>>16536929
People buy into every sort of provocative nonsense claim, be it of positive or negative type, that you can fathom. Just look at this board. Oftentimes it boils down to some mixture of trolling, retardation, and mental illness.

>>16536929
Its called NPC-ism. The strategy is to argue that there's no mind and claim everyone's a NPC zombie

>>16536929
Cattle can't handle the implications of spiritualism, they will abuse it to self justify bullshit. so it's better to put them under a materialist worldview.
most people are not responsible enough.
but they should be freed eventually.

>>16536956
Welp, I guess I'm gonna just have to start calling them NPCs

>>16536929
Material and spiritual are mere windowdressing: different languages to describe the same structure.

Some people prefer to say that they pray or meditate to connect to God, raise awareness and cleanse their spirit to be blessed with good vibes and serenity. Others prefer to say they just sit down without distractions to turn off the Default Mode Network. Same process, just different fashionable words to describe the process.

materialism is just an idea at the end of the day, so it's self-defeating implicitly

when fedoras reach the eliminative phase of their ad hoc rationalizing away of certain phenomenon, the extreme cognitive dissonance between their immediate realization of being recognized conflicting with ideological programming leads them to reject the possiblility of awareness generally in all cases whatsoever despite all evidence to the contrary

>>16536929
>I just can't seem to understand
So? That's a problem with you if you can't understand the reasons for it. Just calling something a "hard problem" and declaring it to be unsolved doesn't make it one. If anything, it makes you look retarded.

>>16537464
I'm beginning to suspect materialists really are NPCs. They seem to have no clue what we are talking about when we say we are conscious, and just think the mind is neurons firing, because that's what they've read the mind is. Because consciousness is the fundamental basis of our experience of reality, it can't be described in terms of anything more fundamental, so you can't just read about what it's like to experience consciousness, you have to experience it directly. Just like chatbots are clueless about what consciousness is, so are materialists. Debates with them are frustrating because I assume in good faith that they are conscious, and they must know that the perception of the color red is not neurons firing, but I'm coming to the conclusion that they've never experienced red, or the smell of an orange, or any of the qualia of consciousness. They write qualia off as some woo phenomenon because they don't experience qualia. They are NPCs.

>I don't understand
>therefore it's false
Religion was a mistake

>>16536929
The NPC can't stand the self-referential form of the alternative. They jump through incredible hoops to avoid it. We have to package idealism in a form where other is still included in the mixture.
This is done by shifting the thinking to something that happens at a cellular level - microtubules etc etc. Now the NPC doesn't have the self referential form and we can use the child-like naivete as a botnet to hack the noosphere.

>>16536929
the hard problem is solvable

there is no like actual evidence for consciousness as a feature of the universe independent of our brains

so there is literally no need to put it in our best theories

there is no better we can do at explaining how people work and perceive and feel and all that shit, than just looking at brains and studying people's behavior

no need for consciousness

ever

>>16539815
>there is no like actual evidence for consciousness as a feature of the universe independent of our brains

following that logic, there's no actual evidence for a universe independent of our brains
because all the things like "evidence", "the universe", and "brain" are just words you made up to try and explain the experiential phenomenon of your sensory field

it's really sad to see people like anon lack basic critical thinking skills and fail to understand even the fundamentals of empiricism
fucking illiterate, you are indistinguishable from a literal bot or hylic

Whats with retarded threads like this and redditors?
Every other post is reddit spacing, so I have to assume all non-materialists are newfaggots.
>>>/x/

>non-materialists
triggered hylic midwit is triggered

>>16539855
Afraid to reply friend? Great argument
Such a bot, go back to your containment board NPC

why are you even on /sci/ if you reject the primary and core observation of empiricism

it's hilarious how these hylic retards pretend they're scientists, but don't know the first thing about the debt the scientific method has to teleology and consciousness

>>16539862
You are having hallucinations. Science is not a person or goy who owes money to your cult.

>>16539849
yeah sure

but there are coherent models of the universe

there are no non-trivial coherent models of experience. it simply doesnt exist as far as our best scientific ideas are concerned. neurons exist. no evidence for consciousness. no model that does anything useful about consciousness that gives it meaning in the natural world. best way to explain our behavior and experiences is via brains and how they relate to physical stuff

>>16539880
>but there are coherent models of the universe
>there are no non-trivial coherent models of experience
pro-tip

the models of the universe you are so endeared with, first off aren't actually very good and that's why we had to deal with two decades of "dark energy" scammers trying to make the data fit the "model", and second are actually just models of human experience of the cosmos

you aren't getting away from this by handwaving about "matter"

>neurons exist. no evidence for consciousness
the word "neuron" represents an idea
"matter" is an idea

there is more direct evidence for consciousness than matter because it is through consciousness that we are even aware of matter as a concept
seriously how are you this dense unless everything >>16539342 is completely accurate and you are suffering from terminal cognitive dissonance

>the physical processes of the brain produce consciousness

so if the physical processes of the universe can produce a brain, why should consciousness be limited to brain activity rather than being universalized

>REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE CONSCIOUSNESS ISNT EVEN REAL I AM A ROBOT
sad
many such cases

>>16539913
Why would it be "universalized"? You must be extremely stupid to think it has to be

materialism is what happens when you confuse the map for the territory

>>16539916
You can't differentiate between your "brain" and the "universe".
Moreover, there is no meaningful difference between your experience of the world and the world itself.

The brain is seamlessly integrated with the rest of the universe necessarily, by definition.
That means the things you can say about the brain apply on a literal cosmic scale too.
It's the same thing.

There are no special dividing lines physically between the inside of your head and the outside.
"Inside" and "outside" are just ideas. "Matter" is an idea.
Ideas are real.

>>16539924
>You can't differentiate between your "brain" and the "universe".
You can't? Most humans can, so you should get tested for some disability.

>>16539928
What makes your brain operate by different laws than the rest of the universe?
Nothing at all.

If the brain produces consciousness, that means the universe as a whole does.
Because reality is contiguous.

Thankfully, we know by now that consicousness is not an emergent phenomenon or "product" but rather an underlying one.

>>16539935
>What makes your brain operate by different laws than the rest of the universe?
Who said it does?
>If the brain produces consciousness, that means the universe as a whole does.
That doesn't follow
>Because reality is contiguous.
Meaningless and insufficient justification of your claim.

Do you have anything to offer other than logical fallacies?

truth is a myth
not real

see, you can't weigh truth on a scale
or model it physically as if matter is the only thing that exists

what's math and logic
sounds like a cult scam to me >>>/x/

>>16539936
this is you ^

>>16539939
Not sure what your menty b has to do with my post but ok.

normally we refer to the matter we bodily eliminate as shit, OP
that's called a bowel movement, or defecation

so why would you ever expect anyone who identifies as an "eliminative materialist" to have anything other than shit for brains
they just happen to let that fecal material dribble out of their gaping mouths from time to time, usually coupled with a lot of hot air akin to verbal flatulence, and have somehow identified this toxic waste product exclusively with truth itself

>>16539909
doesnt matter how good they are.

physical models are possible that give meaning to those concepts. experiential models are not.

yeah sure, everything in our models are ideas. but the point ia that experiential ideas do not contribute to knowledge about how the world works. you cannot even tell me what blue is like. blue doesnt figure in any causal explanation of behavior that cannot be reduced to what brains are doing - in the sense that i only see blue because neurons do stuff

sure we have experiences.

but my point is this.

everything in all knowledge, all beliefs about the world... its just ideas and models

experience makes no contribution. it cannot do. there is no way we can learn anything about it. and when you describw how the world works it doesnt contribute. it is conspiratorially hidden.

so why talk about it as being real if it doesnt matter or contribute

sure you can say "i experience stuff - i see this". that doesnt mean you know what it means to experience. its impossible to do that on your own. like i said. you cannot tell me what blue is.

science tells us that the only thing that supports experience is brains. brainsaccount for everything about experience that can be articulated as knowledge. there is no experience independent of brains. there is no dualism of brains on one side and experience on the other. no evidence for it.

the universe has one kind of thing in it. it is impossible to articulate what the intrinsic nature of the universe is. the best we can do is describe how it behaves.

experience doesnt help us with that.
physics and brains do. they are fundamental.

truth is fundamental to any statement you can make about physics
and yet transcends physical mechanics

a ball rolling down a hill is not "truth"
rather, it is either true that there is a ball rolling down a hill or it is false and it is at rest

>doesnt matter how good they are
it does matter how good your model is
if it isn't good, the building you erected will fall over unexpectedly

>we have experiences
eliminative materialism defeated

>experience makes no contribution
experience is the central factor in how the scientific method works, recognized for centuries
there is no such thing as "evidence" without it
for something to be "evident" it must be "apparent" to someone, that is to say observed or recognized and hence experienced

inert matter should not be capable of recognition, if you take the central conceit of materialism seriously, and yet something you claim to be superfluous and without purpose is the beating heart of science itself
science was originally a religous outlook, natural philosophy sought to fully understand the great chain of being and provide a unified theory of everything (which includes consciousness necessarily)

science is an art, art is experienced and conveys meaning

>it is impossible to articulate what the intrinsic nature of the universe is
it's intrinsically experiential
that much is literally self-evident

if you really believed that it's impossible to identify the intrinsic nature of the universe, you wouldn't be a materialist but rather agnostic

>describe how it behaves
>experience doesnt help us with that
if you didn't experience anything you would not be able to describe how behavior appears to you or consciously manipulate the subject through separation into experiment and control, the core of the scientific method

>you cannot tell me what blue is
a phenomenon of my perceptual field
you might as well tell me I cannot describe light, or an eyeball
there's no difference, they are all ideas associated with certain qualia