Return of the godtards editionWhat is physicalism? Everything is physical. Or in babby terms: made up shit doesn't exist.This is very annoying to godtards, philosophers and similar ilk, because it invalidates entire life purposes with simple basic reality.Previous thread: >>18527950Recap of the previous thread:>ackchually religions never were unscientific >consciousness isn't fully understood yet so it must be ghosts n shiet >seething about the existence of this general
>>18533534reality itself seems to be against physicalism though>inherent statistical uncertainty in reality>quantum entanglement and neutrinos >black holes
>>18533537>actually black holes are demons or ghosts or some shitlmao magicalism in a nutshell
What caused the big bang?
>>18533541A moabite copper smelting god.
>>18533541The Big Bang wasn't a singularity, it's just the earliest expansion event we can measure because normal matter as we know it today didn't exist prior to the recombination epoch. Entropy decreases backwards in time and entropy increases forwards in time and there's no reason to believe this property of spacetime has a single origin point. The only reason we even experience time in one direction is because creating memories increases entropy. If we couldn't form memories then the past would actually feel similar to the future to us, and we can even observe this in people with extremely rare mental disorders that prevent the creation of new memories.
"physical laws" come from the mind trying to rationalize phenomenon"brain" is a word for an idea you hadthere is nothing in the universe you have any access to other than as a product of mindalso generals are against board rules but mods actively sabotage the board
>>18533650>"brain" is a word for an idea you hadWhat idea is a brain?
>>18533534Reminder OP is a flat earther unironically.
>>18533808Did the "holy ghost" tell you that?
>>18533650>"brain" is a word for an idea you hadNo, brain is just the word for the thing that's absent in your head
>>18533534ITT: we deny reality and the laws of physics while arguing for them
>physicalismGiven that physics is always a moving target, physicalism means little more than reductionism. Other than that, it's just a vague monism associated Physics(tm) - Current Year Edition. "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.
>>18534147Magic isn't real. Ghosts do not exist. Vampires do not exist. Wizards do not exist. Pixies do not exist. You come from monkeys. Grow up.
>>18534150>mandatory incongruent psychotic patient response
>>18533534I suppose I approach the issue phenomenologically. So much of experience seems to consist of unphysical forces, not just religious but even something as everyday as law or money is an unphysical thing, albeit with a physical enforcement or correspondent. So I don't really understand what the basis of physicalism actually is. From what I can tell, it seems to come down to sensory input, but I'm not sure the senses as they're conventionally discussed are well founded either.
>>18534165>unphysical forcesWhat makes a force "unphysical"?> don't really understand what the basis of physicalism actually is. The same basis as "unphysical forces".
>>18534147This retard again You do know gravity is an invisible force as well and your supposed physicalist strawmans from the 18th century were well aware of it?
>>18534181If physicalism isn't a mental illness how come all physicalist replies to >>18534147 are incoherent rambling?
>>18534184>all replies>literally only one reply Should've been smarter, samefag
>>18534172A force is unphysical if it originates from something immaterial.>The same basis as "unphysical forces".That doesn't really work because the basis I outlined allows for both physical and unphysical forces whereas physicalism seems to exclusively permit the former.
>>18534189>psychotic patient can't countAverage physicalist intellectual. Notice how the subhuman is forced to continue addressing me despite not being able to refute any aspect of my post, the same way cultists pester people who speak out against their cult.
>>18534190>immaterialWhat makes something "immaterial"?>inb4 you kick the can down the road some more
>>18534150Y are you throwing a tantrum over religion? If anything they'll waste away...
>>18534196Like I said in my first post, it's probably got something to do with sensibility but I'm skeptical about that. I'm not even a physicalist so I have no idea why you're being a fag about nailing the terminology of something I'm inquiring about in the first place.
>>18534202So when you talk about "unphysical forces" you have no idea what you're saying. When physicalists talk about "physical forces", they likewise don't know what they're saying. I hope that explains the "basis" you asked about.
>>18534204Physics: Focus, gather energyvia drumming or what have you, direct it by will and ritual, and it goes as follow: the energy is put in movement and thus a force enacted on the desired target, causing plausible effect. Go, read and have fun
>>18534198Religion is the last refuge of the scoundrel antiphysicalists. All the philosophical blather is just a cover up for religion.
>>18534204It's not no idea, there's obviously a vague notion of what physical and unphysical means, but I can't rigorously defend it the same way I can't rigorously defend most terms that get used conventionally. I'm also not interested in rigorously defending the terminology from a philosophy I don't subscribe to. >I hope that explains the "basis" you asked about.No, it doesn't, it seems bad faith to the extreme.
>>18534212>Religion is the last refuge of the scoundrel antiphysicalists. All the philosophical blather is just a cover up for religion.This thread is the last refuge of the mental patient resisting his meds. All the nonphilosophical token stringing is just a cover up for not having taken his meds today.
>>18534217>there's obviously a vague notionLol.> I'm also not interested in rigorously defending the terminology from a philosophy I don't subscribe to. Then why are you making claims about "unphysical forces"?
>>18534212>ReligionNo such thing. It's magic, much more technical. I would expect a intelligent enough individual to try, follow a training regime and see if it's working. Smart people do this and fly high. They don't mention it, obv. I'm anecdotically reminded of how Amazon searches for books on money and business xropped oftendly dark sorcery books among the great hits.
>>18534219You are screeching because you have been caught and your motivations have been laid bare.
>>18534224Notice how your severe psychotic illness causes you to hallucinate this even though I'm explicitly nonreligious and nontheist.
>>18534221Because a concept doesn't need to be perfectly and unambiguously defined to be used in a conversation?
>>18534225Your affirmations hold no value because what I'm getting at is the driving force behind your rabid anti-physicalism, which is religion. Your repeated, vehement screeching confirms this.
>>18534226>Because a concept doesn't need to be perfectly and unambiguously defined to be used in a conversation?It does for the purpose of your claims. But forget about defining things perfectly and unambiguously, you have no idea what you're talking about at all and fall apart immediately when asked to explain. Same as a physicalist.
>>18534229>psychotic patient explicitly confirms his delusionsGood. That's what I wanted you to say. This thread will demonstrate time and time again that "physicalism" is just a mask for delusional mental illness.
>>18534233>if you don't believe in leprechauns, you're mentally illTypical magicalist drivel.
>>18534232>It does for the purpose of your claims.Why? I'm talking about how things seem. It seems there are things which we vaguely might call physical and things which we vaguely might call unphysical. Why do I need to provide a more rigorous definition than that for the conversation to proceed?
>>18534238But you are. Only explain why everyone has delusory perceptions of chakras and meridians
>>18534243>Only explain why everyone has delusory perceptions of chakras and meridiansWtf are you even talking about you freak.
>>18534241>Why?Because if you have no clear criteria to distinguish physical from unphysical you have no basis to make any claims about experience being unphysical and no way to defend your claim in a context specifically disputing it.
>>18534165>From what I can tell, it seems to come down to sensory input,No, it comes down to physical things, the things studied by physics.
>>18534247But there seems to be some kind of criteria. Most people would agree that the ground is physical and most would agree, I suppose, that concepts are unphysical. There might be some difficulty or ambiguity but that doesn't mean the concepts can't be talked about anyway. Does the atmosphere end at 10,000 km or at 190,000 km from the Earth? Does it matter? It's still something we can discuss.
>>18534253Like the anon asked me, what makes a thing physical?
>>18534255Things aren't "made" physical. If something is studied by physics, it is physical.
>>18534254>But there seems to be some kind of criteria. Most people would agree that the ground is physical and most would agree, I suppose, that concepts are unphysical.Most people would agree that modern physics is unphysical if you described its fundamental concepts in plain language and didn't reveal where they come from. To most people, "physical" either means "tangible" or "stuff physicists study" depending on the context. >There might be some difficulty or ambiguity but that doesn't mean the concepts can't be talked about anyway.You're definite proof that even the most hopeless dimwits can talk about concepts.
>If something is studied by physics, it is physical.I literally can't even strawmen these retards anymore, they've gotten this fucking dumb. Intellectual trickle-down is a disaster.
>>18533832you told me that in the previous thread actually
Do not reply to moldovans. Do not interact with moldovans.
>>18534262I think "tangible" just goes back to the point I made about senses earlier. So what about something like 'moral sense'? It seems like most people would call morals unphysical but still sensible. >You're definite proof that even the most hopeless dimwits can talk about concepts.Instead of insulting me, why not tell me what you actually believe so I might learn something? You're not a physicalist I know that much.
