your art betrays the emotional effect of your theory
check your premises

>>16830683
Agreed. That's why I think stuff like supernatural makes no logical sense, if something supernatural existed, then it is natural.

However these words are useful because they can be used to mean something that is outside the realm of known physics.

>>16830683
but fake stuff is real in a way. this just gets into my illusion autism.

this might work for your witch tok but I need to think about my autism.

also does this mean that mater as a term is wrong , you could at the very least create a scientific framework that has something that isn't matter right?

even if its a nockoff of matter and has most of its rules , if it lacks an important one , then its not matter.

I feel like you are playing world games , but I am currently to drunk to save you , so god save us all.

>>16831013
The supernatural is just a proxy or stand-in for “I don’t fucking know”. It’s the same with religion and hocus pocus. Ignorance is a form of art. Highly dangerous art.

>>16830683
>>16831013
Not quite, Anons. Think about abstract concepts like Honor or Friendship.
We can deduce some material facets of them (oxytocin spikes in people that enjoy each other's company), but we can't capture the entire concept in the purely Material sphere.
Yet they're still definitely Real, as they still impact the ways people move through the world.

Materialism has never been all-encompassing and it was never meant to be. Anyone trying to tell you otherwise is either a retard or a grifter.

>>16831013
The literal meaning of the word makes no sense, but it works ok in a family resemblance way. When people say that, I know they mean ghosts and angels and gods, not trees and stones.

>>16831484
>>16831494
“That ain’t natural” is an opinion. The supernatural, or the unnatural, has always been an opinion. Homosexual is still unnatural to many Christians. They won’t call it supernatural but unnatural is more or less the same meaning—that it’s not natural.

>>16831507
With meaning as use unnatural and supernatural are very different.

>>16831510
No, they are not. Either something is natural or it isn’t.

>>16831010
*affect

>>16831624
Noone says God is unnatural and noone says gay sex is supernatural.

>>16831624
It is the nature of all life to build. Bird nest, termite mound, yurt, same same.
Building and construction are natural.

>>16831632
You are having the wrong gay sex, bro.

>>16831624
Everything is natural or else it doesn't exist. In common language though unnatural = against nature, so manmade stuff counts as unnatural even though logically we are part of nature. Supernatural= unexplainable by nature, so shit like ghosts, which based on all evidence don't exist

>>16831632
The Christians in the past have used words like “supernatural” or “preternatural” or “unnatural” to describe God in the past. “He’s beyond nature”. It’s just silly.
>>16831635
What? I’m not arguing about the artificial here. The artificial would be the closest thing you could argue as being unnatural and yet you can use as easily argue it’s completely natural for all the things you mentioned. A termite mound is artificial. A bird’s nest is artificial.

>>16831645
>Everything is natural or else it doesn't exist
Yes. This is just basic logic. Anything that is “unnatural” or “supernatural” is just a point of view. A position of unfamiliarity. No different from religion or magic. Proxy logic. A stand-in. A contrast.
>In common language though unnatural = against nature, so manmade stuff counts as unnatural even though logically we are part of nature.
Yes. Hence: “The artificial would be the closest thing you could argue as being unnatural and yet you can use as easily argue it’s completely natural”.

But at the end of the day nature is just reality and reality is anything that’s real.

You can just* as easily argue it’s completely natural

Christians arguing against materialism are arguing against God’s own existence.

OP is right and you can only openly mald.

>>16831667
>667
Phew.

>>16831647
>mud is unnatural
>twigs are unnatural
I think you just surrendered.
The line you think you keep crossing exists solely in your head.

>>16831670
>667
Dude's been peeping across the street for sure.

>>16831672
Nowhere did I claim mud or sticks are unnatural. Human infrastructure is natural despite all the pollution. Nature is nature.

Because for a lot of idiots the artificial is an unnatural abomination.

>Because for a lot of idiots the artificial is an unnatural abomination.
I’d argue that whether or not something is ‘unnaturally’ abhorrent depends on how we humans go about it. But this just goes all the way back to >>16831507 where it is an admission of opinion. “I don’t like it, therefore bad!”. Authors like Tolkien had considered war and industry to be black magic, or unnatural, just from his time serving in the world war, for its ability to ruin nature and beauty in the world. But he did not pretend that there isn’t a good side to this, which is what his elves represent. We could be making more beautiful things in tune with nature. We’re focusing on hideous industry, not nature. We abuse nature. But it’s still nature.

>>16831683
>dude machines le bad
Tolkien was pure reddit

>>16831690
…That’s not at all what he said. He said the abuses of machinery are akin to the abuses of sorcery. Abusing the world to dominate and subjugate. The elves use it too, in the form of artistic displays. Art is inseparable from artifice. It’s in the name. The black machines of Mordor are a dark side of this — they’re horrific to behold. It isn’t inspiring enchantment in a good way. It is very much a case of sufficiently advanced art/artifice is indistinguishable from magic. The elves don’t see their arts and crafts as magic. They don’t even see themselves as magical beings. The elves (and men and hobbits) look to the wizard Gandalf the same way men and hobbits look to the elves. Gandalf isn’t a wizard in Valinor. It’s a station. He’s a sage. He put on the pointy hat. He’s like Odin. His role is to be the humble guide. A higher being sent down by higher powers. There’s a lot of Prime Directive parallels in LotR.

>>16831698
>dude it’s actually science fiction not fantasy
No fuck off

>>16830683
>>16831013
>>16831507
>>16831667
what even is matter under this understanding.

and more importanly what even is fictional under this understanding.

>>16831484
That is nonsense, you most certainly can deduce both of those things completely because they don't exist independently from organisms. They are simply evolutionary mechanisms regarding cooperation. By "abstract" you just mean complex, and just because you might not be able to fully measure something right now doesn't mean it can't be in the future. I think you need better examples.

The concept of something being "unnatural" is usually just synonymous with it being dysgenic. In other contexts, supernatural would be the correct descriptor.

>>16832324
Matter — is it anything with mass — or anything that matters?

>>16832390
Which is just energy. Sweet, sweet potential energy.

Even space is a thing, or a fabric that we’re embedded in, and Einstein came dangerously close to believing in a variant of aether.

>>16830683
yes

>>16830683
Nothing material is real.

Light?

>>16834141
Even massless particles like photons are real. Present.

Lol

>>16831484
>We can deduce some material facets of them (oxytocin spikes in people that enjoy each other's company), but we can't capture the entire concept in the purely Material sphere.
Yes we can. It all happens in the brain. Is the brain real?

Listen, thoughts are linked to energy and the physical activity of the brain, so there is an infinitesimally small, immeasurable amount of mass associated with the energy and molecules involved in the electrochemical process of thinking.

Even thoughts are material.

>>16831484
Your idea of materialism is ass by the way. You deeply want there to be something a lot more special.

Gay.

>>16830683
That's a great sculpture

>>16832390
so what if something didn't had mass.

>>16830683
>Replace material with real. Is it real? Then there’s something there to it. That’s material. To say something isn’t material is to say something isn’t real.
Seems valid. You even can apply it to information: information is real because media on which it exists is material.

>>16831484
>but we can't capture the entire concept in the purely Material sphere
Are patterns of behavior not played out with material components? The relationship between atoms and honor/friendship is merely a few layers of emergent behavior stacked onto increasingly complex scales.

>>16842571
There are massless particles, anon.

>>16842571
>>16843970
Light is not considered matter in the traditional sense because it has no "rest mass," but it can be thought of as a form of "matter" in the broader, modern physics sense because it is composed of particles (photons) that have energy and momentum. In classical physics, "matter" is defined by having mass and volume, which light does not. However, in modern quantum field theory, the universe is made of fields and their excitations, and light (electromagnetic field) is considered a form of matter because it has energy and momentum, and photons can be converted into other particles.

Ugh I hate words

File: pixel-npc2.png (10 KB, 1200x1200)

10 KB PNG

>>16843398
>abstract ideas are "patterns in matter"
NTA but this is peak NPC thinking.

File: ugly fish2.jpg (136 KB, 559x720)

136 KB JPG

>>16844640
>pure ad hom and no refutation
ITA and this is peak subhuman behavior

>>16844920
To anyone with a mind, his idiotic proposition is self-refuting. I can entertain abstract concepts without any matter acting them out. Debating NPCs who aren't capable of abstract thought is subhuman behavior. Believing in """logical fallacies""" is sub-brown behavior.

>>16844933
>I can entertain abstract concepts without any matter acting them out
And yet, if you run a slug of lead through the matter that composes your brain, suddenly you can no longer entertain abstract concepts. Funny how that works.

>>16844968
Funny how you immediately start chimping out with irrelevant nonsequiturs when the massive and obvious flaw in your idea is pointed out.

>>16844970
Simple point: disrupt the matter's arrangement; disrupt the thought
Ergo the thought is emergent from the matter's arrangement

>>16844974
>Simple point: disrupt the matter's arrangement; disrupt the thought
I understand your trivial head canon but you're simply moves the goalpost. You initially asserted the substance of an idea is in the behavior of matter that composes the situations the idea describe. This is obviously retarded because the idea is formed by abstracting from any particular situation and any particular arrangement of matter. Once formed, it takes on a life of its own, even if nothing is physically playing it out.

>Ergo the thought is emergent from the matter's arrangement
Doesn't follow even if I allow you to move the goal post.

How is OP wrong? Humans try to compartmentalize and overcomplicate and simplest shit. Word wars ruin everything.

>>16847255
>How is OP wrong?
He's wrong because there's nothing "real" about the modern concept of matter on one hand and modern physics considers to be real a bunch of things that are explicitly non-material on the other. He couldn't be more wrong and retarded if he tried.

>>16847261
>jargon
God you suck

In the future we will be able to build using space

"matter" is just an idea you use to rationalize phenomena

it's "real" sure, a real idea
but that's about it tbqh
some people don't need the conceptual training wheels anymore and approach metaphysics like mature adults

"truth" is not material
that doesn't mean it isn't real

"real" and "material" are not synonymous
materialism is for retards

show me "matter" as a thing in itself
you literally can't
all you can do is point at accidents of substance and say "this must mean tiny balls moving very fast are all that exist"

the only real things you have personal access to are the sensations of perception and ideas conceived through the faculty of reason
none of that is "matter"
maybe "matter" is real in itself, but you literally cannot prove it

not being able to prove something doesn't mean it isn't real
ask Heisenberg

>>16831647
natural in that context means rather mundane. the opposite of natural is artificial. which has no absolute meaning, only for humans. everything that ever happened is natural since we're nature's result, thus our results are also natural. you cannot have unnatural things unless something pops here from somewhere else other than this universe, whatever that thing does, is not objectively natural. even though you could argue if that thing is possible, something coming here from another ... universe, even that is natural. since it's possible.
thus unnatural becomes that which is not possible, under any circumstance.

>>16851778
>maybe "matter" is real in itself, but you literally cannot prove it
statistically speaking it is kind of real, you know it on some fundamental level, else you wouldn't get out of the way of a fast approaching vehicle

>>16851778
>>16852528
just to be clear, in this context real meaning "of consequence"

Ah sweet a philosotard thread

>>16853312
it's kinda tragic these threads go on for so long and not one mathfag exists who can just put an end to all this stupid meaningless nonsense by just mentioning calculus limits.

Physics DOES deal with what is real…. verifiably speaking….

>>16853827
Is math real?

>>16855447
Is math at the foundation of all reality, given it is presumably the foundation of physics?

>>16831645
ALL EVIDENCE.

>>16830683
is gravity real then?

>>16830683
Is the truth that "2+2=4" contingent upon a material reality? Is there some arrangement of atoms which would make the statement "2+2=4" false in its fundamental meaning?

>>16857852
>Is the truth that "2+2=4" contingent upon a material reality?
Yes. Specifically, it is contingent upon there being more than one thing.

File: Walter Russells cosmology.jpg (197 KB, 736x884)

197 KB JPG

idealistic monism

>>16844640
>>16843398
well, if we explore that idea a bit, for example the concept of the number 1. it can be said to be a pattern in material components (possibly in all cases but depending on your level of assumptions), but what physical pattern is it exactly? how do you define pattern here? because the number of patterns the concept of the number 1 could take in material components is likely infinite. making the idea that it's purely material void imo.

Reality is existence and existence is reality; it is material; existential. Simple.

>>16830683
Cool art.

>>16831645
>Everything is natural or else it doesn't exist
Reminder that this position is logically incompatible with causality, unless you suppose causality is some optional thing that applies only when you feel like it.

>>16869279
Do you believe the principle of cause and effect applies to everything in nature?

>>16869287
Is cause and effect real? Then it’s a part of nature. The simple fact is, if something is real, it happened. If something happened, then… well… use your brain.

Also, it’s cute that you reported me, you overly sensitive melon.

>>16830683
this isn't /lit/ retard
time to go back to pseud retard daycare >>>/lit/

>>16869395
Anon. Scientists not agreeing on words is the bane of science. Semantics is rot. It’s an actual issue.

Google Search: “Does matter without mass exist?”
Google Answer: “Yes, retard. Photons are a thing.”

Google Search: “Is light a form of matter?”
Google Answer: “No, retard. Light has no mass!”

Fucking hell.

File: gemmmmmm.jpg (243 KB, 1170x821)

243 KB JPG

>>16830683
le funny bighead sculpture man

>>16830683
So yesterday isn't real. Go next faggot

Bumpty dumpty

imagine being a midwit struggling with ontology lmao

>>16830683
what about complex material like ceramic plasmonics

>>16831010
cool strawman bro

Reality is reality. Real is real.

>>16830683
if you use the term "material" to be synonymous with "real" then there's nothing anyone can say that'll change your mind. if you say that anything that isn't material itself is either not real, or they are made of things that are made of things that are ... made of things that are material, and are therefore material, then that's pure sophistry. whether or not there is such a thing as the supernatural is not something you can either prove or disprove through material. you'll take that to mean it's proven false, but please try to use that reasoning to disprove solipsism and get back to me. the best option right now is to keep an open mind to it, just like you might suggest a blind person to keep an open mind to the idea that colors exist, even if you can't prove it, or even explain it to him.
>>16831484
it's ultimately a matter of reddit atheists not understanding the implications of the words they use, or the ideas they believe in, and ultimately thinking that virtue signaling about pop-science and scientific consensus while not even understanding what science is, or what it aims to do, makes them appear smarter than they really are.

Was there a mass deletion of hundreds of posts across all boards or something? So many threads across multiple boards lost a lot of posts

>>16832332
honor and friendship are "complex" like wizards in dnd are intelligent. a dumb person's understanding of how a smart person thinks is indistinguishable from magic. do you believe there is such a thing as emergent properties of some things, or do you believe that because everything that exists can be formed with things that are material, therefore everything is reducible to their material components?

>>16860393
suppose there was nothing in the universe but a mind. this mind happens to not be made of any smaller components, but is capable of self-awareness anyways. it exists in the void otherwise. is this thing capable of conceiving of numbers that exceed 1, despite there not being 2 of anything in the universe it exists in, or not?

Read Kant, you fucking retards.

>>16883788
There’s a butthurt/biased moderator deleting random posts across random boards for some unknown reason.

How is this even a question

No shit

>>16830683
yep