/lit/ - Literature

>>14363357
>idealist
>anger

The soul is immaterial.

>>14363357
yeah but the brain doesn't exist objectively; only your subjective perception of the brain exists ; )

>>14363371
This is your soul.

>>14363400
Forgot to attach the image.

>>14363374
>yeah but the brain doesn't exist objectively; only your subjective perception of the brain exists ; )
Prove this objectively

>>14363357
if travelling the 4th dimension in two directions is possible, then if concsiousness only exists in the brain, the properties of the concsiousness changes as you go backwards in time, making it impossible to do so.

>>14363357
The brain is an antenna.

>>14363357
The existence of these organs angers the anon.

>>14363533
>>>/x/

>>14363542

>>14363544
No.

>>14363426
No.

>>14363357
>>14363405
Why does the pineal gland become calcified by the time you are an adult?

>>14363550
>No.

The functioning of this organ angers the materialist

>>14363560
I don't know. You sound like you might know.

>>14363400
In all levels except physical I am a Pepe

No

>>14363357
i don't see qualitative experience or rational thought on the diagram. sure, there are corresponding parts of the brain, but a thought is not a material entity. reminder that while science can say a lot about the organ where consciousness seems to be located, science doesn't know a damn thing about consciousness itself.

>>14363562
Yes.

>>14363565
I've read that Descartes thought the pineal gland is the part of the brain that connects us to the spiritual realm. The process of calcification is supposedly caused by SOCIETY, by poisoning our food with pesticides and GMOs, our water with S O Y and fluoride, our air with chemtrails, and our brains directly by filling it with mind numbing mass media, propaganda and porn.

>>14363560
Short answer, jews

>>14363592
Good, I hope all of those things kill me.

>>14363400
>>14363405
it is a soul antenna to this dimension
there are cases of NDEs where people had experiences while the brain was virtually dead

>>14363592
descartes, unfortunately, didn't really know what he was talking about there; it was just a guess, and now it seems it was wrong. descartes is great in more purely rational regards though, such as the existence of the soul, god etc.

>>14363400
Yes.

>>14363616
>it is a soul antenna to this dimension
Yes.

Just as a hypothetical to spiritualists; if you found out without a doubt that there is no soul and that there is nothing besides the material, would that get you down? Would it cause you to live differently?

>>14363693
No, because I'm already down.

>>14363693
When I used to care about philosophy, I considered myself a physicalist, but I was still a Christian. But now I do not care about philosophy and realize that pondering the question of physicalism is useless and really has no effect on your life.

>>14363643
Lad you won't be smiling like that after you hit DMT.

>The existence of this device angers the signalist

>>14363426
You wouldn't get it.

>>14363357
Between the Libet experiments, split brain patients, computational psychology, computational neuroscience, and evolutionary game theory, I honestly can't understand how any idealist/non-materialist-mind belief can be rationally held in our day and age.
Honestly, immaterial theories of consciousness are just as cringe and archaic as religious ones at this point.

>>14363693
It would be impossible to prove it so the hypothetical is kind of illogical

>The existence of the afterlife ANGERS the materialist

>>14363535
The fact this is so underrated speaks volumes.

I hope that this shitty, shitty thread somehow ruins your career, or else makes your wife divorce you and take the kids. I mean this sincerely: fuck you

>>14365096
Are you stupid or baiting?

>>14363693
Dumb question, you may aswell ask me if i was rock climbing for sports and got my arm trapped under a rock, would i cut by slowly biting it off or die of thirst and hunger?
The key is on "if", I'm not a faggot so I'll never ever find myself in such situation the question is pointless

>>14363693
Dumb question, it’s literally impossible to imagine such a scenario. It’d be like saying “imagine if you found out god did exist but you were going to hell for eternity and there’s was nothing you could do about it” you simply cannot internalise these kinds of thoughts. They are fundamentally impossible to reconcile with perception.

>>14365096
Explain quails without simply saying it emerges from the biomechanics of brain interactions. They only evidence you have that qualia emerges from the brain is predicated on the observation that we have brains and we have qualia, actually explain to me how one leads to the other.

>>14363357
>The existence of this organ angers the idealist.

I don't get it.

>>14363693
You're confusing spirit with soul.
Soul is Qualia, and a materialist can't deny the existence of immediate experience.

>>14363357
>the existence of this angers the materialist

>>14363357
it does fuck with me, thinking about the brain
it's tempting to look at the world as something projected/constructed by a fundamental human rationality, reflecting it
but then you look at a brain, and you're like wtf does this reflect about human rationality
it doesn't make any sense aesthetically

perhaps it's relieving that there is an independent external world

>>14365383
That's basic bitch spacetime relativity.

>>14365307
I assume op believes in some sort of brain-soul analogy which, aside from being retarded like all analogical thinking, he systematically interprets as the brain being the 'real' thing and the soul the 'mere' analogon.
He is then confused when ideachads don't follow his strawman.

>>14365096
>detecting cheaters is for: avoiding cheaters
>natural language is for: communication
>desire fuck around is for: motivating fucking around
>fear of snakes is for: snakes hurt

holy shit science is fucking amazing

>>14365302
Quail is a collective name for several genera of mid-sized birds generally placed in the order Galliformes. Old World quail are placed in the family Phasianidae, and New World quail are placed in the family Odontophoridae.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quail

>>14365096
How does one go so deep I to the pseud-empiricism rabbit hole?
Even a cursory knowledge of pure logic is enough to be 'idealist'. If you want to make a current year type argument, how are these positions even allowed a century after Husserl's logical investigations?
Psychologism is not a serious topic of discussion anymore. It is agreed among logicians, mathematicians, and even the serious psychologists but for some reason some physiologists didn't get the memo.

>No one has mentioned that science has literally dismantled materialism and then shat on its grave.
Haha. I suppose this board is filled with the lowbrow crowd anyway, eh? Check this thread out, you dimwitted materialists and ignorant-of-your-own-philosophy idealists. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism#From_scientists

>>14365478
how did it disprove materialism?

>>14365734
the quantum particule only existed after it was perceived. there have been multiple tests that demonstrated the same thing
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/10/quantum-experiment-space-confirms-reality-what-you-make-it-0
etc
look into it
materialism has quite literally been dismantled by science

>>14363616
Based coping retard
The antenna meme fails on every level in neuroscience and philosophy of mind
NDEs have been completely explained through a physicalist framework, there's literally not a single case that defies scientific explanation.

>>14365869
The mere possibility of logic btfo all physicalist philosophy.

>>14365902
Imagine being this stupid
Most logicians are physicalist, substance dualism is feudal superstition

>>14365914
>>14365478
>>14365740

>>14365740
Another retard that doesn't understand the observer effect
Take an intro to physics course before spouting nonsense

>>14365902
>Logic is magic
This is why you idealists never get anywhere or actually do anything. You can't do anything with idealism instead convince others to upvote it on Mindbook.

>>14363357
What book is this?

>>14365919
Again, you're the retard spouting nonsense here. The observe effect does not apply here. Please do not talk about that which you do not understand. You are literally spreading misinformation because of your ego. It's not true. The observer effect is not involved here. Please research what I'm talking about.

>>14366012
Your pop-sci article is exactly about the observer effect in quantum mechanics you fucking brainlet. It doesn't mean what your illiterate brain thinks it does.

>>14366020
Again, if you literally open the wiki page for the observer effect, you will be proved wrong.

An especially unusual version of the observer effect occurs in quantum mechanics, as best demonstrated by the double-slit experiment. Physicists have found that even passive observation of quantum phenomena (by changing the test apparatus and passively 'ruling out' all but one possibility), can actually change the measured result. A particularly famous example is the 1998 Weizmann experiment.[2] Despite the "observer" in this experiment being an electronic detector—possibly due to the assumption that the word "observer" implies a person—its results have led to the popular belief that a conscious mind can directly affect reality.[3] The need for the "observer" to be conscious is not supported by scientific research, and has been pointed out as a misconception rooted in a poor understanding of the quantum wave function ψ and the quantum measurement process,[4][5][6] apparently being the generation of information at its most basic level that produces the effect.

The point here is that the observer effect that you're thinking of is not relevant to what I'm talking about. It doesn't prove materialism. The science is there against materialism.

>>14366041
Did you even read the link you posted? What the fuck are you trying to argue here? Quantum mechanics is in no way go against physicalism

>>14366073
Are you autism? My point here is that the observer effect in regards to quantum mechanics literally disproves physicalism. This is literally the majority scholary consensus. Unless you wanna buy into the many worlds hogwash.

>>14366083
buddy
>>14366041
>The need for the "observer" to be conscious is not supported by scientific research, and has been pointed out as a misconception
The very text you posted is disagreeing with you

>>14366089
Seriously, why are you even engaging if you have no idea what you're talking about? How does the observer being conscious or not have anything to do with materialism being debunked by the experiment? What the hell? Are you baiting?

>>14366083
>This is literally the majority scholary consensus.

Lmao imagine being this fucking retarded. Did you even read the wikipedia you quoted? The "Consciousness causes collapse" is a tiny fringe among quantum physicists, the consensus supports a fully physicalist interpretation of QM. You're pulling shit out of your ass.

>The need for the "observer" to be conscious is not supported by scientific research, and has been pointed out as a misconception rooted in a poor understanding of the quantum wave functionψand the quantum measurement process

>>14366100
Again, stop talking if you have no clue what you're talking about, please. How does the observer being conscious or not have anything to do with materialism being debunked by the experiment?

>>14366095
If the observer effect is fully explained through a physicalist framework, what is your fucking point then? How the fuck is physicalism debunked?

Fucking moron.

>>14366103
>materialism being debunked by the experiment
[Citation needed]

>>14366100
>the consensus supports a fully physicalist interpretation of QM
why are materialists so stupid? all they have to do is search "quantum mechanics physicalism" to immediately be disproven. is it some form of incel cope?

>>14366041
>The need for the "observer" to be conscious is not supported by scientific research, and has been pointed out as a misconception rooted in a poor understanding of the quantum wave function ψ and the quantum measurement process

>>14366114
Disproven? By what? What is your fucking source, a fucking apologetics youtube video?

Make a valid argument or get fucked

>>14365914
Logicians haven't been into psychologism, and the few that might be are wrong. There is nothing empirical or factual/temporal about it.
I'll sweep aside the bizarre claims of anything here being 'feudal' and even if you meant medieval that would be wrong but I don't expect anyone still clinging to a logic depending on empirical matters to be be able to understand that.

>>14365973
At least idealism allows logic and the study of essences. The critique is particularly bizarre considering there is nothing presented in a non idealist manner that can't be in a idealist position but the reverse is false.

>>14366130
Gee what am I believe, a bunch of studies and a scientific consensus, or a random /sci/ incell on 4chan.
LITERALLY ALL YO UAHVE TO DO IS READ STUDIES
YOU ARE ALL SO STUPID! LISTEN TO SCIENCE!
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-540-89654-8_13

>>14366142
This was never about psychologism
Most logicians are physicalists, that's not up to debate

https://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl?affil=Target+faculty&areas0=37&areas_max=1&grain=coarse

>>14366158
Did you even actually read the paper you linked, or you just glanced at the title?
Absolutely nothing in that paper suggests the consensus is against physicalism, you worthless imbecile

>>14366170
Literally buy it and read the conclusion holy shit
Why are you so stupid
it hurts
literally jsut read
a single study
and look at the conclusion
it absolutely is the consensus
you are so stupid it hurts
how is it possible to talk about science
without reading science
you are so stupid it hurts oh my god

>>14366163
What is called psychologism here encompasses every possible empiricist argument against pure logic and thus the pure subject of logical thought.
It so happens that even in terms of temporal or 'real' objects, psychological phenomenon are of a different genre than physical, but that isn't my argument here.

>>14366182
Good job showing you didn't even read the paper you cited. I don't need to buy it, it's available on arxiv.
If you actually read it yourself, you will realize it says nothing of the sort.

For fuck's sake I'm taking to an illiterate retard that doesn't read the studies he himself cites.

>People in this thread are unironically arguing that the consensus is that quantum mechanics are physicalist
Back to /sci/ it is. Why is /lit/ trying to talk about our field when they obviously can't?

>>14366220
Based retard without argument.

>>14366236
I'm not here to argue. I'm a mere observer.

Reject Idealism
Reject Materialism
Embrace the third way: Thomist Dualism. Of course the material world exists, dummies.

>>14366163
I'll brush aside the fact it's not logicians because that's really secondary.
>'mind' : physicalist or not
Anglos were a mistake. Especially this term of 'mind'.
I would answer definite yes or no depending on the gorillonz of semantic content you can put into this question.
OP clearly mentions idealism, which would fall on a completely different question. The intuition of ideal objects is what idealism is about. Of course it also contains the status of the pure subject of judgement.
It has nothing to do with the question of humans or brains.

>>14366220
>>14366239
Please make a thread in /sci/ arguing that quantum mechanics disprove physicalism, to see for yourself how well you're received. And link it here so we can all laugh at you.

>>14366260
>muh anglos

Seething continental. Opinion discarded

>>14366263
>>>/sci/11233195

>>14366269
I'm English, it so happens that our language vocabulary is complete trash to talk about this subject.
Nice try completely missing the argument though. Idealism has nothing to do with questions of the relative status of various empirical objects, and you can perfectly conceive an idealist with such a 'physicalist' conception of humans.

>following this thread while reading Gulliver's Travels
>suddenly the word 'quantum' shows up (p. 199)
when dat quantum entanglement hits, you know what i mean?

>>14366300
also not to be overlooked that it's in a chapter about quack scientists inventing hilariously useless things

>>14363560
Flouride

>>14366278
Thanks for humiliating yourself lmao

>>14363357
op got btfo by hegel in his preface to a book meant for high schoolers lmao the absolute STATE

>>14363357
The laws of computation trivially prove that mathematics is discovered which implies idealism

>>14365293
>It’d be like saying “imagine if you found out god did exist but you were going to hell for eternity and there’s was nothing you could do about it”
But I could answer this in that it would absolutely change the way I behave by forcing me into a position of a sycophant. If hell was guaranteed and there was nothing I could do about it, then it might not change the way I behave, but it would make me more depressed. So yes, I can answer both of those questions if reversed.

>>14363371
>The soul is immaterial.
prove substance dualism

>>14365869
>there's literally not a single case that defies scientific explanation.
did you check every one of them?
scientists are just arrogant atheists who deny everything that is not on their test tube

>>14365869
>The antenna meme fails on every level in neuroscience and philosophy of mind
No it doesn't.
t.neuroscientist.

>>14363371
The soul accurately generates virtual particles in your brain such that they effect the matter in there causing all things construed as will and consciousness. There is some mechanism by which the impulses in your brain provide feedback to this virtual particle generation system.
I'm a computer, stop the downloads.

>>14363357
The same way you have a sense of sight or hearing you have a sense of thought.
Just because you can be blinded in no way means the true self isn't real.
Your sense of memory and thought aren't the real self and nothing which can be perceived is the real self.

>>14363357
>Humans are robots

>>14365869
Nah, I have read no satisfactory scientific explanation for the subjective experiences had during a DPH trip (NDE OOBE and Hallucination inducer). There is too much detail and consistency in the hallucination for me to believe that some goofball chemistry is the sole cause behind it. Also the voice I heard in my head and the AYY LMAOs that phased into my room explained it all to me but obviously no one will believe me.

I'm content to be called schizophrenic and go around feeling superior to pussy "scientists" who aren't willing to do the science on their own minds.

>>14366809
you are within soul this is nothing new

>>14366100
Name 1 (one) observaion that was not ultimately reported by a conscious entity.

>>14363357
I'm alive and it's basically magic...to the modern scientist.

>>14365212
Why would God make Hell if he loves all of humanity? The Jewish conception of Gehena makes more sense for a loving God; than an everlasting circus of human suffering.

>>14363592
Stop reading conspiracy theories.

>>14366842
Take your meds
Unironically

>>14363533
Based egyption.

>>14366842
What did they say?

>>14366842
>tripping on benadryl
lmao you nigger, research deleriants

>>14365467
Explain how “pure” logic can lead to idealism.
spoiler: you can’t

>>14363592
I've heard that the pineal gland is supposed to be crystalized since its better as a signal receptor