if something is spiritual, that means it isn't real. spirit doesn't exist
>Green and red and blue and brown don't exist!Says the blind man...
Like a poor animal only recognizes what he can perceive with his senses. Abstractions and subtleties dont exist for him because they have no solid realitySad
>>41232713qualia != made up "spiritual" bullshit
>>41232744you are like a fish that doesn't see the water it's swimming in.it is everywhere to such extent that you no longer see it, just like the air.
>>41232816then surely there is an experimental way of verifying the existence of this "water" that can be replicated
>>41232715I guess wifi signals and radio waves don't exist for our genius OP as well. Poor fucker's been gas lit his whole life.
>>41232715did you expect any better than a redditfrogposter honestly?
>>41232845yes there is, and there has been, but you refuse to see.you have to understand that spirit isn't something separate from this world, it's what reality is made out of, consciousness / mind is fundamental.it not being separate will also mean that it is reactive to mental states, excessive skepticism whilst not preventing completly to observe it, will hinder your ability to.anyway, there are many ways you could find proofs that are sufficient for yourself, either by looking inwards, or by experiencing things outward, ie synchronicities etc.psychedelics could also help you as they will disolve boundaries and for a small moment shut excessive left brain, you should then skepticaly analyze the experience you've had obviously.anyway, i'll post picrel, we have experimental evidence that consciousness can affect rng's too, ie gcpdot.
>>41232715scientists have ways of detecting things that can't be picked up on by the five sensesso they should be able to detect the spirit world, right? unless...unless the spirit world isn't even a real thing?
>>41232848we know wifi signals are there because we have ways of creating and measuring them, not because we have blind faith in some old book
>>41232891>consciousness / mind is fundamental.so it doesn't depend on the brain, right? but conscioussness is affected by brain damage
>>41232911> so it doesn't depend on the braini never said that.> conscioussness is affected by brain damagethis is the most midwit and usual response from someone that doesn't understand idealism.under idealism it is espected for brain damage to affect your experience, that still doesn't mean that consciousness is emergent from the brain, only that it interfaces with it.you should look at the work of bernardo kastrup if you are realy curious.if you use his framework, for ex, you can think of the brain as a dissociation boundary from mind at large.affecting it, will affect your experience, this is expected.the issue is that you don't understand what you say and try to disprove idealism by implying physicalism.under idealism, everything is mental, including your brain, and chemical, objects etc.there is nothing preventing a mental process (ie a flying bullet) from affecting another mental process (ie your brain) which will affect another mental process ie your qualia / conscious experience / the content of your experience.however physicalists are uterly unable to explain how a physical process (ie your eyes seing red) can become a mental process (experiencing the qualia of the color red), they effectively confuse the map for the teritory.so to answer, no consciousness doesn't depend of the brain, the brain is made out of it, affecting it will affect your experience obviously.
>>41233025>>41232911there is one thing idealism predicts that physicalism doesn't.under idealism you'd expect damage to the brain or reduction of its activity to result in a reduction of the richness of the conscious experience, the opposite has literaly been shown to be true.there are some part of the brain that when damaged will expand consciousness.there are also states, ie psychedelic states where lower brain activity is associated with an increase in the richness of experience.
>>41232911>>41233025>>41233030i recomend you watch this before continuing the discussion because i feel like you are gonna use all the fallacies on the list.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2m7BxlWlvzc
>>41232906that's a false assumption, there are things that no scientific tools can detect.ie if i see an apple, sure with some scanners you could guess that i'm seing an apple, however you cannot describe qualities in terms of quantities, more specificaly you couldn't express what it feels like to see the apple in numbers and measurment.the entirety of subjective experience can only be expressed in qualities and not quantities.the spiritual is on the most par accessed through the conscious and unconscious, this is not something you can measure on the external world but through conscious experience.however it can affect the world.ie synchronicities, rng's etc.we have more than proof by now that mental states can slightly affect the physical world, especialy when a lot of people share a similar mental state within an area.if you want a good example of that you can look at the global consciousness project, we have literal proof that mental states will affect random number generators.
>>41232891>yes there is, but i will not explain itsuch a retard this anon is. and psychedelics only show that manipulating your brain alters your senses, and only confirms that no "spiritual" things exist>LOOK AT MY PICTURE! HA-HA FUNNY WOJAKS PROVE IT ALLwhat a moron
>>41233054>you couldn't express what it feels like to see the apple in numbers and measurmentand how it is relevant??? and why it is??? if we say how much energy was put in an apple when thrown we can deduce if it will kill us (e.g. it has a lot of kinetic energy that is the same as a bullet, therefore it will fucking kill us)>b-but it doesn't explain fe-how is this fucking relevant??? i bet you can make a formal system that can describe "feelings", but we don't need such systems because we have natural language. although maybe some smartass did create such a system
>>41233075i literaly mentioned sources.anyway, you can brink a horse to the river but you can't force it to drink.you are not here to learn but to try to spread your ignorant opinion.the spiritual exist, there is good official empirical evidence for it, but the best evidences are always gonna be personal experiences.> psychedelics only show that manipulating your brain alters your sensesyou are missing the point entirely, psychedelics when taken in proper amount with the right intention will make you experience things that cannot be explained through the lenses of physicalism, things that also go beyond the senses, you just sound like someone who has no idea about what they are or taken them.
>>41233087you are mising the whole point, the point is that physicalist cannot even have the begining of an explanation in how physical process can result in subjective experiences / qualia.you cannot even build the simplest explanation for the simplest qualia generating machine, ie a machine that would generate the experience of the color red.there is a good reason it's called "the Hard problem of consciousness" the only thing is that it isn't as much of a problem and more the result of a wrong framework of reality, the problem is explaining how the brain can generate consciousness, but you will never have an explanation for it because it doesn't, the problem is based on an assumption, that has been proven false on many accounts.
>>41233096>best evidences are always gonna be personal experiencesyes, our personal experiences are so objective and true. if a blind man doesn't see the world, then there is no such thing as colors. yes-yes. or if never saw china then china doesn't exist, yes-yes.>psychedelics will make you experience things that cannot be explained through the lenses of physicalismyou mean that they cannot be explained with use of our ordinary experience? because we can fucking explain neurological effects of psychedelics on the brain (although still an ongoing research it seems)you are here to spread your ignorant opinion, anon
>>41233102dude, is there even a hard problem of consciousness? answer me thisthis fucking people, they once read fucking bernardo kastrup and now assume that they have an answer to fucking everything
>>41233126> is there even a hard problem of consciousnessonly if you are a physicalist.all framework have a fundamental and try to build the rest as emergent from it.physicalism takes matter / spacetime / the quantum field as fundamental and try to build the rest of their model from it, however they are stuck at consciousness because there is no reason that it should exist or be necessary in this model thus they create the "hard problem".dualists, think there is matter and consciousness, their hard problem is explaining how the two can interracts, and again, they have a lot of issues with that.idealism, takes mind / consciousness as fundamental, its "hard problem" is then to explain how you get to the laws of physics and our universe from there.not only there are many excellent philosophical explanation, we also have math models that are getting close to make physical predictions, ie donald hoffman's work.unlike physicalism, idealism actualy have continuous progress on its hard problem over the years, physicalism has been stuck where it is for the last 50 years.anyway, bernardo says nothing new he just explain it well, just like there are many flavors of physicalism (string theories, pilot wave theory, many world, copenhagen etc...), there are many of idealism, bernardo is one but not the one i'm entirely adhering too, but it's a good starter.either way, my personal experience alone are enough for me to know physicalism cannot be true, now regarding empirical evidences there are enough already if you care about searching for them, and we are getting more and more data, within 2 decades there would no longer even be a question about it.
>>41233126also anyway, with the current state of physics and latest bell experiments.either you have to accept the many world interpretation either you have to abandon locality.both of those spook physicalist and occam razor is not nice on the many world interpretation.also, you either have to accept the many world or the fine tuning argument, which yea at that point you are no longer a physicalist.and if you accept the many world interpretation, then, by definition you cannot subjectively die as there would always be another universe where you didn't.
>>41233158>either this either thatat this point it is just bad faith. why you are thinking that this are only 2 possible answers? where is superdeterminism, for example?
>>41233173i mean sure, but it comes with a whole can of worm, fucks with the scientific method itself and is ontologicaly doubious.do you personaly believe in superdeterminism ? i'm curious.yes i could have included it in the list but using occam's razor it doesn't seem plausible enough for it to even be considered imo.at that point you may as well believe in a bearded man in the sky, it is not a parsimonious explanation.i'd argue with bernardo's specific argument on it : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvoFBicYW7Y
>>41233117> personal experiences are so objective and trueyour argument is bad, you are literaly using the case of someone that sees less to say that what the others see don't exist, this argument is more in my favor than yours ...i'm making an example for the sake of argument.let's say people don't see something, then 10 people under the influence of a psychedelic see some entity that they would normaly not, that entity say some stuff ie, this very specific and unlikely event is gonna happen, then they write it down on a paper and then compare the note to see that they are the same once they came down, and a few days later the exact event happens, empiricaly, you could conclude that there was indeed something even if someone that was here and sober could not see it.> because we can fucking explain neurological effects of psychedelics on the brainthere is a lot more to a psychedelic experience than its effect on the brain...physicalism cannot explain synchronicities.but above that, it cannot explain why their prevalence seem to increase when in altered states of consciousness.it also cannot explain pk effects.also, i already mentioned it, but the richness of experiences under psychedelics is inversely correlated with brain activity, you'd expect the exact opposite under physicalism.anyway, i've experience having visions of stuff that i couldn't have known otherwise that i only was confirmed later, i experienced some form of telepathy with my partner where mental image would be transmited with no speech at all.and i've experienced dream colocation with a friend on many occasions.then some weirder stuff that are more conclusive but also too personal for me to share here.
>>41233025>bernardo kastrupbernardo kastrup would be the frontrunner for the nobel prize if they gave out nobel prizes in being a retarded faggot
>>41233194sabine hossenfelder sucks dick for right wing billionaire money. she's gone to the dark side and cant' be trusted
>>41233380you'd lose in any debates against him.point being you don't have any argument besides insulting him.
>>41233392insulting that retard is the only argument i need
>>41233407nice projection, you should work on your shadow a little.
>>41233462wat to assume everything is projection, retard, you're just as retarded as that retard kastrup
