/lit/ - Literature

https://youtu.be/xqtOpp2T3Qc

>>14945318
Which do you prescribe to?

materialism is the view that matter is the only thing that exists or, equivalently, that everything that exists is a material thing.

>>14945322
Do you believe it?

>>14945345
no

>>14945354
Can you explain your reasoning? I worry that nothing is special at all. If that makes sense. That its all nothing.

>>14945318
I am watching

>>14945292
Information is neither matter nor energy

>>14945359
my reasoning is that i believe that some immaterial things exist (minds, abstract objects like numbers and properties, God, etc.). i believe those things exist and i do not find materialist reductions of them plausible, for more complicated reasons. i am also uncertain whether matter exists at all.

i don't know what you mean by "special" in this case.

>>14945383
Isn't abstract things like thoughts or speech explainable though? How can it be anything but materialism?

>>14945412
>>14945412
there are materialist theories of thought and language, yes, but they suffer from serious difficulties. for example, materialism has difficulty explaining the content of thoughts (not the act of thinking or the state of the brain that has that content). if i think "two plus two equals four" and you also think "two plus two equals four" then, in some sense, we both think the same thing or our thoughts have the same content. it might also be true that our individual material brains/bodies each happen to be in some material state, but it's not exactly the same state. so, it seems like the content of the thoughts is not exhausted by the material conditions of our thinking it (the content is the same even though the material conditions may differ). we can also ask questions like: where and when does that content occur, if it is material? only when we're thinking it? then how can we both think it, rather than us each thinking a different, unique content? if that content is material, what is its mass? etc. for this reason many philosophers think that the contents of thoughts are immaterial objects though, again, this is controversial and my example is only the barest hint at the complex literature on these questions

>>14945292
>>14945359
(Opening note:
Categorical propositions:
All S are P. (A form)
No S are P. (E form)
Some S are P. (I form)
Some S are not P. (O form)
List of Unconditionally Valid Syllogistic Forms
AAA EAE IAI AEE
EAE AEE AII IAI
AII EIO OAO EIO
EIO AOO EIO)

>The Syllogistic Arguments:
>1. AEE
>A All physical things are particulars
>E No universals are particulars
>E No universals are physical things

>2. Conversion of Conclusion: No physical things are universals

>3. EIO
>E No physical things are universals
>I Some concepts are universals
>O Some concepts are not physical things

>4. OAO
>O Some concepts are not physical things
>A All concepts are in the mind
>O Some (things) “in the mind” are not physical things

>5. Translated Conclusion: Some things in the mind are not physical

>6. OAO
>O Some things in the mind are not physical things
>A All things in the mind are part of the mind
>O Some part of the mind is not physical

>7. Translated Conclusion (Obversion): Some part of the mind is immaterial (where immaterial means the negation of what is material/physical)

>8. Materialism/Physicalism Thesis: E No part of the mind is immaterial

>9. Modern Square of Opposition: the contradiction of E (No S are P) propositions is an I proposition (Some S are P)

>10. Therefore, the I proposition (Some part of the mind is immaterial) refutes materialism/physicalism by way of counter-example.
>Q.E.D.

>>14945412
explain to me the material basis of qualia. where does the color red reside and why?

>>14945292
>>14945359
>>14945412
>One of the deep prejudices that the age of mechanism instilled in our culture, and that infects our religious and materialist fundamentalisms alike, is a version of the so-called genetic fallacy: to wit, the mistake of thinking that to have described a thing’s material history or physical origins is to have explained that thing exhaustively. We tend to presume that if one can discover the temporally prior physical causes of some object—the world, an organism, a behavior, a religion, a mental event, an experience, or anything else—one has thereby eliminated all other possible causal explanations of that object. But this is a principle that is true only if materialism is true, and materialism is true only if this principle is true, and logical circles should not set the rules for our thinking.

>>14945595
What do you mean your brain just interprets red as electric signals that it translate into a state of being in your brain. Abstract thoughts are made by peolple.

>>14945292
Materialism is retarded and result of Maya illusion
One must undergo a deep self inquiry and meditation to experience profound life altering truths that easily shatter materialism you can only know the truth as an intuitive sense an essence at core of your being , mental concepts mean nothing.
Materialists are at spiritual baby stages

>>14945742
>>>/x/

>>14945754
No lit is where the big boi metaphysics and religion is discussed.

>>14945720
Herein lies the true problem of materialism:
A set of abstract notions does not create a subjective experience.
If I wrote down on a piece of paper a complete description of the material of my mind, a subjective mind would not emerge from it. Now, taking this a step further, due to the fractal nature of physic (space and time seem to be infinitely division, see Zeno) a truly exhaustive description of any object at all would be infinite. In order for something to have our subjective experience, it must inherit its objective reality from something which could be called "reality itself", that is, it must be created within the fractal-like pre-existing realm. Another reason why the abstract description will not produce subjectivity is that the nature of subjectivity is tautology. Experience exists because it inherits its being from a tautological principle of "I am". This principle simply is because it is, and can only truly be defined by itself, and is thus purely unqualified (Its only "quality" being that it "is"), and is thus purely simple, and thus purely complete in its form, and thus is perfect. This principle, which is perfectly complete and which everything inherits its reality from, is omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient (in that nothing escapes its grasp), and is of course God.

So essentially, materialism does not cover the existence of material itself, even thought this existence of something is made true by the fact of subjective experience. Materialism simply gives an outer notion of things, like an abstract description on a piece of paper. It does not account for the fact that things *are*, e.i. they have an interior existence to them which is not synonymous to an exterior viewing of the thing.