that any life is better than no life. The author of Ecclesiastes 4:1-3 and some early Christian sects leaned toward antinatalism, but in modern times confronting the problem of evil and suffering more easily leads to atheism than to theological contortionism. Incidentally, even Augustine expresses an antinatalist preference in chapter 10 of https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1309.htm, though he isn't motivated by concern for suffering.AI worship, to the extent that it exists, I imagine is motivated by the idea that, "If god did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him." In God's absence, it would be nice to have a superintelligent superbenevolent being looking out for humanity, and AI could conceivably become that, though ime it's more common for people to fixate on avoiding the million ways true AI could go horribly wrong than for them to be optimistic about it.Regarding modern art, my suspicion has been that no one actually likes most of what the label is associated with and that the idea that it's any good is only a result of rich people gaslighting everyone for their amusement.
>>18528589>generic atheist losing his mind with rage>>18528642>vegoon atheist immediately appears and starts defending antinatalismIs this satire?
>>18528672God is not real famalam.
>>18528677I didn't claim god is real, I'm just pointing out the following:>>18528511>>Because you're a faggot that hates life, beauty, and goodness?>This sounds like a strawman until you spend some time in atheist circles and see that it's literally true. Antinatalism, veganism, modern art, moral degeneracy, AI worship, you name it...Which you confirm.
>>18528679This caricature of atheists also is not true.
>>18528686>This caricature of atheists also is not true.Then why did the culprits immediately spawn ITT and start defending antinatalism, veganism, modern art, etc.?
>>18528677>I totally did not claim god is real but I despise anyone who does State your beliefs otherwise you're just a massive pussy hiding behind attacking others
>>18528689>State your beliefsI literally did. See >>18528511. This is my belief.
>>18528511This. It's literally only miserabilist mentally ill hapas that make threads like this.
>>18528688Probably because atheists are smart enough to consider unorthodox beliefs without losing their minds. I think that anon gave a well thought out response to a moronic retardpost.
>>18528576Fucking word salad. Try to make an argument I can read.
>>18528720>Probably because atheists are smart enough to consider unorthodox beliefs without losing their minds. And yet there is a strong correlation between said "unorthodox beliefs" and atheism, which is what that poster was arguing to begin with you dishonest shill.
>>18527950>Some texts if you want to understand physicalism in more detail: modern physics textbooksThose don't help you understand physicalism. Those help you understand physics, but pretty much none of them make the argument that reality ought to be limited to these phenomena. Often because they know how hazy things get when you're trying to metaphysically rigorous - i.e. "what is material and what isn't".>books explaining the theory of evolution also help [understanding physicalism]What?>>18528314>Even if you believe in angels, demons or devas etc, the issue for the physcialists is can you in princniple explain them in total using physics.I can guarantee to you that most physicalists would not say that angels are compatible with their worldview. I mean hell, maybe we will find out that idealism is true and that beneath all physics are the structures of consciousness. Maybe physics, one of the most adaptive disciplines in science, will actually adapt to this too and mind will become a matter of physical investication. Doesn't mean physicalism as it exists today includes all that stuff. It is overwhelmingly hostile to it.>>18528320They always have to perform a readuction, and quite a massive one. Whether they believe in emergence on the side doesn't negate that.>>18528559The big bang is a physical account. Genesis isn't.
>>18528576>poopoo peepee abstract cuboid darkwoke nigger shit is the only real art>also idealism is le bad
>>18528727>Those don't help you understand physicalism.You can't understand physicalism in detail without knowing physics. >none of them make the argument that reality ought to be limited to these phenomenaThose are usually quite trivial and easy to make up on the spot without much effort. Or rather, it is easy to make up arguments debunking anti-physicalist arguments. >What?Understanding evolution is a good antidote to anthropocentrism which for many people is a stumbling stone to accepting physicalism.
>>18528724>there is a strong correlation between said "unorthodox beliefs" and atheism>that posterMy point with regard to veganism and antinatalism was to explain 1. how those views aren't actually based in hatred of life, beauty, or goodness (except maybe in the case of life for antinatalism depending on how you interpret "hate" and "life," though more plainly it's motivated by practically difficult-to-avoid possible feature of life rather than life itself), and 2. how those who could end up being correlated with atheism in the modern west even though the connection isn't intrinsic, as evidenced by the same views or at least the same ideals leading to those views being held by prominent theists historically, including Biblical authors and Augustine.
>>18528769>veganism isn't antithetical to life>even though my diet is entirely dependent on the literally soulless and dehumanizing industrial complex that causes greater net harm and destruction than any carnivorous diet would ever be capable of>antinatalism isn't antithetical to life>even though life is only sustainable through practices that encourage the propagation of lifeWhy do you lie about not being a nihilist?
>>18528731Yes? Because it is materialist... But I understand how you feel there was a short period of my life where I knew nothing of art so I had the same dumb preconceived notions
>>18528758>>Those don't help you understand physicalism.>You can't understand physicalism in detail without knowing physics.That's like saying you can't understand dualism in detail without understanding physics AND mysticism. You don't actually have to master either to get dualism. And can likewise understand physicalism very well even if you skuip mechanics, statics, hydraulics, optics and many other areas. >>none of them make the argument that reality ought to be limited to these phenomena>Those are usually quite trivial and easy to make up on the spot without much effort.I meant good ones.>Understanding evolution is a good antidote to anthropocentrism which for many people is a stumbling stone to accepting physicalism.We are human. We aren't getting rid of anthropocentrism. It's what defines all our experience, as objective as we like to pretend they are.
>>18528769>causes greater net harm and destruction than any carnivorous diet would ever be capable ofYou apparently aren't even interested in living within driving distance of reality, so I think you can be safely disregarded
>>18528783>even though my diet is entirely dependent on the literally soulless and dehumanizing industrial complex that causes greater net harm and destruction than any carnivorous diet would ever be capable of Man wtf not him but you're a fucking retard holy shit
>>18528793meant for >>18528783
>>18528758>Understanding evolution is a good antidote to anthropocentrism which for many people is a stumbling stone to accepting physicalism.No it's not. Evolution doesn't explain how consciousness can emerge, so you can easily point to the interference of a divine third party.Also believing in evolution doesn't necessitate a belief in physicalism either. A process based metaphysics, yes, but that's not the same as physicalism outright. Dharma based religions and panpsychists can fit evolution into their frameworks with no outright contradictions easily.
>>18528642>Regarding modern art, my suspicion has been that no one actually likes most of what the label is associated with and that the idea that it's any good is only a result of rich people gaslighting everyone for their amusement.Or maybe you don't know what you're talking about and most abstract artists don't make a single dime from their work
>>18528793>>18528797>>18528799You're lazy, kike. I'm not going to spoonfeed you on where all your supplements come from.
>>18528802>Quantum physics doesn't explain how poopoo peepee smells bad, so you can easily point to the interference of a divine third party.
>>18528790>Yes? Because it is materialist... Why aren't you dipping your head in a sewer pipe and discovering the only "real art" for yourself, then?
>>18528810I'm not saying guided evolution is true, but that there's room for plausible denial.
>>18528792You can understand the philosophical arguments for physicalism without knowing much physics, but I wouldn't call that understanding physicalism in detail.>I meant good ones.I don't think they're bad>We aren't getting rid of anthropocentrism. Maybe but you can dampen its influence in your thinking.>>18528802Evolution can help you notice the fallacies in invoking the divine third party. When exactly in the evolutionary history of humans (from simple molecules to modern humans) did the skydaddy intervene to inject consciousness? Any answer will be patently absurd, so the skydaddy solution can be rejected.
>>18528820There is no need to believe in ad hoc explanations that bring no new knowledge and require other explanations to work
>>18528816There is no real art there are only retards like you with next to no knowledge of even art history
>>18528823>I wouldn't call that understanding physicalism in detailI suppose a difference in phrasing then. Would you say nobody understand dualism in detail then? Since nobody has mastered both physics and mysticism?>I don't think they're badUnless they by some miracle outshine the (supposedly thought-out) printed versions, the chances are not in their favor. All arguments I've seen for physicalism have been inferior compared to those in favor for idealism, and let me tell you, both are shaky af.>>We aren't getting rid of anthropocentrism.>Maybe but you can dampen its influence in your thinking.You can not account for it. You can pretend it's not there. But all our terms are human terms and all our ethics are anthropocentric. And since ethics motivate our actions and terms provide us the tools to achieve those actions, all our endeavors including the scientific one are inherently human-centric. You can limit some leaps that anthropocentrism has historically invited, such as a human-esque creator and personification of physical mechanisms, but not by a whole lot. These are best combatted by solid methodology.
>>18528823>Evolution can help you notice the fallacies in invoking the divine third party.Simply not true.>When exactly in the evolutionary history of humans (from simple molecules to modern humans) did the skydaddy intervene to inject consciousness?It doesn't matter when or how, only that humans are indeed (self-)evidently conscious. How does mind arise from non-mind? How do we solve the hard problem of consciousness?Those are questions the reductionist materialist cannot answer without rejecting both premises outright.>Any answer will be patently absurd, so the skydaddy solution can be rejected.Only because you reject any answer that deviates from the physicalist paradigm outright.>>18528829The question of whether or not nature has a telos is a very important one to ask.
>>18528833You can just admit you're jewish.
>>18528843>It doesn't matter when or how, only that humans are indeed (self-)evidently conscious.Like orcas. >reject any answer that deviates from the physicalist paradigm outright.Yeah, I reject fantasy and made up nonsense.
>>18528839>Would you say nobody understand dualism in detail then?Maybe. The entire ideology of dualism and idealism is probably incoherent so I wouldn't be surprised if no dualist or idealist understood what they were talking about.>the chances are not in their favorMaybe you should explain why you think idealism is superior to physicalism so that people can see if your reasoning is sound. On its face at least, the majority of philosophers (people who are supposed to study these philosophical arguments) seem to disagree with you (see the statistic in the OP)
>>18528848>Like orcas.I never said there aren't intelligent and sapient beings on this planet beside us, only that anthropocentrism can be true regardless of it. Maybe this is just one of many cycles of humans (or a human-like species) roaming the world for a certain amount of time before another species takes over, and so on. >Yeah, I reject fantasy and made up nonsense.Physicalism is a fantasy for addled and confused, mentally retarded minds.
>>18528854>On its face at least, the majority of philosophers (people who are supposed to study these philosophical arguments) seem to disagree with you (see the statistic in the OP)Democracy is an idealism.
>>18528843>How does mind arise from non-mind?How does backbone arise from no backbone?>How do we solve the hard problem of consciousness?We have to first agree that there is a hard problem to be solved. I don't even admit the existence of a hard problem.
>>18528856>Physicalism is a fantasy for addled and confused, mentally retarded minds.Yeah, that's why it's accepted by the majority of modern philosophers and scientists. Oh,, I forgot, they aren't as smart as 4chan incels and are probably Jews anyway.
>>18528859That's not the type of idealism we're talking about here.
>>18528861>How does backbone arise from no backbone?I'm not asking how the brain came into existence, I'm asking how the brain can also produce qualitative experience.>I don't even admit the existence of a hard problem.Equivalent to being an NPC, basically.
>>18528864>Yeah, that's why it's accepted by the majority of modern philosophers and scientists. Most scientists are retarded grifters nowadays and most of our science will be thrown out during the next paradigm shift.
>>18527950Your homunculus is faulty. Mine has a smaller homunculus in his head and so on and so on for eternity
>>18528869>I'm asking how the brain can also produce qualitative experience.The same way it does other things. You haven't explained why 'qualitative experience' is supposed to be an especially 'hard problem'.
>>18528843It helps to remember that there is no such thing in self-evident outside of rationalist epistemology. A lot of these questions require evidence to be raises in the first place that they are questions and this requires brinigng out and justifyingn the metaphysical belief in them in the first place. This video describes the difference between physicalism and it describes the role of methodological naturalism.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WyrdXX6ypoE&t=90s
>p-physicalism is wrong!!!>ok, which worldview is more correct then?>And this is where these retards go silent because they have to admit they believe in some abrahamic bullshit.
>>18528881>You haven't explained why 'qualitative experience' is supposed to be an especially 'hard problem'.Why is there a *subject* and not *objects*? Why do I understand my consciousness to be fundamental to my being, when its just as easy to envision a world of non-self aware robots running around obeying their programming according to our modern understanding of science?
>>18528886>>p-physicalism is wrong!!!>>ok, which worldview is more correct then?Panpsychism or idealism. Nonreductive physicalism is just begging the question. Reductive physicalism is literally soulless. >because they have to admit they believe in some abrahamic bullshit.>hurf durf if you aren't a reductive materialist then you must be a christcuck!!!!Every time with you retards.
>>18528882>It helps to remember that there is no such thing in self-evident outside of rationalist epistemology.Prove empiricism is true without relying on rationalism to substantiate your answer.
>>18528899>PanpsychismUnfalsifiable cop out, arguably even more of a pussy statement than believing in god >idealismWhich one?>Nonreductive physicalism is just begging the questionI agree>Reductive physicalism is literally soullessLet me guess, this hurts your feefees so it can't be true?>hurr durrSo which of these are you then? Just listing nonphysicalist beliefs doesn't answer which one YOU believe in
>>18528854I don't know that idealism is inherently superior, I just know that when ontological arguments are reviewed in terms of their quality, the physicalist ones tend to be intellectually very modest, some being outright circular in terms of >these are limits of our worldview>these are the methods we use within these limits>woah, the methods designed for these limits output data that are within the limits>limits confirmedThe survey is not one of commited metaphysicians. An ethicist who merely submits to naturalism because it is current is included in the sample, since the answer is "accepts or leans towards" physicalism. It is not the case that 51% of philosophers have weighted the pros and cons and found the merits of the worldview to be above all other as you seem to present it. When you select metaphysicians with PhDs, the support for physicalism actually decreases to 49.6% and non-physicalism leaps to 36.7%.
>>18528889>Why is there a *subject* and not *objects*?To show this presents an especially hard problem to physicalism, you first need to translate these terms to their physicalistic equivalents, but any such translation will be imprecise/not sharp, so I suspect whatever hard problem you think exists will dissolve when you attempt to perform the translation and notice that the process of translation from everyday terms to physicalistically approved terms isn't sharply defined.
Grown men who believe in talking snakes and flying rabbis will do anything to steer the conversation away from the talking snakes and flying rabbis because they know deep down it's ridiculous.
>>18528846You outed yourself not me
>>18528904Empiricism is therefore not proved independently of reason; rather, reason operates on materials supplied by experience. The empiricist need not deny reasoning itself, only the rationalist claim that substantive knowledge can be obtained independently of experience. This is a question for epistemology though and some have argued that we should just drop off the source of thinking we need anything else. Hume inaugrated another approach that developed further with Quine and Jaegwonn Kim.nWillard Van Orman Quine abandoned the search for a foundational proof altogether. arguing it was a left over metaphysical specualtion. Quine argued that epistemology should be "naturalized": instead of asking for a transcendental justification of empiricism, we investigate scientifically how humans acquire knowledge. Empiricism becomes a methodological commitment supported by its success in explaining and predicting experience rather than something established by an a priori proof.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fo86JbA2QnM
The equivalent project in metaphysics that arizes is naturalized and minimial metaphysics. These avoid rationalist speculation and seek different types of descriptive projects.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_J8W7z2Hy4https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbMtCIbBZNU
>>18528908>you first need to translate these terms to their physicalistic equivalents(NTA) This might be like asking someone to convey what a painting looks like by translating it into sheet music, and if the person says it can't be done then you conclude that paintings don't exist.
>>18528906You think idealism won't be circular? On top of that, it will also include lots of wishful thinking.
>>18528924It is important to note that when we say don't exist it is likely we mean exist in the way often ascribed to it. It may be a convention for example or something else arranged a certain way. This is often called conventionalization.
>>18528889>Why is there a *subject* and not *objects*? Define subject first. Why wouldnt it be an object?>Why do I understand my consciousness to be fundamental to my being, Do you understand it though? Your consciousness didn't exist before you were born and neither does it exist for roughly one third of your existence.>when its just as easy to envision a world of non-self aware robots running around obeying their programming according to our modern understanding of science?It's also easy to envision a land of magical unicorns hopping around. What the fuck is your point?
>>18528906>decreases to 49.6% and non-physicalism leaps to 36.7%.>leapsIt's just a 5 percent increase and still in the minority
>>18528905>Unfalsifiable cop out, arguably even more of a pussy statement than believing in godIt's a far more convincing argument that "awareness" exists as a gradient, rather than arriving out of nowhere at some arbitrary threshold. I can be convinced that a particle has subjective awareness more than the argument that only 100 neurons can determine the difference between "conscious" and "without consciousness".>Which one?Reality being mental.>Let me guess, this hurts your feefees so it can't be true?Reductive physicalism can only be true if you deny all internal states are "real". Basically asserting that you're an insentient zombie and somehow being okay with that idea. >So which of these are you then? Just listing nonphysicalist beliefs doesn't answer which one YOU believe inI don't care what you think I believe in, retard. You can just read my own posts and come up with your own answers. What I'm saying is simple: Physicalism/materialism is obviously false.>>18528908>To show this presents an especially hard problem to physicalism, you first need to translate these terms to their physicalistic equivalentsThe problem is that we don't actually have proof of "physicalistic equivalents", just estimated guesses and correlates. There is no proof of any single discrete location in the entire brain that is responsible for "creating" consciousness.
Physicalism is the idea that men can become women
>>18528927Idealism arguments include a lot of really weird stuff and lots of leaps. But with physicalism, as elegant as it is, the straight line from "that's where these methods end" to "that's where the universe ends" is just straight up trash.>>18528936Sorry idk how I arrived to these numbers, the page now gives me Target Group Metaphysician 47% physicalism and 38% non-physicalism. If these were the evolutionists vs creationists polls, I would cry myself to sleep tonight... This is not a landslide victory, this is a relative majority leaning towards the cultural default, experts less likely so than the rest. I'm afraid the polls don't guide us with as much confidence as you seem to assign to them.
>>18528945Physicalism does not necessarily require the mind be equivalent to the brain. Extended cognition views would also count as physicalist. As do information theories of conciousness.
>>18528945>It's a far more convincing argument that "awareness" exists as a gradient, rather than arriving out of nowhere at some arbitrary threshold. Physicalism doesn't oppose this at all. In fact this is the leading theory of mind currently.>I can be convinced that a particle has subjective awarenessYou might be retarded then> the argument that only 100 neurons can determine the difference between "conscious" and "without consciousness".Nice strawman, who the fuck claims that?>Basically asserting that you're an insentient zombie and somehow being okay with that ideaIt only sounds bad when you think sentience makes you some special little boy
>>18528933>neither does it exist for roughly one third of your existence(NTA again) Not remembering isn't the same as being unconscious. Dreams are a conscious experience even if most people forget them most of the time. I'm not sure if it would be possible to distinguish true unconsciousness from memory loss even in yourself without simply assuming that some detectable physical process perfectly corresponds to consciousness.
>>18528951> the straight line from "that's where these methods end" to "that's where the universe ends" is just straight up trash.I don't see why it's trash. It's minimal, predictive, anti-delusion, etc. I only see positives.>Target Group Metaphysician 47% physicalism and 38% non-physicalism.That's a big improvement when you look at what it would have been a thousand years ago where almost every metaphysician would be a theist (dualist or some sort of idealist). There must probably be something severely wrong about these for there to be such a drastic reversal in opinion.
>>18528982BTW non physicalist answers can be diverse and for example have a view where qualities of experience are just like free floating blocks that mistakenly are misidentified as unified. Others hold conciousness emerges but requires new laws. So simply rejecting physicalism is not necessarily prerserving your everday intuitions at all.
>>18528982>Not remembering isn't the same as being unconsciousI think that's an interesting point and I actually only partially agree.Imagine a person that has hyper level amnesia. Like literally forgetting every single second everything about them. Would you say this person is conscious? You might, but what actual indicators are there? This to me proves that memory is incredibly crucial to consciousness and we can't imagine being conscious without memory.
>>18528985>> the straight line from "that's where these methods end" to "that's where the universe ends" is just straight up trash.>I don't see why it's trashBecause it doesn't follow. >minimalYeah, conflating epistemology and ontology is incredibly minimal haha. Maybe we should add linguistics to the mix, maybe whatever languages aren't materially recorded never existed. It's so minimal, I love it.>That's a big improvement when you look at what it would have been a thousand years agoYou're an optimist, aren't you?>There must probably be something severely wrong about these for there to be such a drastic reversal in opinion.Not drastic enough to convince most metaphysicians, it seems.
>>18529002>Would you say this person is conscious?I think they could be. I believe my notion of consciousness is compatible with a person not retaining even a single detail of what they're conscious of.
>>18529012>Not drastic enough to convince most metaphysicians, it seems.Huh? It literally is unless you don't understand what a majority is
>>18529012>Because it doesn't follow.Surely we've moved past trying to "deduce" metaphysics. >Not drastic enough to convince most metaphysicians, it seems.Can you redo the analysis with how many of these non-physicalists are theists? If they are theists, their conditioning would influence them to not be convinced by physicalism. Another issue might be the sunk-cost fallacy where they spend many metaphysicians spend their careers learning about "possible world ontologies" or whatever nonsense and then get upset when physicalism doesn't entertain such things.
>>18528917This still just sounds like crypto-rationalism no matter which way you phrase it. Humean skepticists would absolutely not make the same claims as modern physicalists do on the nature of our being. >only the rationalist claim that substantive knowledge can be obtained independently of experience.How do you avoid solipsism or prove that other minds can exist?>>18528933>Define subject first. Why wouldnt it be an object?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_am_I_me>Do you understand it though? Your consciousness didn't exist before you were born The only thing that's true is that we have no memory of what was before our birth. Does our inability to recall dreams after we wake up imply we never had them?>and neither does it exist for roughly one third of your existence.Sleep isn't truly "unconscious", you just don't experience time the same way you would while awake.>It's also easy to envision a land of magical unicorns hopping around. What the fuck is your point?I'm saying that describing things through the lens of mechanism alone ignores the qualitative aspects of existence.>>18528960>Physicalism does not necessarily require the mind be equivalent to the brain. Extended cognition views would also count as physicalist. As do information theories of conciousness.This why I think panpsychism makes more sense.>>18528963>Physicalism doesn't oppose this at all. In fact this is the leading theory of mind currently.That's a ridiculous sophism. The implication that consciousness is an emergent phenomenon still exists in your framework, except you kicked the can toward a holistic theory of mind instead.Second, if you really believed that, then you wouldn't have kneejerked here:>You might be retarded thenYou're a vitalist without realizing it lmao.>Nice strawman, who the fuck claims that?Materialists do. 1,000 or 10,000, doesn't matter.>It only sounds bad when you think sentience makes you some special little boyBlah blah blah, eat shit.
>>18528586Yes it is, gaytheist shit their pants when the Pope endorsed it
>>18528994A very interesting example of an argument is the boltzmann brain thought experiment. Buddhists have similiar accounts of the thought experiment in their works but the crux is that cause and effect indciate that one can be reborn again without the same numerical identity and no God required. There are now physicalist and non-physicalist versions of this argument around too. MIchael Huemer has developed a simiilar argument, ironically confusing Hindu with Buddhist views in his description of what he is trying to claim. Everyday experience and the experience as a substantial soul is not preserved in these arguments.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fg2FSrCsqSkhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiZ0JhlSGKc
>>18528913>outed yourselfLook at the jew pretend at being clever.
>>18529050The church shit its pants over heliocentrism, but it has since moved on.
>>18529064gaytheists still haven't moved on and that's the sad part
>>1852902947% is a minority. The majority (53%) are not convinced, though you could badger about the 5% of people who claim to have found a position beyond the dichotomy implied in the survey.>>18529031>>Because it doesn't follow.>Surely we've moved past trying to "deduce" metaphysics.It doesn't give sufficient grounds for induction either. It is not the case that the limits of our epistemology match the limits of ontology, every single time we presupposed it, it was wrong.>Can you redo the analysis with how many of these non-physicalists are theists? It says it in the correlation breakdowns beneath the chart.>If they are theists, their conditioning would influence themAbsolutely. Perhaps we should exclude naturalists too, since they would be conditioned towards physicalism. The math works out agreeably.>Another issue might be the sunk-cost fallacyIt might. Another issue might be that physicalism is trash.
>>18529046>The only thing that's true is that we have no memory of what was before our birth. Does our inability to recall dreams after we wake up imply we never had them?This nice and all, but most people don't have lucid dreams, unless you're unironically pretending to only have lucid dreams or that dreams are the same level of consciousness as being actually conscious and active (which is quite frankly retarded), it is also irrelevant >Sleep isn't truly "unconscious", you just don't experience time the same way you would while awake.And yet sleep clearly isn't truly conscious, you're often a passive observer to your own actions almost like your mind takes a backseat, with rare exceptions like lucid dreaming. ALSO all of this is still absolutely irrelevant because REM sleep exists. You usually don't dream during rem sleep. >the qualitative aspects of existenceA made up thing just like many others. You commit the mistake of thinking it's something special and unique to you, while it clearly isn't. >except you kicked the can toward a holistic theory of mind insteadDo you think physicalism opposes that somehow? >You're a vitalist without realizing it lmaoAs will be shown shortly, you build up a nice strawman of saying a low level structure can have properties of something that obviously requires a complex structure. That is not vitalism whatsoever, unless you think vitalism means complexity can't lead to meta properties. >1,000 or 10,000, doesn't matter.It literally does. >Blah blah blah, eat shit.Kek, guess I hit a nerve here
>>18529076>REM sleepMeant to say non-rem sleep I.e. deep sleep
>>18527950Based as fuck For me it’s physicalism and critical rationalism, simple as
>>18529067Just so you know there is also a growing rejection of big bang cosmology in general and those who do accept often abbreviate.This describes arguments for why it is rejected and the models that place the big bang not as the beginning but as between things.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5MJgMUT5_cThis explores things before the big bang.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZUgB8zTFJ0
>>18529067The soviet union dissolved in 1991. That the observable universe experienced rapid expansion from an initially dense state is neither here nor there for atheism. I would say it's a good less threatening than heliocentrism was to Christianity. Even admitting a finite past, though that can't be concluded from what is currently known, wouldn't by itself defeat atheism.
>>18529096Yeah I am aware, and the only real reason is because atheists are still sore in their asshole from having to admit that there ever was a point where the current creation was not. This is nothing new. btw eternal creation of any type is still a compatible framework with theism
>>18529102Drivel
>>18529102It's cute when christcucks take the opinion of a few retards and pretend it's the opinion of all atheists. It's like me saying christcuck flatearthers existing means christcucks are flatearthers.Also to make it more funny the Soviet Union ultimately did accept the big bang. It's almost like physicalism works and you can't deny physical evidence lest in danger of becoming a massive retard.
>>18529076>This nice and all, but most people don't have lucid dreamsThat's not what I was talking about at all.>And yet sleep clearly isn't truly conscious, you're often a passive observer to your own actions almost like your mind takes a backseat, with rare exceptions like lucid dreaming. ALSO all of this is still absolutely irrelevant because REM sleep exists. You usually don't dream during rem sleep.We just don't carry autobiographical memory of deep sleep or coma-induced states is all. Not sure why you're babbling about lucid dreams. I'm saying that it doesn't matter we don't have memory of anything before birth because it would be impossible to memorize anyways. That doesn't mean there wasn't something before.>A made up thing just like many others. You commit the mistake of thinking it's something special and unique to you, while it clearly isn't.You don't have qualia?>Do you think physicalism opposes that somehow?Materialism forms backdoor dualisms between mind and matter if they don't axiomatically reject the existence of the mind outright. Panpsychism avoids this because it posits that all matter has the qualities of mind to begin with.>As will be shown shortly, you build up a nice strawman of saying a low level structure can have properties of something that obviously requires a complex structure.The only thing that demonstrably requires "complex structure" is computational intelligence & memory; that's not the same thing as consciousness. Again, how do you *know* a rock doesn't have consciousness?>That is not vitalism whatsoever, unless you think vitalism means complexity can't lead to meta properties.I'm saying that emergentism may as well be vitalism with all of its question begging and obsession over biological computationatlism.>It literally does.So why are you kvetching about me strawmanning you, then?>Kek, guess I hit a nerve hereAcademia shills deserve humiliation and death.
>>18529095>muh popperAny fundamental theory of physics rests on a bunch of ontological assumptions that can't be tested and falsified. They just go out of fashion when the theory does. Pretending that they were never a part of science is intellectually dishonest.
>>18529125It ssems odd to jump from my phenomenological experience to begin with to some metaphysical existent and much less something with law like regularities. When I see a star, I don't actually see a star but something that already is gone afterall.
>>18529110>Also to make it more funny the Soviet Union ultimately did accept the big bang.Let me guess: You also believe in "dark matter" too.
>>18529110It was the opinion of all of you before you realized the truth of the scriptures can no longer be ignored. So you took parts from it that you liked and ignored the rest. What's extremely funny though is you people actively rejected the entire field as being religious ahahaha
>>18529128That is not quite true. Sciences have what are called Neurath's boat. A general epistemological view but necessary for science. Everything is actually falsifiable, and in the earliest version should be. Otto Neurath developed the metaphor of Neurath's boat to illustrate how human knowledge is revised and maintained. He argued that we are like sailors who must repair and rebuild their ship while remaining at sea; we cannot dock at a secure foundation and reconstruct everything from scratch. Likewise, our beliefs, theories, and methods of reasoning are always revised from within an existing system of beliefs rather than from some absolutely certain starting point. When parts of our worldview prove inadequate, we replace or modify them using other beliefs and practices that remain in place. The metaphor is often used against foundationalist theories of knowledge because it suggests that inquiry is holistic, fallible, and continuous: there is no standpoint outside our current web of beliefs from which we can completely justify knowledge, only ongoing reconstruction using the resources already available to us. Basically, we have to throw out theories when our theories need more explanation than they provide and when they start sinking observations that we had otherwise. Pic is of a book on astronomy but it actually models this really well with concerete examples and theories.
Further, we can also intnetionaly replace theories briefly to test the value of other theories and make predictions to disconfirm. This is a key element explored in applied epistemology and there are different techniques to do this.
>>18529125>because it would be impossible to memorize anywaysWhy would it, in an idealistic framework?>You don't have qualia?Qualia aren't something special. I can remove some of your qualia like the experience of the Color red by literally damaging your brain. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerebral_achromatopsiaNow non physicalists like to deflect from this by goalpostshifting to other supposed qualia, while conveniently ignoring the fact that "muh experience of color" is one of THE favorite qualia examples they like to use. >Materialism forms backdoor dualisms between mind and matterYou start presupposing mind is something different to matter again, why is it hard for you to stay on track?>I'm saying that emergentism may as well be vitalism with all of its question begging and obsession over biological computationatlism.What question begging obsession? you need to define what you understand under emergentism and why it supposedly is not perfectly compatible with physicalism >seethes about academia tooLmao it keeps getting funnier
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamics_of_the_celestial_spheres>By the end of the Middle Ages it was the common opinion among philosophers that the celestial bodies were moved by external intelligences, or angels, and not by some kind of an internal mover.
>>18529154It is worth noting that theories of conciousness like proto-panpsychism and so on also aritculated in such a way and make predictions that people hope can be used to disonfirm other theories. So it is not a one sided affair but a general epistemelogical point.
>>18529156>I can remove some of your qualia like the experience of the Color red by literally damaging your brain.I'm sure the realization that blind people exist was a devastating blow to ancient nonphysicalist philosophers
>>18529166For a substance dualist, it is actually Elizabeth of Bohemia who pointed this out aganist Descartes. Other types like hyylomprhic dualism not so much. What messes them up though, is the existence of phantom limbs. It means that bodily awareness and the experience of bodily parts are not determined solely by the actual physical organization of the body. Classical Aristotelian and Thomistic hylomorphism, associated with Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas, holds that a living organism is a unified substance composed of matter (hyle) and form (morphe), with the soul functioning as the form of the body. One might initially expect that if a limb is no longer part of the body, then the soul should no longer organize or experience that limb. As a result, contemporary Thomists modifed the souls powers to account for this. However, the theory as a whole does a really bad job predicting future developments, hence why we use neuroscience and not it to think about neurosurgery.
>>18529166>I'm sure the realization that blind people exist was a devastating blow to ancient nonphysicalist philosophersUnironically yes. Nonphysicalists still don't have an answer why the brain maps so neatly to qualia and consciousness. The best they came up with is that the brain is some sort of magical antenna connected to your consciousness and if that gets damaged, you lose part of the connection (lmao)
Even with the antenna issue. Nonphysicalists is also the combination problem. Why is my conciousness mine and why can't I say feel your foot hurt or have my mind combine with yours. Why does taste have to appear with other qualia?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7Xb5nA1h5U
>>18529175Nta but are you sure? I don't think I've ever met a non-physicalist who struggled to tell me why blowing someone's head smoove off erases quite a few qualia. Who are you reading?
>>18529178>define it as mine>ask why it's mineIdealists don't all insist that mind is private. That would be a physicalist necessity.
>>18529179Theoretically, they would have to say the mind substance is untouched and ok. This just points to how the theory is inconsistent and belief in it doesn't guide our actions or how we predict reality to work.
>>18529184They wouldn't. They would just point to the obvious lack of viable eyes and ears. Anon, I'm not necessarily an idealist but you're strawmanning the fuck out of ts lol.
>>18529183They seriously can't explain why conciousness behaves the way it does. There is no law or law like regularity to how it functions. I should in principle be able to predict why me eating an ice cream does not cause some quail in your mind.
From a Buddhist philosophical view, here are quite a few problems idealism. Most of these would be shared by anyone though or anyone who holds causation is relevanthttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8spAgu55IOw
>>18529175Neither physicalists nor nonphysicalists have a satisfying answer for how the brain relates to consciousness. I'm pretty sure every proposed explanation has an associated problem, like the interaction problem for substance dualism, the combination problem for panpsychism, or the hard problem for physicalism. Physicalists just tend to refuse to acknowledge that there is a hard problem, which makes me suspect that there's a subtle semantic disagreement going on, something that might be noticeable from things like physicalists believing consciousness can't exist apart from memory.
>>18529187Again, reducing behaviors to laws is a physicalist optic. Idealists don't have to do that. Now if you want to throw every possible combination of qualia at them and quiz them about why this or why that, it's actually quite possible that you will get an answer. From Aristotelian substances to Hindu material forms of consciousness, you will have no shortage of answers. I just doubt you'll know what to do with them as they will have an equal predictive power to physicalism: when eating ice cream the same thing will happen as all the other times eating ice cream.
>>18529179>I don't think I've ever met a non-physicalist who struggled to tell me why blowing someone's head smoove off erases quite a few qualiaYes, they say it's because the brain is a magical antenna or even more convoluted bullshit. Who are YOU reading that you read something different?
>>18529186There should still be a duplicate mental qualia. Remember the mind substance should exist and can't be acted on by the physical substance. This is connected to the homonoculus problem.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKPC6TalNQ0
>>18529198>Neither physicalists nor nonphysicalists have a satisfying answer for how the brain relates to consciousness.What do you not like about the physicalist answer? Different brain regions correspond to different areas of consciousness, if those get damage, the consciousness is altered.
>>18529201Nagel, Wilber and a relatively random assortment of theologians. The antenna metaphor is famously the only one physicalists are willing to understand (since their entire understanding is based on everything being machines and, at most, softwares) but I don't think I've ever seen anyone metaphysically struggle with "you don't see without the visual machinery" regardless if it was the eye or the visual cortex.
>>18529221So what is your answer for "damaging the brain damages qualia, which are supposedly crucial to consciousness"?
>>18529150I don't see how that's more than just a way to say that the complete network of human knowledge doesn't just doesn't collapse every time some "foundational" premise falls out of favor. In the long run, it turns out practical beliefs (including scientific ones) aren't really that dependent on what's at the bottom of their logical justification. That's exactly why Physics gets away with being dead wrong about the very foundations of physical reality. So why do you think any of what you wrote contradicts what I wrote?
>>18529215Saying things correspond and that's all there is to it is a non-explanation. Every position can say that much. The physicalist has to account for how something allegedly lacking in any fundamentally consciousness-like or qualitative property somehow gives rise to something with such properties. If you take them for granted, that's panpsychism. If you suppose it to be a irreducible law that when a certain arrangement occurs, you get consciousness, I think that's a form of property dualism.
>>18529227I would ask what a "damaged" qualia is. What I know is that many qualia have specific physical correlates and when you lose the machinery delivering those specific correlates, then the respective qualia can't be expected.
>>18529237>AKCHUALLY cause and effect magically stops being relevant when it comes to that and it's just correspondingNonphysicalist cop outs are so funny sometimes. Anyway, proof for it just being corresponding?
>>18529243Are you illiterate?
>>18529242I think you didn't comprehend what cerebral achromatopsia is.You don't just lose the perception of Color, you lose the QUALIA of color. You literally can't say anymore what red "feels like" despite still being able to physically perceive red and having other memories. This goes in direct contrast of what nonphysicalists like to claim about qualia.
>>18529236>In the long run, it turns out practical beliefs (including scientific ones) aren't really that dependent on what's at the bottom of their logical justification.Nta but I think that's exactly why it's not a great idea to posit special entities just to have something at the bottom of logical justification. Instrumentalism about justification is bound to produce fewer mistaken beliefs.
>>18529237It is the same issue when you go to a store that you thought was open but is in reality closed. You simply update your belief about the store being closed , a theory about it's operating time. There is nothing particuarly special about this feature of epistemology. There are multiple logics, this is called logical pluralism and there is nothing special about any of them in reality accept their ability to model phenomena. If you will, all that matters to their effiacy is our epistemology. You could defend one logic as somehow reflecting reality but that is not a claim about logic itself but a metaphysical claim and you would need an epistemology to do that.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQJA8v8jeNo>>18529237The issue that physicalism has been fairly successful at predicting things, the easy problem as it is so called for the most part although not complete has been fairly predictable. The debate is about the hard problem. This is why some argue there is something wrong with hard problem. We never really reasoned to it but simply appeal to some phenomenological claim unlike the easy problem which consists of multiple predicable observations. It could be that you get property dualism and that could be physicalist if you are an emergentist. That is frankly a common strategy people make. The question is whether that is physicalist enough or not. If not you would have to subscribe to some type of naturalized dualism, which is a break from historical dualisms.
>>18529250I think I comprehend it. I just don't see why some of the brain's circuitry should be set apart from "machinery delivering those specific correlates". You don't think the brain processes visual stimuli? You don't think the machinery breaks down in teh case of cerebral achromatopsia? What exactly sets it apart from what I described?
>>18529262If the brain is entirely responsible for qualia, like in this instance, what's the point of discussing qualia at all? Clearly they're not magical thingies that constitute your nonphysical consciousness then. That was basically my point.The existence of qualia is a very important thing in non physicalist ideology, because muh evil physics supposedly can't explain qualia, yet in this case it clearly can.
>>18529258>I think that's exactly why it's not a great idea to posit special entities just to have something at the bottom of logical justification.It's actually a great idea because paradigm shifts happen only by contrast with the old base assumption.
>>18529293What paradigm shifts? If practical beliefs aren't dependent on what's at the bottom of their logical justification, then positing these special entities surely can't create paradigm shifts in practical beliefs.
>>18529306>What paradigm shifts?From Aristotelian to Classical Physics, for example. Or from Classical to Modern... Geocentrism to Heliocentrism, Creationism to Evolution... Profound thinking lays the groundwork for profound re-thinking. The Romans had an excellent practical understanding of nature and solid engineering principles, but you don't hear about them being responsible for any major scientific revolution.
>>18529319All of these paradigm shifts happened because we moved closer and closer to physicalist thinking
>All of these paradigm shifts happened because we moved closer and closer to physicalist thinking
>>18529990>no response
>>18529990They sure as fuck didn't happen because we moved closer to magicalism lmao.
>>18530001>>18530004They didn't correlate with increase or decrease in physicalism whatsoever. Geocentrism and Heliocentrism are exactly equally physicalist. Socrates, Plato and Aristotle are an unnoticeable zigzag on the idealism-physicalism-magicalism axis despite >>18530004's insistence. This is made especially obvious when you see that there is in fact nothing physicalism achieves that non-physicalism can't. An idealist or even a dualist is forced to deny precisely 0 scientific studies. To be a physicalist is completely intellectually coherent, but this exaggerated admiration of it is just a form of scientism - a misunderstanding of science and naturalism. There is no actual benefit to physicalism besides a specific form of "the world ends where I can't see" self-soothing.
>>18529268>muh evil physics supposedly can't explain qualia, yet in this case it clearly canThey can't. They just track its correlates. Before we had MRI you'd have to, with the very same logic you present now, argue that qualia happens in the eyes. It doesn't. It's just part of the machinery that delivers its physical correlates to consciousness. And so is the brain. Nowhere in these posts was qualia explained.
>>18530001>>18530004You're low-IQ and everything I wrote stands undisputed and uncontradicted.
>>18530022Geocentrism is based on the religious belief that humans must be at the center of the universe because the earth is where humans live and the rest of the universe is made for the purpose of the human drama. This is highly antiphysicalistic and the reason why the church had so much trouble accepting that it was wrong. This is also why materialism started to explode in popularity when geocentrism was discarded. Your perspective is highly ahistorical and not anchored to reality.
>>18530034>Geocentrism is based on the religious belief that humans must be at the center of the universeNot really. It's based on things moving around us from our perspective. Just like flat earth is based on the Earth being flat from our surface-dwelling point of view. Religion definitely acommodated this view, but as the contemporary science-denying conspiracy theorists make clear, it is not based in religion, it's based on flawed extrapolation from first person perspective.>This is also why materialism started to explode in popularity when geocentrism was discarded.Citation needeed. Materialism was helped by Descartes and the like, heliocentrism has nothing to do with materialism lol
>>18530022>To be a physicalist is completely intellectually coherentOnly in the way that vacuous statements are "completely intellectually coherent". See >>18528333, >>18528404
>>18530024>They just track its correlatesIf a brain region being physically affected also physically affects your qualia or even removes then if we properly damage the brain region, then it succinctly explained qualia.You are free to pretend that's just a correlation and not a causation, but by this logic you can deny the causation of literally anything, ergo you have a completely hollow argument. >the earth rotates around the sun >this is because the sun has a higher gravity >HURRR but can you actually SHOW that's true?? Maybe it just perfectly correlates with the suns path???
>>18529804No, it happened because we developed material conditons and mental framework structures to analyze said things>notiones vs notationesAs Gauss said
>If a brain region being physically affected also physically affects your qualia or even removes then if we properly damage the brain region, then it succinctly explained qualia.Ok, let's have some real talk now. Where do you go to discuss philosophical subjects if you wish to avoid 80 IQ niggercattle regurgitations of vacuous, thousand-times-refuted talking points?
>>18530046>we already refuted this!>how? Where?>just look it up bro!Every single time
>>18530034>This is highly antiphysicalisticNo it isn't lol, what kind of stupid take is this? If everything that exists is made for humans and everything is physical and obeys the laws of physics then that is completely in line with physicalism.
>>18529179This feels like a pointless misdirection>If you die you no longer have qualiaI guess bro. Does qualia have to be some platonic imperceivable soul or maybe it just emanates from something close to that?
>>18530040Religion didn't just accommodate it, religious cosmologies are based on geocentric views (this was discussed earlier in the thread). >Citation needeed.You're aware of the term "copernican revolution", right? It is called a scientific revolution because it dethroned humans from their central place in the universe, thus ushering in the all sorts of materialistic views. It's interesting that you mention Descartes, since he refrained from publishing his heliocentric book Le Monde when he learnt that Galileo was imprisoned for heliocentrism by the church, who are the primary guardians of the anti-physicalistic views.
>>18530049One thing about "people" with brown-level intellects is that they're always convinced their empty verbal vomit is some cutting-edge argument even though they picked it up by osmosis from countless other cretins just like them.
>>18530053It's fine anon we got it, you don't actually have a response to my point so you resort to seethe
>>18529175>[imaginary characters] still don't have an answer why the brain maps so neatly to qualia and consciousnessIt doesn't. Neurological knowledge maps roughly to the phenomenological structure in a way that leaves open the question why it needs to feel like anything at all and not just remain abstract.
>>18530042I understand what you're saying but I don't think idealism explains consciousness any better than physicalism explains material. We could set the bar for intellectual coherence so high it discredits them both (along with most other paradigms) but I don't see that it's useful to do that.>>18530043>If a brain region being physically affected also physically affects your qualia or even removes then if we properly damage the brain region, then it succinctly explained qualia.Again, this works perfectly well for an eye as well. Which we know doesn't actually explain qualia.>>>18530052>Religion didn't just accommodate it, religious cosmologies are based on geocentric viewsOr on heliocentric views. Or on big bang. Again, religions can accommodate all of these. It is simply not true that these models begin in religion, especially in one whose scripture never ever says that humans are "at the centre".>>Citation needeed.>You're aware of the term "copernican revolution", right? It is called a scientific revolution Agreed. It's also called a scientific revolution because it's a win for science, not for materialism. Conflating the two is a misunderstanding of what was achieved back then and what is being practiced today.>Galileo was imprisoned for heliocentrism by the churchWe have letters from Galileo's inquistor which explicitly say he's not opposed to heliocentrism and that Galileo should have done more research to prove his point. After which they imprisoned Galileo for his political texts. This myth needs to die so bad.
>>18530057>my pointYou're mentally ill and hallucinating. There are no points in your post. Your claim is literally:>i damaged a thing and some observable effect ceased, this succinctly explains the effectLiteral nigger thinking.
>>18530059>I don't think idealism explains consciousness any betterYour subjective beliefs about that don't refute or even conflict with my statements.
>>18529136You believe that a Jewish demon invented the universe
>>18530065They absolutely conflict.
>>18530059>Again, this works perfectly well for an eye as well.No it doesn't, losing your eyes doesn't mean you lose the perception of what the Color red feels like. Losing that specific brain region does mean that. In conclusion, that brain region is directly responsible for managing visual qualia. Now you have to admit that either the intrinsic perception of colors isn't actually a qualia, basically going the deflection route, or admit that physicalist models can explain at least some qualia perfectly fine.
>>18530052>thus ushering in the all sorts of materialistic viewsall of these earlier views are materialistic
>>18530068>b-b-b-but in my opinion idealism also badThat's not a conflicting statement, it's literally a concession.
>>18530059>Or on heliocentric views. Or on big bang.No religion is based on these. Come on, stop being dishonest.>It is simply not true that these models begin in religionThat's not what I said. The models preceded the religions, but the religions codified it into dogma.>and that Galileo should have done more research to prove his pointThis is such a dumb catholic whitewashing of history. You really think some dumbfuck, fanatical inquisitors would be qualified to judge the astronomical research of one the most preeminent astronomers of their time? You also completely ignored the point of Descartes' heliocentrism which he had to self-censor because of these fanatical religious clowns.>what is being practiced today.Yes, what is practiced today is a science which thoroughly removes humans from the center of the universe, this is anathema to the anti-physicalist views.
>>18530069This feels rather reductionist though, unless people with this condition can no longer even imagine colours as they were. Like, if someone gets brain damaged like this later in life, do they forget or can no longer manifest a red apple in their mind, and instead it's grey or black or white or whatever?
>>18530079>unless people with this condition can no longer even imagine colours as they wereThey literally can't. So i was right in assuming most nonphysicalists didn't even read into the condition.>do they forget or can no longer manifest a red apple in their mind, and instead it's grey or black or white or whatever?Yes, literally. They can't envision a colorful apple anymore and instead it appears as drab or monochrome in their imagination.
>>18530076Religions don't say anything about this subject, show me one that thinks the earth is the literal center of all creation. In fact you often find religious people challenging this assumption
>>18530069Your assertion was:>If a brain region being physically affected also physically affects your qualia or even removes then if we properly damage the brain region, then it succinctly explained qualia.Likewise, if an eye being physically affected also physically affects your qualia or even removes then if we properly damage the eye, then it succinctly explained qualia.I'm not arguing they remove the qualia to the same severity, with the same effect or anything like that. If you wish to introduce it to your argument, I will gladly hear how you drew the line between "damage here affects some qualia but doesn't explain it", and "damage here affecs some qualia and explains it". But one way or another, qualia is not explained. You just located a new place where you hope the explanation will one day be found.>>18530072I didn't say it's bad.>>18530076>>Or on heliocentric views. Or on big bang.>No religion is based on these.I don't know about "no religion" but I know that you're right with Christianity. Christianity is not based on these. Like it isn't based on geocentrism. Which explains why it could accommodate all of these models without it making any difference to core theology.>The models preceded the religions, but the religions codified it into dogma.Not a single one of these was ever declared dogma and again, we have literal Church officials claiming they are open to heliocentrism. You are factually wrong on every level about this.>You really think some dumbfuck, fanatical inquisitors would be qualified to judge the astronomical researchYour understanding of religion is a caricature. Vincenzo Maculani was educated in law, theology, geometry and architecture and he had many advisors specifically about astrology for this case. Whether he was fit to judge Galileo's entire argument is a valid question, but not actually the one we're solving right now. We're discussing whether the religion was open to helicentrism. And it was.
>>18530090What materialist explanation of qualia would you need so you would admit that it's sufficient? Just purely theoretical.If you answer "none" now, than you've admitted you're just a presuppositionalist and it's pointless arguing with you.
>>18530090>I didn't say it's bad.Makes no difference and I accept your concession.
>>18530092>What materialist explanation of qualia would you need so you would admit that it's sufficient?One that actually explains what it's claiming to explain and doesn't just track it indirectly through its communicable derivatives?
>>18530098>One that actually explains what it's claiming to explain and doesn't just track it indirectly through its communicable derivatives?You haven't answered my question. What do you mean by "actually explain"? What would that entail?
>>18530090>and he had many advisors specifically about astrology for this case.And yet, this fanatical clown couldn't consult actual expert astronomers like Kepler who agreed with Galileo apparently. It's not just a valid question, they were completely not qualified to judge Galileo's astronomical contributions and doing it out of spite to imprison him for being a 'heretic'. You have once again ignored the point about Descartes' self-censored heliocentrism.>Christianity is not based on these.>Not a single one of these was ever declared dogma Do you really want to discuss the geocentrism inherent in christian cosmology in this thread? Also to >>18530088.
>>18530101>What do you mean by "actually explain"? What would that entail?Not my problem. But I'm willing to be charitable to your ideology and set a much more basic goalpost: it should be able to objectively confirm whether or not a being is conscious, without a bunch of unfalsifiable materialist presuppositions.
>>18530092That's a good question. I now know how it feels to be an atheist asked "what evidence criteria would you need to conclude God", though the temptation to answer "verifiable o algo" still remains a mystery to me. I think because consciousness is still immune to most methods of investigation (hence the hard problem), we're not exactly able to set hard criteria. My worldview would definitely be affected if it turned out mystics, saints and sages can be reliably misguided in their experiences by mere brain chemistry. But to conclude that qualia are a material phenomen at core I would have to be convinced that bottom-up accounts of reality are sufficient in general. And so far it's not looking good from where I'm standing. >>18530094I didn't concede. Take care!>>18530102>imprison him for being a 'heretic'Neither imprisoned nor declared a heretic. Again, your understanding borders on caricature.As long as you ignore literal inquisitor being open to helicentrism, something you think was "dogma" to him, the rest of your engagement is futile.
>>18530102>Do you really want to discuss the geocentrism inherent in christian cosmology in this thread?Yes! Because there is no such thing. I asked Gemini and it confirms
>>18530106>Not my problemNice cop out>it should be able to objectively confirm whether or not a being is consciousHow do observational metrics and tests in combination not suffice for this? We perform behavioural tests, neural signatures, and brain stimulation to measure the PCI. If a solid chunk of these throw off, the biological entity is not conscious. Now let's hear why that somehow doesn't count as objective confirmation.
>>18530109>Neither imprisoned nor declared a hereticJust put under house arrest after being ordered to disavow his heliocentric views under the threat of torture. Wow, the catholic fanatics were so pro-heliocentrism! And they also banned his books too -- such a nice, accommodating, liberal-minded church!
>>18530109>I didn't concede.You did: >>18530059>I understand what you're saying but I don't think idealism explains consciousness any betterThis is a concession that you don't dispute what I said.
>>18530112>Nice cop outI guess your profound psychotic illness makes you believe it's on me to invent a way for you to succeed in your dubious undertaking?>We perform behavioural tests, neural signatures, and brain stimulation to measure the PCI. If a solid chunk of these throw off, the biological entity is not conscious. That's a complete non-sequitur. In humans, you'd be banking on an unprovable assumption and in non-human entities you have nothing at all.
>>18530116Pro? I wouldn't say that. But they were open to it. Which is why they accepted it in the end without it making much of a theological difference. The move from geocentrism to heliocentrism has got nothing to do with physicalism. The shift happened entirely within the non-physicalist paradigm.>>18530118I don't think I can be any clearer than I was. If you're still fishing for a concession, I'm fine with you imagining one and leaving it at that.
>>18530130>I don't think I can be any clearerI agree. There's no clearer indication that you concede a criticism than going "tu quoque".
>>18530124>unprovable assumptionWhat assumption is that? Why do you always refuse to elaborate?>in non-human entities you have nothing at all.wrong, this applies to most biological entities. If you want a hyper universal test of consciousness you should've stated that from the beginning, but I'm not sure why that needs to be a requirement for physicalism to be true.
>>18530130I notice that you keep ignoring Descartes' (who you yourself said was an impetus to materialism) self-censored heliocentrism. Why is that? Is it because it counts against your revisionist, catholic apologia?
>>18530133Because heliocentrism has nothing to do with materialism so "Descartes was an impetus to materialism" is not affected by his relationship to heliocentrism.
>>18530132>What assumption is that?That all entities who act a certain way are conscious in a similar way, which would be logically downstream from what you're out to prove.>wrong, this applies to most biological entitiesIt doesn't. They give no subjective reports about what it's like to be them. You're psychotically ill.
>>18530138>That all entities who act a certain way are conscious in a similar way, which would be logically downstream from what you're out to prove.Why is that assumption unprovable? It is easily falsifiable with a counterexample of an entity acting completely different despite being conscious in a similar way. >muh subjective reports Did you forget your original question?Also>ctrl f psycho: 4 results >ctrl f mentally ill: 3 resultsWe get it anon, it's your favorite insult
>>18530137Nice revisionist/apologetic cope, but refuted by a simple look up.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World_(book)>it contains a nearly complete version of his philosophy, from method, to metaphysics, to physics and biology.>Descartes espoused mechanical philosophy, a form of natural philosophy popular in the 17th century.>The World rests on the heliocentric view, first explicated in Western Europe by Copernicus. Descartes delayed the book's release upon news of the Roman Inquisition's conviction of Galileo for "suspicion of heresy" and sentencing to house arrest.
>>18530143>Why is that assumption unprovable?Because your entire position is predicated on it already being true.>Did you forget your original question?No, I didn't. It's just that your psychotic illness prevents you from grasping that subjective reports are key to making your logically flawed argument sound plausible at least when applied to humans.
>>18530144I'm not sure what you think you just refuted. I didn't claim that Descartes never self-censored. I claimed heliocentrism has nothing to do with materialism. That Descartes' proto-materialist philosophy happened to include heliocentrism and that this particular belief was politically risky at the time has no bearing on my argument. He could have believed in Jupiter-centrism and never release The World because of this, doesn't mean Jupiter-centrism is inherently materialist lol
>>18530146>entire position is predicated on it already being trueIt's a foundational logical presumption, but it doesn't make it unprovable since I clearly can come up with mechanism or physically hypothetical examples that disprove it within my own framework. For your worldview you literally can't (or at least you pretend to, deflecting instead), hence your worldview is unfalsifiable nonsense
>>18530148>It's a foundational logical presumption, but it doesn't make it unprovableIf it's provable, prove it without assuming it, mentally ill retard.
>>18530149>you can't assume disprovable things to prove or disprove something!!!Now we've reached advanced levels of sophism
>>18530147>He could have believed in Jupiter-centrism >happened to include heliocentrismUmm, no he couldn't because his theory was based on circular vortices in the ether caused by particles moving in to fill voids and thus causing the ether and planets to move circularly. This can't be Jupiter-centric because the Jupiter-centric would be highly non-circular. Please refrain from misrepresenting Descartes to spread your revisionist catholic apologia, thanks.
>>18530151>80 IQ brown can't keep track of a conversationLet me dumb it down for you: you can't refute P-zombies except by showing that they're incoherent, which you can't do without assuming materialism. This basic conclusion has been long-acknowledged by serious critics of qualia like Dennett. But even if I grant your materialist assumptions and conclude that all normally working human brains imply consciousness, the conclusion doesn't extend beyond humans: doubting that other creatures are conscious is perfectly coherent because they have different brains and different behaviors. There is no real counter for this besides assuming that there's some set of external "symptoms" that reliably indicate consciousness and further assuming that you can know what it is by extrapolating from humans.
>>18530156Post hand. Protip: you won't lol.
>>18530168I accept your incredibly brown concession. Post hand. Protip: you won't lol.
>>18530156>you can't refute P-zombies except by showing that they're incoherent, which you can't do without assuming materialismYou absolutely can >Conceivability does necessarily imply metaphysical possibilityThis is already an assumption that is baked into the argument and you have to presuppose it is true. While it absolutely isn't in a big chunk of worldviews, materialism included but not solely consisting of materialism. In fact even some dualists which historically tend to be the biggest proponents, reject the zombie retardation. The zombie advocate has first to prove the possibility.>dennett admitted this!No he didn't lmao. Show proofs
>>18530171>You absolutely canGo ahead. How do you know someone is not a P-zombie?
>>18530169Kek I was right. You're either mexican, skinny or fat (or most likely all at once).
>>18530174Did you read the rest of the post? I literally explained how you can, by rejecting the retarded assumption that conceivability necessates possibility. In fact most people would reject this if they think about this assumption for more than two seconds.
>>18530177>by rejecting the retarded assumption that conceivability necessates possibilityI didn't make this assumption. I'm just asking you how I can know that another person is conscious.
>>18530183No, you started rambling on about how disproving zombies needs to assume physicalism, why are you deflecting again?
>>18530185You're proving my point over and over. How do I know I'm not dealing with a P-zombie? Protip: this question doesn't assume anything about what's metaphysically possible, it's a skeptical position.
Christtranny meltdown
>>18530192You can't even prove that you're not brown, so I'd say talking about p-zombies is a bit beyond the scope of your abilities.
>>18530192You can't, but ultimately you can't prove anything. Is this some new revelation to you? Babbys first philosophical thought?So since we have to have at least some foundational basis in reality, we discuss which worldview makes the most sense based on intuition and observation.
>>18530199>You can't>>18530143>>That all entities who act a certain way are conscious in a similar way, which would be logically downstream from what you're out to prove.>Why is that assumption unprovable?
>>18530209>this statement is unprovable because all statements are ultimately unprovableprove you're not a retard. oh you can't? guess you're a retard then.
>>18529147Again, buddy, the big bang has nothing whatsoever to do with genesis. Genesis does not even remotely describe the big bang, it describes the construction of flat earth with a dome. You are retarded
>>18530215>my subjective belief is unprovable b-b-but only because you can't know nuffinHoly mother of all copes.
>>18530080>They literally can't.Idk about other anons, but I don't believe this affects my understanding. I think of the imagination as an internal sense not much different from external senses except that you have greater control over what it perceives. So damaging your outer eyes might take away your ability to perceive red externally, and damaging the "inner eye" might take away your ability to perceive red internally. But the latter still doesn't prove physicalism any more than the former.
>>18530069>In conclusion, that brain region is directly responsible for managing visual qualia.That doesn't follow. What does "managing visual qualia" even mean?
What would it take to disprove physicalism? Almost any conceivable "supernatrual" phenomenon could be, atleast partly, studied using science. Consciousness could be (atleast partly) non-physical yet no one disputes that you can study aspects of consciousness using science.For instance I would argue that the truly microscopic world described by QM is so radically different from the macroscopic world described by classical mechanics that it almost isn't too far-fetched to call it "non-physical", which of course many of the founders of QM thought and started studying eastern esotericism as a result.Even if modern physicists dislike such speculation, some of them support the many-worlds interpretation of QM or something similar, but is it really less worthy of being called "non-physical" than the conclusions the earlier thinkers drew? Is it less a matter of metaphysical speculation than quantum immortality?
>>18530578>What would it take to disprove physicalism?Skydaddies and zombie prophets being real would do the job.
>>18530578>What would it take to disprove physicalism?See >>18528404, >>18528333. To some extent, >>18529128 applies as well: physicalism can't be falsified but it's an unproductive attitude that will be discarded once the defensiveness against the specter of religion subsides enough for people to soberly reflect on the dissonance between dogmatic reductionism and the bigger picture of reality.
>>18530589Merely "being real" would obviously not do the epistemological job, no. How do you aim so low and still miss?
>>18530589If God could be reliably studied and proven using the scientific method then he wouldn't be a supernatural being anymore, his existence would just be an established scientific fact. One could make the argument that this would essentially betray the point of religion anyways, as religion is rooted in faith in the supernatural rather than physicalism. If God were ever proven scientifically, we'd still have religions claiming there must've been some greater God that created him. It's just how religion works
>>18530675>If God were ever proven scientifically, we'd still have religions claiming there must've been some greater God that created him. It's just how religion worksStrange, since Catholics believed they did prove God with the science of their time and they didn't claim there must be some greater God because of it. Perhaps you meant something else but this point looks off. The actually good point in your post is:>If God could be reliably studied and proven using the scientific method then he wouldn't be a supernatural being anymore,Which is perhaps inadvertently true. The moment something can be studied, naturalism absorbs it. Faith healing was supernatural voodoo before we proved it works, slapped the latin word placebo on it and re-classified it as natural rather than supernatural. If we ever prove telepathy or souls, the same thing is going to happen - naturalism (and perhaps even physicalism) will not get falsified, it will just adjust its definitions to include whateveer it is we now know to be fact. If we ever get our methods down so perfectly that we prove God, He would indeed not be supernatural anymore. Because we reserve that term for things we are essentially ignorant about, all known facts are automatically considered natural no matter what.
>>18527950>Approximately 52% of English speaking philosophers were physicalists according to this survey, with 15% being agnostic. https://survey2020.philpeople.org/survey/results/4874What was the point of even mentioning this?You know most of the philosophers listed here don't nessery engage in the subject of the theory of mind so this data doesn't really do anything in the first place and doesn't do anything for your position in presenting the current concusses of philosophers which actively engage with the subject.Also why make another thread, last time you was caught out to be half-ass names which you don't understand to try and add more credit to your points (Which you literally admitted to btw) and to samfag whenever shit goes south. I guess you took a while to make another thread so that people can forget or something, because if you didn't no one would engage with someone who is a raging sophist and who is extremely disingenuous.
>>18530675>If God could be reliably studied and proven using the scientific method then he wouldn't be a supernatural being anymoreGod doesn't need to be studiable to reliably appear to us.I doubt physicalists would be able to cope with a supernatural entity simultaneously broadcasting his existence to all of humanity and performing some miracles without any physical trace.And yet god somehow never shows himself anymore. Isn't that weird?
>>18530757>I doubt physicalists would be able to cope with a supernatural entity simultaneously broadcasting his existence to all of humanity and performing some miracles without any physical trace.miracle cases exist you know like the miracle of fatima>And yet god somehow never shows himself anymore. Isn't that weird?He shows himself you then what? Maybe when you see it you are convinced at that moment, then you sleep and think about it more, then start to think "you know maybe it was this or this". then by the next week you are sceptical again, then you would require god to show himself again. and again and again until you are finally satisfied but at that point god isn't a dancing monkey for your attention and if god left no room for doubt atp would the choice to faith be a choice You disbelieving is only a problem if you hold to some concept hell for lack of belife
>>18527950Can you prove that physicalism is true?
>>18530689Science never can produce absolute truths. That is a feature and not a bug. If by methodlogical naturalism, technically that doesn't absorb but just a feature of epistemology. Technically, physicalism is a claim about metaphysics. It is possible to do sciecne with only epistemology and not metaphysics. This leads some to drop all metaphyscis out entirely or do projects like P.F Strawson's descripitev account of metaphysics.
>>18530905One of the the big challenges all metaphysicans face is that it is not obvious that metaphysics matters to undrestanding reality and knowing it in an epistemological sense. Hume and Kant in the western philosophical tradition basically inaugrated this observation.
>>18530905A common critcism is that metaphysics ruins science actually espeically if rooted in rationalist principles.
>>18530798>miracle of fatimaYou mean the miracle where a bunch of highly religious people came together and still gave completely contradictory accounts?>you will NEVER believe in god even if he blatantly shows himself to youYou know this cope is pretty funny because godtards have to tell it themselves to come to terms with the fact that their belief copium isn't wasted effort.>ackchually god is too busy to just convince people that he exists Lmao
>>18530803Yes>>18530694>Also why make another thread, last time you was [schizobabble]No idea what you're hallucinating about here.
>>18527950> physics textbooksThere is nothing physical about these beyond the wood pulp they are printed on. All the physics knowledge humanity claims to possess is no more significant, descriptive, or lasting than the English word rock is a significant, descriptive, or lasting representation of said matter. The difference between the word rock, a caveman’s grunt signifying rock, and whatever unified field theory ends up being crowned humanity’s greatest mathematical achievement is completely negligible. There’s your physicalism.
>>18531408Go live in a cave then, magic boy.>n-no but-Everybody wanna live in a nice air-conditioned room but nobody wanna be no boring-ass physicalist.
>>18527950Physicalism has already been refuted by the best physicists we have.>https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/cia-rdp96-00788r001700210016-5.pdfI trust the science and the government unironically.
>>18531412HVAC engineers aren’t and never were physicalists.
>>18531226Why wouldn’t God fit into a physicalist framework?You could still have things we today call supernatural, they’d have natural explanations.You’re not really a physicalist. You’re an atheist who wants to make arguing against your silly position very difficult.
>>18531415>cia.gov>consciousness energy fieldInto the trash it goes
>>18531425>science is bad when it doesn’t agree with meYeah we’re done here.
>>18531417When's the last time a HVAC engineer used magicalism to cool your home? You hanging out with some blue collar Harry Potter fuck or what?
>>18531429It's crackpottery. There's no consciousness energy field bro.
God isn't real and you guys need to stop being upset at this fact.
>>18531412Go live in Somalia if you think anything non-physical is irrelevant. Physics and technology work the same there as anywhere else. Or maybe the intangible elements of that HVAC guy like morality and empathy have an impact on your hard science fact-based life.
A good reminder that the OP is a depressive jew that has spammed LLM slop for multiple months straight.
>>18531349Nice try lolIcba to re write the whole thing again, so I'm just going to copy and paste bits of it from last thread also I like how the only way you can discredit me is by trying to make me sound like a sctizo where there was also like 5 different people calling you out on the same thing.After samefaging and absolutely spazzing out after making a blunder here https://desuarchive.org/his/thread/18478124/#18481674 (lol)showing off your sophistry and your reluctance to admit fault (which is telling of the fact that you only really make theses generals out of bad faith and atp why should anyone honestly engage with you)I called you out on your next thread of which you insistently started seethe then realised thats a bad look then tried to play it off like that is not you https://desuarchive.org/his/thread/18483694/#18483762, even though you are the only guy which made the theory of mind threads at that time. Then you admitted to making the metaphysics general https://desuarchive.org/his/thread/18483694/#q18484183 which is just a tell tail seeing that you also continued your other thread so all your previous cope just falls out (a bit strange the the creator of metaphysics general is also a physicist even though there was a thread about it as well.)And like you don't even do a good job at it, you don't even bother to change your redirect and speeling to make it appear as if you was someone else.You talk the same, your redirect is the same, you act the same, your talking points are the same, you lies are really bad and you started to seethe really badly after being called outTo conclude: >You are extremely bad faith, disingenuous, a raging sophist who would rather lie between his teeth then admit fault, strawman the other positions entailments makes them sound ridiculous and just half-assily name drops randoms in an attempt to sound more creditable.Tbh I would be surprised if anyone would still seriously engage with you after knowing this
>>18531441>There's no consciousness energy field bro.Rupert Sheldrake's morphic resonance theory suggests differently, little bro.
>>185317971. I'm not the op of those threads but I did post there2. Take your meds>>18531799>Rupert SheldrakeLol
>>18531860>still writes the same, has the same talking points, has the exact same beliefs to a tea and redirect>I-I'm not op, cuz, I'm just not ok!What a joke lol
>>18531441>The US government's official inquiry is "crackpottery"yeah.... and the earth is flat too right?>>18531435HVAC guys are shooting energy fields through crystals to modify the atmosphere.That is literally a description of the processes HVAC engineers manifest.fields exist dude, I dont know what to tell you, magnets??Is it really magic if you dont understand the concept of magnetism?If you dont understand the concept of ionization???You just attribute the unknown to magic, then deny the unknown phenomena lol.
There are two worlds, one where physicalism is true and one where physicalism is falseYou find yourself in one of themHow do you go about figuring out which one you're in?
