Coincidentally I've been thinking about this a lot lately and there is a big thread about it. Everyone is on a different yet same journey, and things are changing and you feel it

no.

i still don't think you're talking about what we're talking about. or a few of us.. or whoever the fuk contributed to this convo lol

it's almost like we're in the discovery zone, and you're waiting for the discovery to happen so you can quantify it

it is quite particularly hard to articulate because it is that which is unknown; it is the very essence of what we're talking about that is undefined and impossible to measure; immaterial, emotive, possibly emergent, etc.

i understand what you're saying. you argument essentially boils down to because there's "something" then we have an ability to measure or quantify it.

i've seen you try to break it down to chemical and electric quantities but wave_length briefly touched on it; once again, we are not really talking about what you're talking about.

back in 1850 people did not know the universe was composed of elementary particles like electrons, neutrons and protons. yet... later it was discovered. and from there people didn't know there were other particles like in the quantum world such as quarks, leptons, bosons and gluons.

similarly, how could you ever know what you don't know? how do you know there's not a similar law the electrical/ chemical component but with some previously undiscovered component that better explains the universe? we are talking about this fabric but you're turning around and saying "well, once we discover it. we can quantify it". yes, we agree on that, but that's not what we're talking about

further, this is the very ethos of science is it not? you might have discernible reason to believe something but it doesn't make it fact. science is best described as what we know "now". never dismissing the possibility that we're wrong. a law is something that has undergone intensive testing and experimentation but nobody has disproven or found a better alternative.

it doesn't say that "this is the way things are"

i guess it's mainly involved with something as vast is the universe or nature of reality. we can construct things and limit their inputs and outputs and THEN we can know they have defined limits, but that's because we know we're living or working with confined and constrained limits.

You said you adhere to the materialistic view, I made a logical deduction that disproves what I think materialism is. You claimed that it's a strawman, meaning you have a different definition of materialism. I asked you what it is. Make a statement that defines materialism.

A physical thing processing inputs and outputs cannot be a person. You always already have a person in mind, that 'does' something. So there's the process and there's the entity doing the processing or at least experiencing it. There is no such entity in a computer. You can 100% replicate everything a computer is and 'does' by using a pen and paper. Where is the person in this scenario? Consciousness doesn't magically emerge from numbers being crunched.

I never used the term 'outside of reality'. The point is that you have stepped outside of the model of reality you claim to exclusively use.

Water is wet.

I don't see why a collection of atoms couldn't be a person. In fact, I know that's exactly what people are. You eat for a reason.

You said physical stuff is only one aspect of reality. I'm curious to know what else there is.

Materialistic view would be that our minds are made of physical things. I don't see why this is so controversial to people. It also isn't contradictory. It may seem close to empty, but since we come into existence and build models of reality, it actually makes a ton of sense to be a materialist. We have good reason to believe the apparent laws of physics apply to us the same they do to everything else.

There is no way you 'know' that a person is nothing but a collection of atoms. By using the term 'atom' you must adhere to the physical model of reality and the scientific method. The scientific method does not and cannot provide such knowledge. That's not an opinion, it's how the scientific method is defined.

Your statement that the mind is 'made' of physical things isn't the problem, it's when you think you can know that this property is all there is to it. If you claim that, the logical deduction holds.

What else there is beyond the physicality of things is everything. The reason why we can have this discussion is not that atoms react in a certain way, it is because we somehow attained consciousness. The very definition of the physical model you claim to be the exclusive method of wisdom is created by absolute preconditions like the human concepts of space, time, and matter.

The materialistic view isn't controversial to me at all, it's just logically false.

OFC I don't know that. I never said that. I said I think that. Science doesn't prove anything. We already know that. Why do you pretend it does? It just happens to be the best model we have of reality. What am I to believe in its stead? Unicorns fuk flying pig fairy goats and have gay sex and somehow that creates consciousness? I mean what really? What else is there?

I THINK this property is all there is to it, and I have yet to see ANY reason whatsoever why it would be otherwise. I have good reason to think this. EXCEPTIONALLY good reason to think this.

You're taking a logical approach to this and your argument is isomorphic to arguing science can't prove anything to be true. OK. Should we reject it then and believe fairy tales? NO. It's the BEST approximation we have.

I explained to you my thought process. I exist and experience the rest. I formulate (plagiarize from people smarter than me) a model which seems to be very consistent with reality. I proceed as if this model were true until given a reason to believe otherwise.

Can I say with absolute certainty that there is nothing "outside" the physical whatever the hell that means? No. Can I say I'm pretty damn fuking sure? Yeah. Because the model is really fuking good.

Youdidsay that:
Agreed.I never did.There is nothing that competes with science as long as we stay in the scientific realm. I agree that this was and still is a misconception e.g. of religious fundamentalists.
What else is there: Philosophy. Like this discussion, which is a philosophic discussion. It doesn't compete with science, it just has a different scope.My argument was not that science can't prove anything to be true, that's part of its definition and thus doesn't need any reinforcement.
And no, we shouldn't reject is at all, the scientific revolution is one of the greatest things that ever happened to humankind.
It is the best approximation within its realm, no doubt. But it obviously can't answer many fundamental questions, like e.g. explain its preconditions (space, time, matter, etc.).How can you ever derive a statement like 'I exist and experience the rest' from a scientific model of the world? With this statement alone you argue against materialism in the most fundamental way.

At what age do you start to gain control?I was in a similar situation to you. This thread has been very interesting indeed. I actually thought we had some modicum of free will until I came in here.

Atheism, by definition, is lack of a belief in a deity. How on earth are we supposed to take the rest of what you're saying seriously if you can't even get that part right? This is up there with one of the stupidest posts I've ever seen in my life.

It's not derived. I said repeatedly that the fact I exist is something I know to be true a priori. It's like the most fundamental axiom there is. Again, you seem to want to make me a positivist. I'm not. Maybe "know" was misused. Let's use 99.999% sure instead.

I'm 99.999% sure I'm a bunch of particles and so are you. I have good reason to believe it AND I have no reason to accept any other model.

Misc is against women whoring /degeneracy

A lot of you believe in one God
And believe in predestination yet u hate muslims ...... my mind is blown

You are muslims and don’t even know it yet

Muslim convert crew

we eat bacon

Pigs are really unhealthy bro
They eat there own children srs

A group of cannibals in Africa were once asked what do humans taste like

They all laughed and said like pig srs
Pigs were created by God for insulin not eating same way horses donkeys mules and camels are made for transport. Cows are made for milk food and to till soil.
Cats are made to kill plague and dogs we’re made to hunt and guard livestock and guard houses .

If You closely examine every animal and there speciality’s
I will realise through time that some way or another it was designed to help/benefit us humans srs

Shows the perfection of God almighty and how he cares for us

I will admit tho bacon smells and tastes amazing

That’s why I got my halal turkey rashers
Looks like bacon
Smells like bacon
Tastes like bacon
But it ain’t bacon son

Huehuehue

Join Date: Aug 2010
Age: 30
Posts: 29
Rep Power: 0

Strong lurk to post quality ratio.

Yes, who is this "I" being referenced? Not saying I know where consciousness arises from, or that I have a great grasp of the science in the field up to this point.

wincel you seem to believe that the self is the brain and the brain is the self. If that is true then why do we witness suffering in the expressions and actions of those who are brain damaged in some way? I've been around people who are in the grips of Alzheimer's. These people suffer and you can sense it if you have any kind of empathy. Even when speech is gone and life is fleeing there is apersonin there.

If the person is just the brain and the brain is just the person, if consciousness just arises as a construction from present inputs from our experience now, then where does this pain come from? If the brain is damaged then why doesn't the brain simply accept the present experience as normal and non-traumatic?One of my favorite podcasts if you haven't found it yet: