David Chalmers effortlessly debunked physicalism without falling into metaphysical 'woo' territory.He provides a satisfying approach to the hard problem of consciousness that appeals to those who have no spiritual convictions and prefer to rely on hard, cold logic.
>lose your brain everything goes awayWhy is this so hard for christkeks and dualists to accept lol
>>25299335Chalmers isn't a Christian afaik
>>25299376Nor is he a dualist (he is a property dualist, though)You're replying to an ignoramus.
>>25299381my bad
>>25299328okay, what book
>>25299335>the most materialistic religion or literally debased and evil materialismits amazing how this false dichotomy is still presented
>>25299328>the hard problem of consciousnesthere is no hard problem. the buddha explained it all 2500 years ago
>>25299335Because we don't share your irrational religious ideas that you aren't even aware of. Atheism is truly a midwit's game.
Consciousness is easy problem, it’s just, I think therefore I am
>>25301922The consciousness professors have changed it to "I feel, therefore I am." Keep up.
>>25301922i imagine you are familiar with the rebuttal to this
>>25301931Thats just restating David Hume in a way
>>25301836>there is no self!!!>but you (or rather the emergent bundles of aggregates that form the illusion of self) also reincarnateHe was a pseud.
>>25301922You're assuming a lot when you say 'I'.To be more precise, it should be "Thinking is happening, so something exists".
>>25302062you, sir, are the pseud if you think that the buddha believed in reincarnation
>>25299335>lose hardware, OS goes away>therefore OS is identical to hardware
>>25302101aren't you also assuming logic? x, so y
>>25302102While it is true that we don't in full know the historical buddha's actual words or philosophy, afaik all of the earliest Buddhist texts have him espousing reincarnation, and it is the academic consensus that he espoused reincarnation. What evidence do you have that he preached against reincarnation, other than "no way he actually believed that, he was too smart?"
>>25302062What's so pseud about that? When something dies it decomposes to become the dirt and that dirt gives way to new life. So when something "dies" it's just transformed, but that doesn't mean anything has an inherent essence to it which carries on after death, it's just patterns which appear as separate entities. What's the difference between that and taking the same logic but applying it to "mind-stuff"?
>>25302102Except he talked about rebirth all the time you disingenuous westerner atheist "buddhist."
>>25302131>What evidenceyou just have to read the texts. it's obvious enough if you are reasonably intelligent.
>>25302330The entire goal of buddhism is ending rebirth, it is not metaphorical, it's literal. Transmigration happens because of the projection of self in what is not self so when you stop that you stop transmigration, that's buddhism 101. I don't know how you could possibly spin this any other way, or that gautama was not being literal.
>>25302380>that's buddhism 101exactly. you are still at a very low level of understanding
Fedoras trying to butt into philosophy has produced the most fascinating forms of insanity ever seen. What you're doing isn't actually philosophy by the way, you may have stolen the word and applied it to your "logical" ramblings, but it has nothing to do with the real thing; which isn't a process of merely applying logic anyway.
>>25302330>>25302457see >>25302238Go ahead and pretend the Buddha didn't talk about seeing into past lives through the jhanas.
>>25302654it isn't controversial that the buddha uses the language of his interlocutors. this was observed all the way back by rhys davids even. in maha saccaka, who is he talking to and what do they believe? you should ask yourself that. there are many other ways to look at the sutta, but that can be a starting point for you.
>>25303734>a-actually it was a language gameIf he wants, he recollects his manifold past lives (lit: previous homes), i.e., one birth, two births, three births, four, five, ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, one hundred, one thousand, one hundred thousand, many aeons of cosmic contraction, many aeons of cosmic expansion, many aeons of cosmic contraction and expansion, [recollecting], 'There I had such a name, belonged to such a clan, had such an appearance. Such was my food, such my experience of pleasure and pain, such the end of my life. Passing away from that state, I re-arose there. There too I had such a name, belonged to such a clan, had such an appearance. Such was my food, such my experience of pleasure and pain, such the end of my life. Passing away from that state, I re-arose here.' Thus he remembers his manifold past lives in their modes and details.Are you going to pretend he doesn't believe in a cyclical cosmological model next, too?
>>25305879Meant to write in quotes...
