A place for mentally ill people to discuss why the Hard Problem is actually vitalism, why magical leprechauns might be physical if the participate in the causal web and why p-zombies are impossible if we assume they're impossible.Previous thread: >>18533534
It seems like this thread was made by a seething schizo.
>>18536657Mathematics is a form of logic and a system of positional naming/relations. It isn't empirical
>>18536717>It seems like this thread was made by a seething schizo.Correct. I also made the previous thread.
>>18536741No you didn't.
>>18536707Whole "general">Just a hardened new atheist looking to debate for no reason but to winLike literally look at condescending the OP is, do you unironically think anyone will honestly engage with you after this?
>>18536738>never showed how he wasn't begging the questionkek
>>18536707>>18536738lolshow me how saying this>pzombies are logically impossible if you take physicalism to be trueAs a response to>Well thats different, this counter only works if you can find a logical contradiction within it, which you haven't providedAny different to this >god is logically impossible if you take atheism to be true, therefore god doesn't existand how this isn't just begging the question
here let me make the same garbage midwit thread over and over again and call it a "general"sage
>>18536768It's group therapy. We have to make our meetings consistent.
Kek the last general really buckbroke him so he decided to create the next one Also can someone give me some lore on Moldovan anon? Some people in the last thread said that's him.What we know about him so far:>likes to post wojaks with greentext quoting arguments without actually saying anything >likes the terms "schizophrenic" and "mental patient" a lot>likes to samefag and pretend to be both sides And most importantly >detests physicalism so much he ends up shitting up any thread that even dares to discuss it (which now has apparently evolved to hijacking these threads)
>>18536773He gets triggered whenever you refer to his handlers.
>>18536776What are his other handlers?>>18536773Forgot one more: sometimes sets his name to "sage grows in the fields" or some shit
>>18536707OP>I'm right any anyone else which disagrees with me is a sctzio retardAnd this Is supposed to a "general"?what a joke
Whole thread just Unanimously shiting on op
>>18536779Handlers, as in, the people handling him irl like a donkey owner handling the donkey.
>>18536773Yes.As far as I know, he started on /sci/ back during the COVID lockdowns, where he would say that people's "owners and programmers marked them for extermination" and would spam this across threads. Of course this never happened but here are the threads:https://warosu.org/sci/?task=search&ghost=&search_text=owners%20and%20programmersHe then went on to always post the NPC memes and brainletjak memes in threads around consciousness and qualia, like he does here. He also doesn't really respond to people when they respond to him, like you brought up. He'll make a point, someone will say something, and he'll just call them "mental patients" and "schizophrenic" rather than addressing what they said.His general attitude seems to be that he despises what he perceives to be a reduction of the human condition or life into an otherwise mechanistic framework or description, i.e. the concept of viewing humans as physical systems/beings rather than free-willed agents that can engage in the Logos causes him to lose his mind with rage. He most likely thinks that if free will and a transcendental logical principle aren't real, then it collapses into either nihilism or absurdism or something and renders knowledge impossible. He claims that he doesn't believe in God and I think he's honest about that. However, he takes the side of the christcucks because he dislikes the "aesthetic" of atheism and thinks that atheists are dehumanizing to people in general or something. He also despises determinism.
I can tell you're losing your mind with rage. :^)
In the other thrad, one objection to metaphysical theories was that ehy cannot be falsfied.Isn't the same true for physicalism? There is no empirical observation that would clearly contradict physicalism. You could always include the newly discovered proposition into the broader term of 'nature' and claim it for physicalism.
>>18536873I guess I know this retard a bit.There may be more to his attitude than just a rejection of reductionism.He employs his own theory of mind, including some claims about quantum physics and advanced theorems; a theory, no need to stretch it, that is neither widely known nor accepted by actual experts in the field. In order to compensate for his frustration, he betrays himself when he chooses to believe that the fact only he believes in his theory proves his superiority over others.He further chose, retard he is, 4chan of all places to stand his gound.
You're literally psychotic and I know I did this to you. :^)
>>18536971>You could always include the newly discovered proposition into the broader term of 'nature' and claim it for physicalism.Yeah, but they think that just proves their vacuous stance right. It's "falsifiable" because Physics is falsifiable. Ask them to define 'physical', though, and watch them implode.
If we consider that the indian culture like things like those back in the day:>>18536170How we're supposed to believe that attractivness is a social construct?
