Why is the human mind not evidence of non materialistic phenomena?
>>16827989Because materialoons think mind is matter and literally can't grasp that this is incoherent.
Why would it be?
>>16828283>Why would it be?It has none of the properties associated with matter and yet it's self-evidently there.
it is.but the nature of things that hylics exist, they arent real people, just projections of your own doubt.it's all faith vs doubt/temptation/cowardicehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hO4p3xeTtUA
You can notice you have a consciousness and then your neurons can instruct your hands to write about you noticing your mind.
>>16827989Because no one knows the exact mechanism of consciousness. In theory it could be completely material within the realm of known physics
>>16827999Mind is indeed matter - Just not coarse matter. Subtle and coarse two sides of the same coin. Two modalities of the same underlying expression.
>>16828436*are two sides of the same coin... Getting late, heh
>>16828292Unless you define materialism in a way that nobody actually subscribes to (ie. everything is literally made of matter) then you'd understand materialists agree emergent phenomena do exist.The mind is not "matter" in itself, but is an emergent property that arises from matter.
>>16827989Because a material human is required in order to have a human mind.
>>16828464Emergence of qualitative experience from quantitative processes LMFAO what a tool.Materialism boons struggling to find the glaring disconnect in their model for a century is baffling.When will chud learn...
>>16828550Then why don't you just hop into the body of someone who isn't a hideous retard if your qualitative experience isn't tied to the quantitative phenomenon of your material body?
>>16828554Your body is your mind. Your brain is how your mental experience appears to an external observer. It's not the cause of your experience, it is your experience. Neuronal functioning doesn't generate consciousness. It's how consciousness appears to another consciousness if they prod deep enough. The matter that you are looking for is simply not there.
>>16828559>Your brain is how your mental experience appears to an external observer.So you only look like a hideous retard when other people are looking, otherwise, you magically transform into a body that isn't hideous and a brain that isn't broken with retardation?>It's how consciousness appears to another consciousness if they prod deep enough.So you are so hideous that you can't use mirrors as they will break and crumble under the strain of your disgusting silhouette, only other people are unfortunate enough to have to see your ugliness?>The matter that you are looking for is simply not there.Then again, why can't you just magically transform it into a better body with a mind that doesn't sound like a retarded unhinged asylum case to everyone else?
>>16828464>Unless you define materialism in a way that nobody actually subscribes to (ie. everything is literally made of matter)Materialism posits that everything is reducible to interactions in matter.>then you'd understand materialists agree emergent phenomena do exist."Emergent phenomena" are purely conventional interpretations of patterns that occur in matter. They have no reality of their own. You're essentially a consciousness denialist trying to be clever.
>>16828563Materialism donkey got upset.Chud rebuttal isn't a rebuttal at all...
>>16828554>why don't you just hop into the body of someone else>youWhat's a "you" and what does it have to do with the non-material qualities of the mind?
>>16828576If you are detecting the feeling of being upset its because no matter how many words you throw at the forum, you are still confined to your body and can't actually perform the feats that should be possible were your mind not inherently tethered to your material body.
>>16828580The point is that you are your body body, unless you want to prove otherwise by commandeering someone else's body.
>>16828582>The point is that you ...What's a "you" and what does it have to do with the non-material qualities of the mind? Once you answer this, maybe you can make some kind of a point.
>>16828583You are your body which is the material your non-material qualities are entirely dependent on and derived from. I have answered it several times, you just refuse to understand because you desperately wish you could possess other people's bodies instead of being stuck in a hideous retarded one for the duration of your existence.
>>16828586>YouWhat's that? Please define it.> I have answered it several times,Delusional mental illness.
>>16828589You are the defective genes driving the hideous body seen in the reflection of the device being used to post retarded questions to the internet and refusing to accept the answers being provided since you wish you could do impossible things like move to a body that isn't defective, retarded, and hideous.
>>16828591You're having an episode. Why do you keep screeching "the body is the body", "the defective genes are the body" etc. and think you're proving something?
>UHM sweaty?>the mind is matter because the body is the body and it can't be another body
>>16828595No, I think you are pretending to be slightly more retarded than you are since you are successfully using "you" over and over to refer to me while pretending not to understand what it even means or how to use it.
>>16828595Nobody has said either of those phrases ITT until you did.
>>16828598No, the mind is a derived from matter over time, its not one in the same, but mater is the base material because you are confined to the body your mind originated from and you can't go hopping into other bodies willy nilly because the mind comes from the body.
>>16828581It's not confinement to the body. The body is the mind. There's no matter chud.
>>16828615That is confinement, otherwise the mind would be independent of the body.Then put your money where you mouth is and prove you can destroy what appears to be the material that makes up your body without actually destroying it or your mind.
>>16828600>you are successfully using "you" over and over to refer to meHoly shit, you really are an inbred mouth breather.
>>16828603>the body is the body but the body is not one and the same as the bodyMaterialoon psychosis.
>>16828602>the mind is material because you can't inhabit another body>>what do you mean by 'you'?>you are the body>>so the mind is material because one body isn't another body?>NO ONE HECKIN' SAID THATMaterialism is the metaphysics of literal 80 IQ brownoids.
>>16828638>you really areDurr, buh wuh is uh you?
>>16828640No that isn't psychosis, that is logic.You are the psychotic one trying to assert you are not actually you because you body is not actually what it seems.
>>16828658>80 IQs with no theory of mind can't process how two minds can use the same label to refer to different concepts that intersect in one context but diverge in another
>>16828641No retard, that one body is yours because your mind is only directly connected to that one body because your mind can't actually directly manipulate other bodies like it can manipulate yours.
>>16828661>X is X but also X is not X>this is logicThis poster accurately represents the average materialist. This retard is not an exception. They are all like this.
>>16828663>NoSo what do you mean by 'you'?>inb4 you answer with "you are your body" again
>>16828665Except nobody but the psychotic retard who doesn't know what "you" means implied that the body is not the body everyone else is saying that it is the body and you for some reason have a problem with the fact that the body is the body and "you" refers to the person inhabiting your body.
>>16828666>So what do you mean by 'you'?What do you mean by 'you' since your question inherently depends on knowing what you mean in order to direct it to someone else.
>>16828634There is no matter so there's no material body. There's the mind and then there's how that mind appears externally to consciousness. Why is it so hard for chud to comprehend...
>>16828680Materialism claims everything is reducible to matter. You also specifically claimed that a person IS his body, meaning they are indeed one and the same. Then you turned around and conceded the mind and the body are not one and the same. Maybe you should reflect on the fact that you have no coherent ideas, only raging mental illness.
>>16828682>your question inherently depends on knowing what you mean in order to direct it to someone else.See >>16828662. Literal 80 IQ tard getting filtered by basic theory of mind.
I imagine a triangle.If materialism is true it should be possible to find an actual triangular arrangement of particles that represents that triangle. If you think this is ridiculous then you don't believe in materialism.
>>16828727>If materialism is true it should be possible to find an actual triangular arrangement of particles that represents that triangle.In my brain, to be precise
>>16828727>If materialism is true it should be possible to find an actual triangular arrangement of particles that represents that triangle.>representsThey'll just claim there's some neural activity (with all its associated material interactions) that represents it and it doesn't need to be literally triangle-shaped to do the job.
>ctrl-f 80 IQ>ctrl-f chudLiteral bot thread
>>16828730Then they should come up with a mechanism that produces the screen of consciousness on which the triangle appears
>>16828738>Then they should come up with a mechanism that produces the screen of consciousness on which the triangle appearsIt's an """emergent phenomenon""", which absolves them of any such responsibilities.
Brains are quantum nanotech
>>16828755Your dick is quantum nanotech
Replace material with real. Is it real? Then there’s something there to it.
>>16827989Yes, just like the bits in a computer are evidence of non-materialistic phenomena, despite there being no numbers inside a computer it works in 1s and 0s
>>16828812>my "mind" is a purely abstract, conventional construct, just like "bits">there is no "mind" inside the miserable lump of neurons that generated this token stringI'll take your word for that.
>>16828582>>16828583>- What is "you"?>- It's the body. >- Yeah but what is "you"???This is painful to read
>>16828827Then you should read the rest of the exchange and watch your materialoon buddy lose his mind when I take his statement at face value and start substituting "body" into his statements accordingly.
>>16828825yes, cuz thats how everyone that believe in non "materialistic" things are
>>16827989Is the mind entirely contingent on the matter in the brain?
>>16828959Is it? How would you falsify this hypothesis?
>>16827989Why would it be? Are you retarded?
>>16828997>Why would it be?Because materialists can't even begin to explain what the mind has to do with matter.
example?
example image because i must wait longer before deleting this post
>>16828998Why do you think that? Are you illiterate?
>>16829017>Why do you think that?Most neuroscientists readily concede this and state their field is only concerned with "neurological correlates" of consciousness. Actual scientists have given up on the Hard Problem, meanwhile Materialist "philosophers" have been busy coming up with insane "explanations" for why consciousness isn't real and therefore not a problem.
>>16829019Are these the same neuroscientists who diagnosed your schizophrenia?
>>16829022Your psychotic rage is not a refutation. Your next post will contain no refutation, either.
>>16829024Your next post will contain yet another display of your schizophrenia.
>>16829024>psychotic rageIf you want to see some real psychotic rage, ask one of these tards to explain their empirical method for detecting the presence of a mind without circular reasoning.
>>16827989Because You're just in denial that you're a biological machine
>>16828683>There is no matter so there's no material body.Body means a body of mass and a body of mass is a collection of matter, so you are once again incoherently trying to define a body as not a body that is why it doesn't make sense to anyone else who actually understands the definitions of the words you are using and tries to hold basic logical standards.
>>16828686>Then you turned around and conceded the mind and the body are not one and the same.Where did anyone other than you say that? I have only said that the mind is a result of the body, it is an emergent property, just like speech comes from the sound you make with body, the comes from the experiences and perspective your body has.
>>16828688Your theory of mind is not basic, it is retarded and incoherent where somehow your mind is in completely control of all bodies despite only being directly aware of and able to control the one.
>>16828738They have had tech that can image brain visualization for years, going on decades.
>>16828830I read it and that isn't what happened, you just kept pretending you didn't know what you means while continually using the word you to refer to other people.
>>16828961Brain surgeons literally test it by having people do tasks while they are fiddling with the material in their brain to make sure they don't accidentally break something or cut off blood to the wrong thing and they have through trial and error found certain areas to mess with that will consistently mess with certain functions of the mind and can even use magnets to reliably affect memories and feelings.
>>16829034You are specifically asking for a circular explanation since empirical is already defined as sensations detected with the mind, its like asking people too look at themselves in the mirror without depending on reflections, it doesn't make sense because you either don't understand what a reflection is or how mirrors work.
>>16829372You don't even understand the definition of the words you are using. Define mass. Define matter. Try defining them without linking back to your sense organs or between the two concepts. You can't. You just assume that the object that you perceive has big mass because you can't push it off from it's place. Going back to your sense organs. Give me a proper non circular definition of mass and matter. Your basic logical standards are not logical - based on whimsical magical thinking. Manufacturing this magical matter you are speaking off that has no qualities, yet it gives birth to qualitative environment of experience in which you define the existence of this forever disconnected from personal experience magical material layer. Why go to such lengths? There's no need for matter.
>>16829374>>16829376>>16829380>>16829381>>16829386>deranged
>>16829378>They have had tech that can image brain visualization for years, going on decades.What does that have to do with what he asked?
>>16829477>Define mass. Define matter.I just did, though, and the fact that you didn't understand indicates you are clearly the one who doesn't understand the words you are using.>Give me a proper non circular definition of mass and matter.They are inherently linked, so that again is like trying to define one without the other is like trying to define reflection without referencing light.Matter is mass over space or volumetric mass and mass is a spatial body that resists movement by some amount of force.>this magical matter you are speaking off that has no qualitiesExcept I just told >>16829372 some of its qualities, if you don't have a definition with qualities to work with, you are the one operating without understanding the terms, not me.>yet it gives birth to qualitative environment of experienceNo, you need time, space, and momentum for that, not just mass, mass is the resistance to momentum over time.>There's no need for matter.Then what exactly is the property/quality that, as you put it, means "you can't push it off from it's place".
>>16829491No need to sign your post, everyone already assumes as much about those who mass reply without being able to add anything of substance to the discussion.
>>16829492Anon didn't ask anything, they suggested that "they" should "come up with" technology that already exists and I pointed out that it already does exist.
>>16829477>no qualitiesToo bad that is impossible since having no qualities would itself be a quality and it doesn't even apply since those things have other qualities instead.
>>16829506He was basically pointing out you can't detect the mental space that hosts visual perceptions. You just posted some slop trying to decode brain signals. Might as well read them off the retina and claim you're visualizing consciousness. What a retard.
>>16829532>He was basically pointing out you can't detect the mental space that hosts visual perceptions.He was basically wrong.>tryingThere was no try, it either did it or didn't do it.>Might as well read them off the retinaThen you would only be visualizing the information coming into their eyes rather than what they are perceiving which is what the image is showing which is why the perception is different from the actual image in front of them.The telepathic prosthetics they are successfully making with this tech that allows people to regain control of their environment doesn't really care if don't think it counts.
>>16829536You're a mentally ill retard, as evident in all your other obsessive, low-IQ posts.
>>16829540Sure, someone like you who presents such a well formulated high IQ argument that like that without a single hint of fallacy or impotent pettiness can't be wrong.
>brain encodes signals from the optic nerve>scientist tries to decode them>does so very poorly>no, it's not a mangled version of the signal coming from the optic nerve>IT'S THE HECKIN' PERCEPTION ITSELF!!!>i know this because... uh... because it looks like slop vaguely in the shape of an image, not the actual image
>>16829378So they built a device that takes brain data and turns it into a physical arrangement of particles that resembles whatever your consciousness is seeing.What I'm saying is that a mechanism like this should already exist in the brain if materialism is true. If I'm seeing something it MUST be matter or materialism is simply false.And if you find that mechanism, the question of how it produces subjective experience is still unsolved and maybe unsolvable in principle under materialism or even in general
>>16829545>>brain encodes signals from the optic nerveIt wasn't from the optic nerve, it was from electrodes in the brain much further down the line, similar to the tech being utilized by neuralink.
>>16829547>What I'm saying is that a mechanism like this should already exist in the brain if materialism is true. If I'm seeing something it MUST be matter or materialism is simply false.Does ChatGPT need such a mechanism to do image recognition? :^)
>>16829551Notice how this mentally ill retard with the shaking hands couldn't even finish reading the post before it was overcome with the impulse to respond with denial. If it had finished reading, it would have known its reply is a total nonsequitur.
>>16829552If ChatGPT doesn't have subjective experience it doesn't need such a mechanism because it's not seeing anything in the first place
>>16829556>If ChatGPT doesn't have subjective experience it doesn't need such a mechanismSo you can do visual processing without such a mechanism. If there is no such mechanism in the brain, then clearly, you don't need such a mechanism and you don't have "subjective experience", at least not in the way you conceive of it. :^)
>>16829558Are you having a visual experience right now?
>>16829554No everything that followed depended on scientists trying to decode optic nerve signals but that isn't how the experiment worked, so nothing that followed accurately reflects reality, they come up with completely different information when they monitor the optic nerve instead of the cortex and its not simply "mangled" is more reflective what is reported as experience than the light that is actually hitting the eyes.
>>16829496Matter does not have qualities. You didn't tell me any qualities as you said you did. You are getting confused in your own misunderstanding of language and the material. Matter is purely quantitative and any qualitative aspect to according to the materialist framework that you are defending is relational - the result of quantitative arrangement of matter and energy interacting with your senses. But we know we are conscious, at least I know I am, I don't know if you are. So how does a purely quantitative system give birth to a qualitative one? You are pushed into a corner. Either you accept dualism which no materialist or any serious modern thinker would, OR you now add a qualitative dimension to matter and start developing panpsychism and other quasi-idealistic crutches. Once you take that step though the need for matter completely crumbles.Your stance is the equivalent of looking at a monitor screen and confusing the pixels themselves as the primary agent of computation.
>>16829560You are quite literally mentally ill, retarded and incapable of basic reading comprehension. No two ways about it. Not reading any more of your mindless babble.
>>16829552Mirror Neuron Encoding and Deep Dream.If what you were saying was true, cad files couldn't possibly exist, as all schematics would have to be actual scale model physical copies.
>>16829559>Are you having a visual experience right now?I don't know. Am I? What would be the mechanism for that? :^)
>>16829566>I don't know. Am I? Resorting to illusionism is gigacope>What would be the mechanism for that?That's my question.
>>16829562>Matter does not have qualities.No having qualities is a quality. >You didn't tell me any qualities You are absolutely retarded if you don't understand I pointed out volume and mass are the defining qualities of matter.>Matter is purely quantitative No, mass is in x kg, x is the quantitative physical description, kg is the qualitative physical description.>energyEnergy is dependent on matter, it is a derivative of meters over time by kg over time it is inherently dependent on units of mass to define energy.>You are pushed into a corner. No you have a retarded premise because you don't understand that it isn't just a number but a number of the quality of grams (resistance to moment).>Your stance is the equivalent of looking at a monitor screen and confusing the pixels themselves as the primary agent of computation.No, you are retarded and you look at a computer and basically actively use it just to claim it doesn't exist.
>>16829569>Resorting to illusionismWhat do you mean? Illusionism with respect to what?
>>16829571Are you having a visual experience right now? The options areYesNoIt's an illusion (which is a self-defeating argument but some people unironically use it)I don't know is not an option because the knowing of the experience is the experience. You can't have an experience without knowing it.
>>16829574Are you having a blrjdnnr right now? The options are:YesNoIt's an illusionYou're getting filtered by the difference between experiencing something and having a model of it that can be meaningfully discussed and analyzed/
>>16829570>No, mass is in x kg, x is the quantitative physical description, kg is the qualitative physical description.Ah I see you are a troll. If you aren't a troll then congratulations you won the dumbest post of the year award. You are so retarded even the dumbest chatbot would tell you you are wrong.
>>16829575Okay. Are you aware of a 2 dimensional plane of sorts that contains moving shapes which disappear when your close your eyes? Are you having that experience right now?
>>16829580Prove you aren't a contrarian retard by actually posting google's chatbot explaining what the units of energy that aren't compatible with the Joule or that Joules are not made of kg⋅m2⋅s−2 like wikipedia says.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule>1 J in ... ... is equal to ...>SI base units kg⋅m2⋅s−2
>>16829575>Are you having a blrjdnnr right now?No.Are you having a visual experience right now?
>>16829581>aware of>having that experienceMeaning what, exactly?
>>16829584>Are you having a visual experience right now?I don't know. Am I? If "visual experience" is something that requires a magical mechanism that we both suppose to be absent, then no, I am clearly not having that. If you have something more coherent in mind, please specify.
>>16829588>I don't knowNot a valid answer, its your experience, you are either experiencing it or not.>If "visual experience" is something that requires a magical mechanismIts not. Its the experience visual sensation, do you have that or not.> I am clearly not having that. So your experience of the words you communicating is purely an auditory and tactile experience?
>>16829593>Its not.Ok, so how does a "visual experience" relate to the brain?
>>16829594It is obviously a sensation that brains are known to produce from their eye sensory organs, if you bothered to do a single shred of research on the things you are trying to discuss, this would have been apparent from the beginning and you wouldn't be making a fool of yourself by being completely ignorant of the basic words you are trying to discuss.
>>16829598Fuck off, retard. No one was talking to you.
>>16829599Concession accepted.
>>16829602Ok, retard, but no one was talking to you. You were not a part of that discussion.
>>16829605You must be very confused and angry ever since your EBT SNAP benefits ran out and you found out you won't get them next month. How will you feel when you don't eat breakfast next month?
>>16829609>You must be very confusedI guess I am very confused. If you are the original retard (who was denying materialism) and not some other retard trying to interject, why did you revert to a materialist position?>inb4 brains producing perceptions is not a materialist position
>>16829583"The joule, kilogram, meter and second are all quantitative frameworks - they tell us how much and of what dimension, but never what kind in a qualitative sense.Saying 1 J in ... ... is equal to ...SI base units kg⋅m2⋅s−2is just an equation of quantities.It doesn't introduce qualitative properties - only quantitative measures of dimensions."As per the chatbot
>>16829613No, kg, m, and s are not quantities, they represent the qualities of mass, space, and time which can then be quantized.
>>16829614As per chatbot"He thinks qualitative means category or dimension - misuses of the term. Ends up accidentally using Hegelian language ("qualities that can be then quantized") - which is the opposite of materialisti empiricism.His point is - Matter is real but the forms of mass, space and time are qualitative categories we then quantify.That's not materialism. That's conceptual idealism wearing a materialist badge. He is confused because he is mixing metaphysical vocabularies."I am sorry chud. Chudbot explained it better and more eloquent than I ever could. It's time for you to accept the glowing warm truth of idealism and abandon matter.
>>16829630>materialoon admits to using a chatbot to do his thinkingNTA but this is pottery.
simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism>Materialism is the philosophical belief that the world is made of material, and that there are no other types of entity (things).Isn't this literally disproven by e = mc^2>be energy>exist?
>>16829647>... things that are not made of material, such as consciousness, are the result of actions by material.[1] In other words, matter is the only real substance.Any observable expressions of your equation would also be "the results of action by material" under this view.
>>16829650So if I shine a flashlight on a cat in the dark. Does it mean the material of the cat produces the light effect, or the light itself is a material?
>>16829652It would mean matter is acting a certain way to create the situation you characterize on those abstract terms.
>>16829654I'm asking which matter, cat matter or light matter. Or is it like a Lovelock idea where all matter is connected?
>>16829657>I'm asking which matterAll the matter involved in the physical description of the situation.
>>16829630>He thinks qualitative means category or dimension - misuses of the term. I see you don't have a proper definition to offer, just contrarian semantic nonsense without justification.>which is the opposite of materialisti empiricism.No its not, it having empirically sensible materials like space and matter that can be consistently quantized in units of distance and mass to be manipulated over time.>That's not materialism. Yes it is because it posits that everything is physically explainable in terms of material units of mass in space over time.>truth of idealism No, matter is fundamental, you can't think your thoughts without a brain to store them in, you will never switch bodies because all your ideals are held in a specific material body, otherwise you could just change who you are at the drop of a hat and you could accidentally lose limbs and have your entire experience adjusted to a new form.
>>16829647According to that equation, e only exists as a result of the combination of the specific material phenomenon of m and c.
>>16828507You cannot prove this in either respect. Why do you speak so assuredly about something?
>>16830397So then you can cite and source this human mind you are implicating that resulted from something other than a human body, I completely made up the fact that every known human mind to ever actually exist was attached to a human body?
>>16830432you have no idea if any humans have ever actually existed outside of your mind and no way to prove it no matter how much you believe in it really really hard
>>16830520You're allowed to just assume they do in every other context, so you're allowed to just assume it in this one as well.
Materialism is just another cope of charlatans who try to avoid actual problems and issues regarding philosophy of mind by proposing an entirely different view of reality. Saying 'everything is physical' renders the problem of consciousness absurd and meaningless. It's ultimate low IQ retarded slop trying to avoid any sort of effort to explain actual phenomena by changing its own framework and model of reality.
>>16830630>Saying 'everything is physical' renders the problem of consciousness absurd and meaninglessWhy?
>>16830642In physicalist's retarded reality mind is either physical or something which can be explained by reducing it to physical laws.
>>16830670What's the problem with the mind being physical?
