/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.16380963]

Fun fact - metaphysics as a whole is wrong because nothing metaphysical exists, because if something is NON physical, it does NOT exist! Simple :)

[Anonymous No.16380970]

>>16380963
Do ideas not exist?
Does math not exist?
Language?
Memories?
Emotions?

[Anonymous No.16380980]

>>16380963
Language, though..
Man's a symbolic animal, anon.

[Anonymous No.16380982]

>>16380970
Yup, none of this exists. It’s just an illusion.

Math? Same as laws of physics, math as a whole is just a model, not the cause.

Memories? Just old neural pathways, old spatial configurations of neurons.

[Anonymous No.16380983]

>>16380963
Don't fuck the rabbit. I mean, DontTrustTheRabbit

[Anonymous No.16380985]

Fun fact: that's a metaphysical claim, OP

[Anonymous No.16380987]

>>16380970
Yup, none of this exists. It’s just an illusion.

Math? Same as laws of physics, math as a whole is just a model, not the cause.

Memories? Just old neural pathways, old spatial configurations of impulses.

[Anonymous No.16380998]

>>16380982
The corollary is of course (we) don't exist, which of course is true.
That God doesn't 'exist' changes nothing: He doesn't have to exist: He's God.

[Anonymous No.16381005]

>>16380998
>He doesn't have to exist: He's God.
Iq 300

[Anonymous No.16381008]

>>16380987
I saw what you did!
Pretty fucking clever, anon (:

[Anonymous No.16381016]

>>16380963
Ideas don't actually exist. Thanks anon, good to know.
Fukken retard coming on here hasn't even fucking read plato dumb fuck shit acting like hes got hot takes on philosophy that's over two thousand years old like "oh thanks anon everyone was just sitting here spinning out wheels waiting for you but you've come along and solved it with a 23 word shitpost no emoticons don't count as words" and then keep pretending like you weren't just pretending to be retarded in the thread just keep on with your inanity until someone gets really mad and then you go "haha fooled you, I don't actually believe in any position at all" and we can all go back to the board knowing it is slightly worse for your presence pretending anything you have to say is valuable to a conversation more intelligent people have spent millennia having while you're an underachieving 20-something with a high opinion of his intellect wasting everyone else's time on the literature corner of an image board created for weebs who couldn't be bothered learning Japanese well enough to blend in on 2chan in the early 2000s

[Anonymous No.16381017]

>>16380970
>>16380980

All of those are physical. They exist as the air vibrating when you speak, as ink on paper when you write, and as electrons and neurotransmitters forming pretty images in your "mind" when you think.

Calling them "metaphysical" is just a lazy excuse for not accepting everything is physical.

t. hard physicalist

[Anonymous No.16381023]

Physical is about 10% of the Real tops.
Source: various peak experiences

[Anonymous No.16381031]

>>16381017
>lazy excuse
Of course language 'exists' both written and spoken: if it didn't there could be no (not that it 'is') metaphysics.

[Anonymous No.16381042]

>>16381017
That's your theory, now show us the proof.
You don't seriously call yourself a physicalist without empirical evidence do you anon?

[Anonymous No.16381051]

>>16381017
well you're wrong. actually nothing is physical at all. physicality is literally a concept you heard about at some point and then just overtime accepted as a universal law.

[Anonymous No.16381053]

>>16381042
I have amassed a large set of data that shows "concepts" have never come out of things that don't have brains. I believe I found an interesting statistical correlation that "concepts" (such as metaphysics, numbers, language, etc) only exist as data stored in these little brain devices.

Allow me to clarify this to you with a thought experiment.
>You are a musician.
>You compose a song and record it onto a physical medium, like a CD.
>Mankind is destroyed on the next day, with every single person dying, but the CD somehow survives.
>No other intelligent lifeform or civilization ever evolves in the history of the universe ever again to create a device that could decode your CD into sounds.

In that scenario, does your music exist as a physical object or not? (bro-tip: yes it does, as it is recorded in the CD, even if in a form human ears can't directly interpret without a decoding device).

Your brain is a highly elaborate CD and CD-player that can hold and decode all kinds of cool electric signals, which you are choosing to believe exist in some "beyond physical" reality.

[Anonymous No.16381061]

>>16381051
I can't even say "show me something non-physical" for obvious reasons, which just comes to show how circular that argument is.
Give me a good reason to believe anything non physical exists, and how we as physical beings could ever say that it does.

[Anonymous No.16381066]

>>16381053
I love you, anon. If for no other reason then I have for once considered myself alive in a Universe full of such nonrealizable potentialities! Somehow, and though I'll never know them, this makes me feel a little more at home. Thanks!

[Anonymous No.16381073]

>>16380963
>Hempel's Dilemma
Show me something physical bitch.

[Anonymous No.16381103]

>>16381061
I'm trying to say that physical and nonphysical is a false dichotomy. Consistency + consensus = physical. Consistency requires someone being there to ensure that it indeed stays consistent and consensus is entirely of the mind. We can agree on what goes in the textbook because of our common goal of writing one but there's no telling what other conscious beings actually believe is primary reality.

[Anonymous No.16381127]

>>16381103
But your own argument can be metaphysicalized (as it were)
>>16381066
the reverse of a reductio

[Anonymous No.16381140]

>>16381073
>Metaphysics is whatever physics can't explain.
>If humans don't have a perfect understanding of physics that means there must be things that are non physical.
Wow son, some really good shit there. Not sure why they don't call "Hempel's Dilemma" the "God of the Gaps Cope".

If you have something you believe cannot be ever explained by physics, it would be only natural that you produce such a thing. Hempel's Dilemma doesn't claim physical objects don't exist, it just claims we don't have perfect Physics yet, so there's sure to be things physics can't explain, and so they might be non-physical.
Though most of these objections eventually fall down on the realm of mind/qualia/consciousness, which I don't immediately see as non-physical (see the CD example).

[Anonymous No.16381152]

>>16381016
You’re seething, but that doesn’t change the fact that you’re just a bunch of chemicals organized into a complex structure that cannot fathom its own mortality or simplicity. You’re a huge walking cope. Plato didn’t know about atoms (real atoms, not the concept of Democritus), electrons, neurons.

[Anonymous No.16381155]

>>16381042
>That's your theory, now show us the proof.
The proof for air vibrations when speaking is pretty easy to deliver. Same with all the rest of the physical stuff

As for metaphysicality - the burden of proof lies on you bud :)

[Anonymous No.16381170]

One must also love how people axiomatically define the mind as non-physical and then proceed to ask for proof that it is physical from physicalists, when no single "mind" has ever been observed outside of very tangible real physical objects called brains.

[Anonymous No.16381174]

>>16381170
It’s like believers in god who say
>what’s your proof that there’s no god? Ha! Gotcha!

[Anonymous No.16381175]

>>16381152
Anon you can't even prove that you exist physically, this thread started in pure sophistry and will never go anywhere, just people pointlessly wasting bytes on a server in god knows where.

[Anonymous No.16381183]

>>16380985
/thread

[Anonymous No.16381185]

>>16381152
This is just a tautology ultimately, anon. No different than Ebenezer Scrooge's 'you're just a bit of undigested beef!' if with a more sophisticated vocabulary, I suppose. In other words sure, that's true, but you don't believe it: no one does.

[Anonymous No.16381195]

>>16381175
If anything that constitutes me follows any of the laws of what we call physics, I can say that I exist physically.
Oh shit look at that. My body is experiencing a gravitational pull from the earth exactly in the amount predicted by physical laws. I seem to be a part of this body. I am starting to believe I exist as a physical object. Can you give me a quick walk-through on how to debunk this stupid belief of mine?

[Anonymous No.16381205]

>>16381185
>Nobody believes they are a bunch of atoms.
That's where you're wrong, kiddo. Unless you actually mean they don't "believe" it because belief doesn't apply to the presence of evidence. If you want some evidence your body is composed of atoms and that "you" seem to be reliant on this body to exist we can talk about that.

[Anonymous No.16381211]

>>16380963
>>16380983
Sauce for this semen demon?

[Anonymous No.16381219]

Physical laws are inherently metaphysical properties which manifests in our senses phenomenally

[Anonymous No.16381233]

>>16381219

Physical laws are strings of words that exist in multiple forms in the physical world:
- Written in textbooks as ink in paper.
- Digital media, pixels on screens, strings of binary numbers being decoded.
- Stimuli in brains of animals of the human species who know what these laws are.
- Etc

None of those requires anything but the physical world to exist. I'm not saying you can't call things metaphysical. You just can't claim metaphysical concepts exist outside of the physical world without first refuting what I'm saying.

[Anonymous No.16381243]

>>16381219
t. non physicist

Physical laws are just human made models made to describe physical phenomena that occur around us, that follow some pattern.

[Anonymous No.16381255]

>>16381140
>Hempel's Dilemma doesn't claim physical objects don't exist, it just claims we don't have perfect Physics yet, so there's sure to be things physics can't explain, and so they might be non-physical.
Hempel's dilemma undermines physicalism because any attempt to define what is physical with reference to current physics ultimately fails because current physics will eventually be superseded. It's not that there are things that physics can't explain, it's that the current physics explanations are bound to be overturned by future physics explanations.

[Anonymous No.16381264]

>>16381255

Future physics must be able to explain current physics as well, so whatever objects are held as physical by current physics will also be held as physical objects by future physics, even if the understanding of these change. If that's the dilemma, then I just solved it.
I always thought the problem arises because, lacking "perfect Physics", we couldn't claim things like "mind is physical" because so far we can't explain certain things about the mind or something.

[Anonymous No.16381280]

>>16381264
No, the dilemma also points out that appealing to a complete "perfect physics" to define what is physical is vacuous since we cannot really know what that would be like.

>Future physics must be able to explain current physics as well, so whatever objects are held as physical by current physics will also be held as physical objects by future physics, even if the understanding of these change.
No idea what you mean there to be honest. The understanding of what is physical itself changes with every scientific paradigm.

[Anonymous No.16381296]

>>16381280
>we cannot really know what that would be like.
I agree we can't, because that's the basis of how science works. But there will never be any "Future Physics" that can't explain our current Physics.
>The understanding of what is physical itself changes with every scientific paradigm.
Can you give a concrete example of this so I can explain myself better?

[Anonymous No.16381316]

>>16380963

Abstract objects exist, otherwise logic and causality would have no basis you stupid faggot

[Anonymous No.16381344]

>>16380963
What about time OP?

[Anonymous No.16381345]

>>16381053
why does matter gain all these extra abilities when arranged in the format of a brain

[Anonymous No.16381356]

>>16381345
We don't know this 100% yet, but we know matter can often gain new abilities when it grows more complex. (As in you could literally just have a bunch of carbon atoms attached to each other, but depending on how you attack them they get massively different properties).

[Anonymous No.16381398]

>>16381356
these are all properties with a well defined relationship to physical structure. not comparable to consciousness or qualia in my opinion

[Anonymous No.16381399]

>>16381205
You don’t exist if you are just a cluster of atoms among a larger universe of more atoms. What’s the difference between the atoms that consist you, and the atoms that consist everything else? There is no difference, besides the arbitrary boundary you have employed on your own definition of your self. But then it follows that you must be conscious before you even define your own individual existence as a specific arrangement of atoms. This a kind of logical paradox is reached, because you and me are not just simply atoms among a universe that consists only of atoms and space between them, that would be absurd. Consciousness is a priori to existence itself and is irreducible to physical matter.

[Anonymous No.16381407]

>>16380963
So you and I don't exist then, since self is not physical, time doesn't exist nor do events

[Anonymous No.16381416]

>>16381211
My post was a reference to the sauce. Literally she runs a Youtube channel called
>DontTrustTheRabbit

[Anonymous No.16381420]

>>16381407
>time doesn't exist
Time not only exists but it can do all kinds of things like stretch and whatnot according to very well defined laws that have been empirically confirmed. If you mean your mental concept of "time", then I'd argue it exists in much the same way your mind does, as part of your physical brain.
>>16381398
>Look carbon can form diamonds under certain conditions, and it looks all shiny and shit.
>I wonder if that has to do with how the carbon atoms are bonding in this particular instance.
>Nah, of course not, it must be something else completely outside the realm of physics and not related to the carbon atoms.
Would it be realistic to make such an assumption? Why is it realistic to make it with the mind, other than "it totally doesn't feel physical tho"?

[Anonymous No.16381428]

>>16381399
When atoms cluster in different ways, different properties arise. Why can't "I" be one such property? Just because it "feels" different?

[Anonymous No.16381444]

>>16381420
because there is a fundamental difference between the two. the properties of carbon are physical structures that we know about by observing them in an intersubjectively verifiable manner. the experiences of consciousness and qualia are things we know about because they are the ways we approach the world (and they underlie the observations we make about carbon). how could experience be reduced to a physical structure when it is already the prerequisite for any observations about the physical world?

[Anonymous No.16381456]

>>16381420
Moving the goal post i see, are you claiming time is physical?

[Anonymous No.16381472]

>>16381444
But don't you need a physical body to experience things? Has a mind ever been observed outside of a physical body? Why should we believe that to be a possibility? The fact that experiences can be subjective (hard or impossible to meaningfully measure) does not mean they are not physical. That's what I was trying to say with that CD example.
Assume you had a CD but no CD-player, and could never build one by yourself. That doesn't mean the music isn't recorded in the CD, or doesn't exist anymore. Just that you don't have an appropriate machine to experience it in a way that is understandable to your senses. The CD and the song within it are still very physical, however.

Even if there is something in my brain that you could never experience, or build a machine to help you visualize, that doesn't suddenly make it so that it's not physical.

[Anonymous No.16381477]

>>16381456
I'm claiming time is physical, yes. See general/special relativity. There is a very real, objective, tangible thing called time which behaves in measurable ways.
But if we are talking about a personal conception of "time", like a river that flows or whatever other poetic idea someone has, that only exists in their mind, as I've been claiming above.

[Anonymous No.16381483]

>>16381472
I'm arguing that external observations can only be made of physical things (under the prior condition of consciousness), and your response is 'has a mind ever been observed outside of a physical body?' -- firstly, a mind has NEVER been observed either inside or outside of a body. secondly, why should I believe that consciousness being solely material is a possibility when there is no evidence for it? the physical properties of a piece of music consist of vibrations in the air (or etchings on a disk that correspond to those vibrations), but we experience music as qualia -- our experience of those vibrations is a completely different thing to the data on the CD. To equivocate the two is ridiculous.

[Anonymous No.16381499]

>>16381477
Your posts read like geocentric polemics from the fourteenth century
Read history and stop being a retard

[Anonymous No.16381509]

Almost all metaphysics in the modern day is physicalist?

[Anonymous No.16381513]

>>16381499
If you are denying time is a physical object you simply are wrong. There isn't much more to it.
>>16381483
It's just a matter of following through with things. The grooves in an album, when properly decoded, become vibrations in the air. Those vibrations, when properly decoded, become electrical signals in your auditory nerves. Those electric signals, when properly decoded, become what your body (or the part of your body you are choosing to call your mind) experiences.

I'm not sure why this last step has to be so problematic that we must invent a whole new category for it that is outside of the realm of everything else we can measure about reality.

[Anonymous No.16381519]

>>16381513
because the distinction is not between 'decoding electric signals in your mind' and 'turning data into vibrations', it is between observing and being

[Anonymous No.16381527]

>>16381513
>If you're denying the earth is the unmoving, center of the universe, you're wrong. Motion makes no otherwise
This is what you sound like

[Anonymous No.16381535]

>>16381527
>The earth is flat because it feels flat to me from my perspective.
This is what you sound like.
If time is not a physical object, why does the theory of relativity correctly predict time stretching in different frames of reference at different speeds? Why does 1 second at a certain frame last 10 seconds in a different one? What is this "thing" being stretched, if not time? The only conceivable answer I can see you giving me is some cope like "well that's not what I call time". Which falls back on my argument.

[Anonymous No.16381537]

>>16381499
You have no idea what you're talking about. Go read a book. Time is a human abstraction, there is no cosmic watch ticking away in the background. Ironically, it is you that is defending archaic barely-thought-out ideas.
>b-but spacetime...
Spacetime is something fundamentally different from "God has a big watch".

>>16381509
There's no reason you can't think up alternative metaphysics that don't describe reality, but the absolutely fantastic advances of science have made "describing the world we live in" something that everyone wants to do. It's pretty clear we live in some kind of pluralistic or monistic world. "Physicalism" is good at describing that world. The hypophenominalism that most dualists suggest is simply not how reality works.

>>16381483
You should look into Yogacara. This touches on the problem with minds. You do run into a problem of describing reality while being human if you assume that you can abstract away the human. Some retard is going to misunderstand Yogacara as idealism, and no, that's not what it is, stop being a retard.

[Anonymous No.16381538]

>>16381428
Properties don't exist, they are characteristics of something that already exists. If you are just a property of the universe, you don't exist. But you know that you do exist (cogito ergo sum) as an independent identity objectively separate from the rest of the matter in the universe. Existing is NOT the same as being a property of something. A cluster of atoms may have a certain property, that does not mean that the property exists without an observer to label it as such.

[Anonymous No.16381546]

>>16381537
Answer this >>16381535.
I'm curious about your take.

[Anonymous No.16381552]

>>16381538
>Atoms had properties before humans existed.
>Properties cannot exist without humans to label them.
Pick one, and only one.

[Anonymous No.16381557]

>>16381535
>If the earth isn't the unmoving center of the universe, then explain why Aristotelian dynamics accurately explains motion and is in line with experiment

[Anonymous No.16381567]

>>16381557
You're deliberately trying to equate the best understanding we have of how time is experienced in different frames (again, with experimental measurements to corroborate it), with centuries old outdated discussions, when you are the one refusing to step up to modern times. It's cute, but it's still wrong. Tell me what is being stretched in my example, if it isn't time.

[Nemo !!GgBWHLRiayD No.16381573]

Everything physical has its source in the metaphysical.

[Anonymous No.16381582]

>>16381552
Properties do not exist physically, except in the same sense that mathematics exists, which by your system of physicalism exists only in the neuron pathways of minds, as the air vibrating when you describe the properties, and as the ink on paper when you write them down. My position of non-physicalism does not entail a contradiction, as you seem to be suggesting, because the notion that
>Properties cannot exist without humans to label them
is a corollary of a physicalist worldview.

[Anonymous No.16381584]

>>16380963
That's not what metaphysics is though. "Metaphysics" is just your overrarching view of existence as such, it doesn't mean "non-material" and one can have full materialistic metaphysics such as you seem to have.

[Anonymous No.16381594]

>>16381567
>again, with experimental measurements to corroborate it
As did Galileo's opponents, which is why he was unpopular in his times, his arguements didn't actually make any sense when considering the experiments and data available, they just happened to be more correct than the Aristotelian for factors completely unknowable to them at the time

[Anonymous No.16381597]

Reminder that thoughts exist and they are separate things from the electrochemical reactions that give cause to them.

[Anonymous No.16381602]

>>16381017
Are you actually retarded?

[Anonymous No.16381606]

Physics? Metaphysics? Pussy shit. We out here doing metametaphysics and metametametaphysics. Ayy gang gang.

[Anonymous No.16381621]

>>16380963
define physical

>>16380985
fopbp

[Anonymous No.16381647]

>>16381546
It's spacetime, not time. I think this is a problem of definitions. "Time" should refer to "some kind of cosmic substance independent of space that ticks away, as if God had a big watch". It is thus possible to hold God's Watch still, and then move through space without moving through time. It's also possible to just crank God's Watch forward, moving time without moving through space. Spacetime, however, is a unification of space and time in such a manner that you cannot move through space without moving through time, or through time without moving through space (how much of which you move through is a peculiarity that's really irrelevant, this is all qualitative anyways). Time is a purely human creation to describe phenomena around us, and there is no Watch of God. It doesn't exist, it's just an arbitrary measure of change. Spacetime, however, is, for simplicity "where" everything takes place, and as such it is very much real, and exists totally independent of humans (ignoring that all theories and concepts made by humans are, of course, manmade).

So yeah, we can call spacetime a "physical object", but I feel that this in colloquial speech this is overly reductionist. Under some kind of monistic formula, we certainly could call spacetime "physical", and I wouldn't disagree, but this whole discussion is far too colloquial for that kind of autism. But then, there's a growing population of NPCs on 4chan who have weird hangups about monism and pluralism. I'm not sure why this is, I've been here for a decade (kill me) and it wasn't always like this. I could cite a Spenglerian "Decay" sort of thing, where as Western Civilization ages people return to the crude dualism of Plato in an attempt to hold onto whatever they have left, but that's pretty fucking poetic for /lit/.

[Anonymous No.16381659]

>>16380963
I reject being able to murder you and then try to subjectivity my way out of it, fuck off materialist.

[Anonymous No.16381664]

>>16381053
Bruh everything is just waves from visuals to sound. Therefore what we see and touch is just our brain translating vibrations to physical objects. Since the brain is falsifiable, not even the physical truly exists. Therefore everything is a metaphysical representation of the physical. From the language we use to describe them, to our perception.

[Anonymous No.16381690]

>>16380963
Physical things dont exist as well, simple as

[Anonymous No.16381712]

>>16380987
>It’s just an illusion.
Do illusions not exist?
>math as a whole is just a model
Do models not exist?
>Just old neural pathways
Do neural pathways not exist?

[Anonymous No.16381719]

>>16381712
If you go by his thought, the only thing that REALLY exists is the smallest possible indivisible particle (atoms or otherwise). Everything else is just a cluster of those particles and exists (in itself) only as an abstraction of that cluster.

[Anonymous No.16381721]

>>16381017
This. Metaphysics was a judgement based on a lack of information in the past. Everything exists physically only, and everything called metaphysics can be traced back to a misunderstanding of the physical.

[Anonymous No.16381745]

>>16380963
The qualitative experiences of qualia are not physical.
One can say "this wavelength of light vibrating at such a frequency is some color" but that does not and can not be used to bridge the gap of explaning how a color actually looks like and why it feels a certain way to look at that color, or any other qualitative experience.
From here, physicalists may say that qualia does not exist. But then they are denying the very scientific foundation that they base their philosophy on, because the very possibility of empiricism and science are predicated on the existence of qualia and human's ability to take in sensory experiences, qualitatively experience them, and come up with mental frameworks based on these experiences, all of which can not be reduced to physical phenomenon.

[Anonymous No.16381761]

>>16381745
Why would "qualia" not be physical when we can very clearly shape it using psychoactive drugs?

[Anonymous No.16381913]

>>16380963
>t.

[Anonymous No.16381944]

>>16381017
They are not. The physical aspects are the media.
The meaning is entirely non-existent.
And yet we all know you are braindead moron, just from something entirely non-existent spawned from your non-existent "mind"

[Anonymous No.16381951]

>>16381944
>The meaning is entirely non-existent.
Meaning is constantly and instantaneously created by physical bodies in interaction with their environment. It is never non-existent.

[Anonymous No.16381974]

>>16380963
This is so cringe and stupid. Ideas which doesn’t exist propel you to act so they are very quite literally able to effect the physical world and therefore must exist

[Anonymous No.16381985]

>>16381951
sorry still not physical therefore non existent

[Anonymous No.16381992]

>>16381985
It is NEVER non-existent. Even meaninglessness is a meaning a body has created for itself and projected onto its environment. Life can't escape this process.

[Anonymous No.16381999]

>>16380963
Want to know how I know you haven't read a word of Aristotle?

[Anonymous No.16382004]

>>16381761
The experience of qualia can not be physical as explained. You can write "giving this drug causes such and such change in mindset" but that does not close the explanatory gap of how we understand what a mindset feels like, or what that particular mindset feels like.
Saying "this neuron bleeps when a red light is shined into the eye" does NOT EXPLAIN what it feels like to experience the color red. You can even take the entire pattern of the neurons firing in the brain, and you will still not EVER explain what the subjective experience of seeing the color red is, nor can you use this entire mapping of the firings of the neurons in the brain to explain to someone who has never seen red, what red looks like. Saying red is "light vibrating at 430 hertz" is not a description of what it is to see the color red and never will be.
This is not physically reducible and never will be. It also empirically and objectively does exist. This falsifies strict physicalism.

[Anonymous No.16382006]

>>16380963
Pretty much. Metaphysics are beyond physical reality, metaphysicians must explain how do they know things that are beyond physical reality, how is it possible to describe it and talk about it, and how do they reach any valid conclusion.

[Anonymous No.16382007]

why all this fuss, all you need to say is that the metaphysical needs to interact with the physical to influence it in any way, but then it would be just physics

[Anonymous No.16382014]

>>16381974
Read the fucking thread this was already explained nigger

[Anonymous No.16382015]

>>16381477
>If you can measure it then it's physical
One of the dumbest arguments i have ever come across

[Anonymous No.16382025]

>>16380963
If we’re all just clusters of atoms then you shouldn’t mind that I’m fucking your mom

[Anonymous No.16382028]

>>16382004
>You can write "giving this drug causes such and such change in mindset" but that does not close the explanatory gap of how we understand what a mindset feels like, or what that particular mindset feels like.
Understanding takes place in the brain/body. Psychoactive drugs can change understanding. There's nothing implying that it takes place outside of the body.

[Anonymous No.16382049]

>>16382025
nice bait you loser

[Anonymous No.16382050]

>>16381017
https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/sorry-but-your-soul-just-died-1276509.html

[Anonymous No.16382061]

>No, God, I swear.......
>My admiration for the female form is purely metaphysical
>NO DON'T SEND ME TO HELL
>NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

[Anonymous No.16382084]

>>16382028
It's not physically reductionist.
Explain to someone using pure physics what it is like to see the color red, what the taste of coffee tastes like, and what LSD feels like when you're on it.
You can't, because they aren't physical. No matter how sophisticated your physical and mathematical understanding of the physical evolution of brain states is during these experiences, you can still NEVER cross that explanatory gap, because the experience is not physical.

[Anonymous No.16382104]

>>16380963
I wanna grasp her physical objects if you know what mean. With two hands. I'm talking, of course, about her breasts.

[Anonymous No.16382110]

>>16380963
sex sex sex
impregnaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaate

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

[Anonymous No.16382115]

>>16382084
>Explain to someone using pure physics what it is like to see the color red, what the taste of coffee tastes like, and what LSD feels like when you're on it. You can't, because they aren't physical.
This argument doesn't really make sense. Use of language and psychology to communicate meaning that is bound to personal mechanisms that exist deep in the brain/body doesn't mean there's a non-physical element in the equation. The existence of psychoactive drugs, which can alter this meaning, also makes such an element highly improbable.

[Anonymous No.16382132]

>>16382004
>Saying "this neuron bleeps when a red light is shined into the eye" does NOT EXPLAIN what it feels like to experience the color red.
Because not only that neuron "bleeps" some other neurons "bleep" too that's why you feel whatever you feel
>You can even take the entire pattern of the neurons firing in the brain, and you will still not EVER explain what the subjective experience of seeing the color red is
Because another entire pattern of neurons is being fired making you think or feel whatever you think or feel when you see the color red
>nor can you use this entire mapping of the firings of the neurons in the brain to explain to someone who has never seen red, what red looks like
Such person just needs to have the part of his brain that understands sensorial experiences he just hasn't seen the color
>Saying red is "light vibrating at 430 hertz" is not a description of what it is to see the color red and never will be.
Let's say "light vibrating at 430 hertz" is the way physicians describe color phenomena, this is wrong because you said it I guess

[Anonymous No.16382135]

>>16382115
>This argument doesn't really make sense.
Yes it does. If you can't physically reduce the qualitative experience of sensation, then you can't argue for strict physicalism.
>Use of language and psychology to communicate meaning that is bound to personal mechanisms that exist deep in the brain/body doesn't mean there's a non-physical element in the equation.
This isn't about language, it's about physical reductionist. There is no physical reductionism, this has nothing to do with human language.
>The existence of psychoactive drugs, which can alter this meaning, also makes such an element highly improbable.
No it doesn't, this has no bearing on what I'm saying. Manipulating mindsets with drugs does not close the explanatory gap of qualia.
You can try to say qualia doesn't exist, but in that case you can't argue against me peeling your skin off with a potato peeler and spraying acid into your eyes.

[Anonymous No.16382141]

>>16380963
not /lit/
>>>/his/

[Anonymous No.16382162]

>>16382132
>Because not only that neuron "bleeps" some other neurons "bleep" too that's why you feel whatever you feel
This is not an explanation
>Because another entire pattern of neurons is being fired making you think or feel whatever you think or feel when you see the color red
This is not an explanation
>Such person just needs to have the part of his brain that understands sensorial experiences he just hasn't seen the color
Exactly, you must directly experience a qualia in order to understand the qualia, There is no physical reduction that you can use to explain it.
>Let's say "light vibrating at 430 hertz" is the way physicians describe color phenomena, this is wrong because you said it I guess
No, because saying "red light is light vibrating at 430 hertz" is not an explanation or description of what it is like to actually see and experience the color red, and never will be. In fact it's the OPPOSITE - the reason we named light vibrate at 430 hertz "red light" is because we FIRST have the qualitative experience of the qualia of that frequency and THEN categorized the physical phenomenon based on our subjective qualia. Because as I said before, the entire philosophy of empiricism and science is predicated on the existence of qualia and its use for categorizing experiences.
Why red light looks the way it does, why any color looks the way it does, is not physically reducible. An entire mapping of the electrons in the brain will not show you where this experience of the color red is, there won't be a little red color symbol somewhere in the brain and you can never extract from the firing of neurons any specific experience for the subject.
Explain what it FEELS LIKE to experience the color red. "light at 430 hertz" is not an explanation, it is a description of the qualia that is already experienced. "I will shine red light into your eyes" is not an explanation and is in fact a confession that you can not physically reduce the experience of light to a physical explanation.

[Anonymous No.16382169]

>>16382135
>If you can't physically reduce the qualitative experience of sensation, then you can't argue for strict physicalism.
I did do this though. That's what the psychoactive drugs imply — that "qualia" is entirely a neurochemical process, subject to and created by the whim of the brain's physical state.

Same with dreams. They don't come from somewhere outside the brain/body. Memory is a process of imprinting certain patterns in the brain, and the brain draws from these during dreams.

[Anonymous No.16382197]

>>16380963
Dman just luk at thoose titties damn

[Anonymous No.16382258]

>>16381243
>that follow some pattern
almost as if there were fixed laws guiding these huh

[Anonymous No.16382335]

>>16382197
literally the only thing interesting in this thread. Though it was a lit channel but its just her explaining german shit.

[Anonymous No.16382338]

>>16380987
>Tries to argue against metaphysics
>Uses metaphysics
Metaphysics isn't strictly about what exists, but, how, why, and in which form. It's trying to explain what the ultimate nature of reality is. Saying everything that exists is physical is a metaphysical statement :p

[Anonymous No.16382366]

>>16380963
>t. brainlet who doesn't understand metaphysics.

[Anonymous No.16382468]

>>16380963
Any correct proposition must represent a state of affairs. If it does not represent a state of affairs, it is either false or meaningless. Therefore, morality is meaningless when viewed from one lens (i.e. thing x is bad), but when viewed through an emotive lens, it can represent a practical state of affairs that we can deal with i.e. thing x makes me feel bad. We could respond to this by pondering the nature of thing x and removing it, or telling the party to shut their bitch nigger mouth and move on.

[Anonymous No.16382489]

>>16382468
Therefore, we should not ponder such things as: is there God? and What is True? for these things rest in a nestled state where they can neither be proven nor disproven. Instead, we should ponder their usefulness to reach some end (which could be literally anything you want). The two fundamental truths of the universe are this:
A = A
A does not equal "Not A"

[Anonymous No.16382500]

>>16382489
From these two maxims, all other universal laws can be derived.

In supra dicta sunt rectam.

[Anonymous No.16382638]

>>16380963
The thread is over guys. OP and the other hardcore physicalists in this thread got btfo here >>16381582 and here >>16382162
Crude materialism is not and never will be a viable and sensible philosophical position. One has to wonder why you have people so vehemently defending such a nihilistic worldview. Why would anyone want to believe that all the universe is is one giant collection of atoms vibrating at varying frequencies and clustering at various densities? It’s so ridiculous to see people passionately defending the absolute absurdity and meaninglessness of their own existence, or even their own non-existence (you are just a cluster of atoms among atoms) even when there are such good reasons to believe otherwise.

[Anonymous No.16382806]

>>16382638
I believe there is a median between the two positions. Obviously elements of both opinion are useful.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » mxvabIoSIE No.16382853]

stop posting in this thread. physicalists are just uber-fedoras, they aren't worth debating, they aren't worth addressing. they are cretinous brainlet subhumans. ignore all physicalist posts.

[Anonymous No.16382863]

>>16382638
I'm the second anon but I don't have the time to argue with someone who responds "This is not an explanation" without giving any justification right now, probably I'm going to repond tonight if this thread is still alive. No disrespect to that Anon though he seems legit.

[Anonymous No.16382899]

>>16381017
Ok so I can just kill you then and that wouldn't be "wrong" because morality does not exist.

Remember anons: the easiest way to refute a moral nihilist is to kill them

[Anonymous No.16383011]

>>16382899
Morality exists as both a survival and domination mechanism in the body that produces it. It doesn't stop existing because everything is physical.

[Anonymous No.16383019]

>>16380963
Yeah okay retard, who's the laydeee?

[Anonymous No.16383054]

>>16380963
Define metaphysics

[Anonymous No.16383057]

>>16382899
Killing is "wrong" because life tends to seek self preservation. You can't use "right" or "wrong" when talking about the nature of reality because these concepts are made by humans thus they only apply to the interaction they have with the environment surrounding them through space and time.

[Anonymous No.16383092]

>>16383057
But if everything is mere material, then killing you would be no more wrong than breaking a window with a rock. In other words, you're a faggot

[Anonymous No.16383110]

>>16383092
>But if everything is mere material, then killing you would be no more wrong than breaking a window with a rock.
According to who?

[Anonymous No.16383117]

>>16383057
>Killing is "wrong" because life tends to seek self preservation.
Self preservation in humans tends to be to preserve yourself or your family or tribe, not other external groups and entities. Killing is right if other humans are a threat to you or to your group. Killing niggers, for instance, is not wrong.

[Anonymous No.16383119]

>>16382853
Personally I rather like the first of their number;
>>16381053
though not one myself it's actually been a pleasure listening to what they have to say, how they argue, etc.
I just don't feel threatened and some of what they say even...sweet?

[Anonymous No.16383125]

>>16383092
Even if that were somehow true, why would that change if there is something non-material?

[Anonymous No.16383135]

>>16383117
But what if the nigger is your nigga

[Anonymous No.16383147]

>>16383135
I meant enemy niggas, not your fellow niggas.

[Anonymous No.16383154]

>>16383147
Basado

[Anonymous No.16383382]

The ultimate and final answer as to what the truth is, is that it doesn't matter. All that matters is what others perceive, and how you use it to find berry to eat, and locate cave to stay out of the rain. Embrace the practicality pill anons.

[Anonymous No.16383394]

>>16383092
You are correct but because life tends to seek self preservation I'm going to btfo you first, and if you succeed wich you wouldn't let's be real some other living things (humans) are gonna try to neutralize you is a risk you have to take.

[Anonymous No.16383480]

>>16380963
Solid bait

[Anonymous No.16383714]

>>16380963
Our perception of color exists but you can’t root around someone’s skull and find red or blue or whatever else, burden of proof is on you to show that perception can be reduced to the physical

[Anonymous No.16383732]

>>16380963
GIMMIE GIMMIE GIMMIE NOA

[Anonymous No.16383762]

>>16383714
http://www.webexhibits.org/causesofcolor/1C.html

[Anonymous No.16383793]

>>16383762
You seem to have not read the thread before posting. Please refer to >>16382004
>>16382162

[Anonymous No.16383799]

MILK TRUCK JUST ARRIVED

[Anonymous No.16383802]

>>16383714
>you can’t root around someone’s skull and find red or blue or whatever else
No, but you can root around someone's eye and find what causes it.

[Anonymous No.16383823]

>>16381664
>everything is just waves
Waves are a physical object. Thank you for reinforcing my point.

[Anonymous No.16383846]

>>16383793
I'm sighing really hard right. Ok first of all tell me why these >>16382162 are not explanations like he is stating

[Anonymous No.16383856]

>>16381719
Finally you come to the right answer. Was that so hard, anon?

[Anonymous No.16383912]

>>16382084

Imagine two computers, A and B. Each of them has a different CPU, Memory, etc. You give them both the same input, namely a code in C that asks for them to calculate "2+2".

Despite having different hardware, they both come up with the solution "4". Note that at no time computer A had access to what was happening inside of computer B, and no matter what happened there, computer A would never have such access unless someone created a specific device or protocol to link both to share that information. Even if they did share this information, computer A could never execute the same hardware level code as computer B as they have different hardware. So we could say there is some "knowledge" either computer holds that is inaccessible to the other one.

I'm not sure how this means anything I said above is non-physical, however. You and me have different brains, different hardware. Signals are processed differently and might even lead to different outcomes (you could also come up with computer A/B examples like this where the hardware changes the outcome). I'm not sure how this means there is something non-physical about your outcome. Just because I can't visualize it without having the proper hardware, doesn't mean it's independent from the hardware and exists outside of it.

[Anonymous No.16383914]

>>16380985

[Anonymous No.16383956]

>>16383912
This response doesn't do this justice
>>16382084

The thing is, physical processes can never describe mental ones. This is because physical processes are by definition non-subjective. They do not precede subjectivity, quite the opposite, physicalism had to be discovered from the agreement and co-occurrence between subjective mental events.

We are now trying to rediscover subjectivity, but subjectivity had to be removed from the system in order to get where we are.

Any system which include physical and mental processes will have to start from the ground up.

[Anonymous No.16383978]

>>16383912
Math functions on fundamental laws which are shared by all things, 2+2 will always equal 4 by nature. On the other hand, the taste of coffee can be horrible to one person, and lovely to another. Qualia are not universal experiences, their variation between minds suggests non-physicality.

[Anonymous No.16383985]

>>16380985

[Anonymous No.16383996]

>>16383956
Your whole claim is basically "you can never build a device that I could use to link your brain and mine and allow me to see the outcome of a certain input the way you see it".

My claim is, even if that device cannot be build, that does not immediately imply whatever happens in your brain, inacessible to me, is non physical.

>This is because physical processes are by definition non-subjective
Conveniently defined like this by people who axiomatically define subjective processes can't be physical, or supervening on the physical.

[Anonymous No.16384022]

>>16383978
You could easily build a defective machine that outputs 3 when you write the "2+2" code. We know this result is wrong, but that's not the point. The point is even if the machines get different answers, and their calculations are entire inacessible to each other, it doesn't mean any part of it wasn't physical.
(Importantly, note that I'm holding a particularly hardcore physicalist position. Most physicalists are ok with saying certain things are non-physical (usually mental processes), but directly supervening on the physical, and thus would be entirely derived from physical things alone. I personally just don't find this extra step necessary).

[Anonymous No.16384023]

>>16383996
If physical processes are universal and objective, yet mental states differ between people, what would you suggest is the explanation?

[Anonymous No.16384035]

>>16381233
what gives words and this strings meaning and real reference.

[Anonymous No.16384040]

>>16384022
Yes, but variation in qualia is not symbolic of a defective physical process. Qualia are, by definition, varied and subjective.

[Anonymous No.16384045]

>>16384023
No two people have the same hardware running in their head. It's not reasonable for us to expect the same inputs to lead to the same outputs, since they pass through different hardware and software. For instance, someone without the "Chinese reading" software installed on their Brain might receive the visual input "我跟你讲" and not be able to process it. But after you install that language software in their head they suddenly become able to decode this visual stimulus.

[Anonymous No.16384049]

>>16383956
>This is because physical processes are by definition non-subjective
How can one anon be so wrong

[Anonymous No.16384053]

>>16383978
There is no "1" in nature aside from being as an interpretation.

>Qualia are not universal experiences, their variation between minds suggests non-physicality.
The qualia argument was already debunked earlier in the thread.

[Anonymous No.16384061]

>>16384040
You're focusing on details that are not directly relevant to the problem. Let me give you a different example then. Let's say you want to build a computer that outputs a gradient of multiple shades of red to a screen. Depending on what hardware you have available to you, what comes out on that screen is gonna vary a lot (how many tones of red you can represent, how well the screen can represent it, etc). The input might the same, but each screen might output something slightly different. Again, we didn't require any "non-physical" attribute to be present.
I'm not sure why we can't imagine "the experience of seeing the color red" as a combination of your brain's "hardware" and your mind's "screen" showing you a particular thing.

[Anonymous No.16384062]

>>16383823
According to you, they most likely shouldn't be. The only rigorous definition of a wave is 'a mathematical function that solves the wave equation' (plus Maxwell's equations if you're thinking of electromagnetic waves in Classical Electrodynamics). Which is to say, waves are mathematical models that physicists use to describe phenomena, and you've claimed right at the beginning of this thread that you don't believe Mathematics exist.

One might say 'Oh, but I see a piece of string, and I make it vibrate, so there's the wave, and it's physical'. But it's actually just a piece of string, vibrating. Waves are just how we conceptualize the vibration.

You shouldn't say that atoms exist, either, unless you're willing to claim that orbitals (and therefore the quantum wave function) are physical. And it only gets even more abstract and suicide-inducing when you get to the subatomic level.

[Anonymous No.16384065]

>>16384045
>No two people have the same hardware running in their head
The hardware is the brain. All brains work about the same. If you said software instead of hardware you would have made more sense, though its still a pretty flawed analogy.

[Anonymous No.16384074]

>>16384065
>All brains work about the same.
Wut. Where'd you get that idea from? I'm not sure we could say that even about perfect twins or clones. Also I did mention software a little further on my post.

[Anonymous No.16384081]

>>16384074
They all have the same parts which connect in the same ways and have the same functions.

[Anonymous No.16384083]

>>16384045
>>16384053
How would you both respond to Jackson’s knowledge argument?

[Anonymous No.16384098]

>>16384062
I'm not sure who you thought I was there, but I'm the guy that claims math and numbers do exist physically, as brain states and words written in papers and etc.
Whether we are talking about the physical realization of waves, or the rigorous mathematical definition, I believe both exist physically in different ways. (The string vibrating seems to be obvious to you, and the mathematical definition exists too in the way I mentioned above/throughout the thread).

[Anonymous No.16384116]

>>16384081
This is not true, anon. They have similar regions, but they don't all connect exactly in the same way, and within specific areas the neural pathways formed are highly individual between people. There is definitely some hardware differences.
>>16384083
With my computer/CD examples that show "something being readily understandable to human senses" is not a prerequisite for it to be physical.

[Anonymous No.16384137]

>>16381017
>concepts have physical existence
>metaphysics is a concept
>metaphysics exists
Checkmate atheists

[Anonymous No.16384159]

>>16383996
This is not a "convenient definition", it is how science has chosen to operate and view the world. What you are left with is a skeleton of mathematical-causal relationships, which is great, but it is by design drained of its subjective elements.

In any case, CToM is seriously flawed even for a physicalist theory of consciousness. How, for example, do you believe the boundaries of the computer are defined? A sufficiently chaotic system allows for more and more absurd mappings between states and symbols.

And let's not forget the most flagrant violation of physics yet: the idea of a physical state at all. Your brain has a definite volume, and therefore, it has no particular state, since any one point will give you a different reference frame and different physical configuration at a different point of time. Turing machines are abstract mathematical constructs, no physical process can actually be divided into discrete steps and discrete states.

[Anonymous No.16384166]

>>16380987
>Yup, none of this exists. It’s just an illusion.
Shut up Dennett

[Anonymous No.16384276]

>>16382366
I like how fags like you disappear in the void. This replies would work if the thread had 5 replies maybe, but this thread has like 150 replies now and your stupid substanceless bait just got lost in the void LMAO loser fucking loser

[Anonymous No.16384283]

>>16382638
>Why would anyone want to believe that all the universe is is one giant collection of atoms vibrating at varying frequencies and clustering at various densities?
It’s the logical and scientific thing to do.
>>16382853
Get rekt pseudo scientist. You’re a brainlet, and you like “philosophy” just because you were too dumb to pass math

[Anonymous No.16384360]

>>16384098
I was referring to this comment:
>>16380987
so I may have indeed mistaken you for another anon. From what you've just said I understand that you are >>16381017 and in that case I'm sorry.

I made my previous post because, while talking about qualia, colour red was described as 'light vibrating at 430 Hz', and I found it odd that hard physicalists would try to describe sensory experiences in terms of mathematical abstractions, which from their perspective should not be physical (besides as writing or thought)

[Anonymous No.16384378]

>>16380983
*cumfortherabbit

[Anonymous No.16384485]

>>16380963
This cringelord again.
Define physical

[Anonymous No.16384730]

Fuckwits with no respect for consciousness need to be treated like the threat to the human species they are.

[Anonymous No.16384769]

>>16383714
False. Were I to place a red piece of construction paper in front of someone's eyes, take an axe, and split open their head as they stare, I would end up seeing quite a lot of red.

[Anonymous No.16384787]

>>16383714
Burden of proof is on you to explain how the red wavelengths of visible light hit the retinal receptors, become electric signals, go into neural pathways and then suddenly are teletransported to the ethereal realm where they become some non-physical phenomenon.

[Anonymous No.16384955]

>>16384787
You're just an oblivious mental midget and dangerous dogmatist. There's no getting through to you because you've been poisoned at the cognitive level.

[Anonymous No.16385113]

>>16380963
Its unbelievable that in a world where the critique of pure reason has been written that people can have these mongoloid beliefs. Read a fucking book.

[Anonymous No.16385221]

>>16384955
I could say literally the same thing about you. You literally claimed there is something about perception that is immaterial. I'm asking you to explain where in that path the immaterial event supposedly occurs. You can't even do that. It's the defininition of asking someone to believe you just because you said so.

[Anonymous No.16385239]

Metaphysics does not literally propose an "immaterialism", it just concerns itself with the groundings and relationships of concerns which include the very question of immaterialism. Metaphysics is not something you can dismiss or abolish--it will always be there. Your choice is not no metaphysics or metaphysics, it is metaphysics that you consider and metaphysics left entirely unreflected on.

[Anonymous No.16385255]

>>16381017
Ground logic, viz. the three laws that follow:
A)The law of identity
B)The law of non-contradiction
C)The law of excluded middle
Find proof they are material (i.e exist as bumping balls in empty space) if you can not then these laws don't exist and therefore it follows that all that is material is also immaterial and doesn't exist and then you can just shoot yourself in the head because you are stupid

[Anonymous No.16385325]

>>16385221
Neural correlates of consciousness have been proposed to be in thalamocortical oscillations but its an open question. It's not that there's a special extra realm of magic, it's that physicalism simply seems to fall apart at this boundary and we don't know how to fix it. You're the dangerous one because you propose we go in blind fucking around with it without due consideration of the potential consequences which touch on absolutely everything of importance to human beings, morality, everything. All just to protect your autismal atheistic worldview. It's sickening, really.

[Anonymous No.16385383]

Before wasting time with this retard, let him define "the physical"

[Anonymous No.16385397]

>>16383856
Why do you use words to designate non-existent things, then? Are you schizophrenic?

[Anonymous No.16385514]

>>16385325
> it's that physicalism simply seems to fall apart at this boundary and we don't know how to fix it
This boundary with what?
>Neural correlates
Correlates to what?

What is this thing and where does it exist and how does the brain communicate to it and why should I believe it exists in the first place? What drives me mad about people like you is that you think don't understand theoretical Physics might propose a particle that has never been measured yet, but this is done with a firm basis on everything that was previously known, and if the particle measured turns out to be different than expected, the model has to adapt.

Your concept of "mind" is like a theoretical particle derived from a non physical theory that is impossible to measure in the first place, and somehow you expect me to value this as much as measurable theories. The fact you have a bunch of brainlets in this fucking ecochamber of a board that will agree with you and say I got BTFO'd doesn't mean you're actually right about this.

[Anonymous No.16385545]

>>16385514
Read Galen Strawson's article on panpsychism.