Name a physical object with the property "false."
If you can't then nothing is false, and nothing I say can possibly be false.
The words I type can be small. They can be black. They can be curved. They can not be false.
Physical objects aren't false. Collections of physical objects are false. No permutation of objects or any of their properties are false.
Falseness refers to concepts. Concepts are not physical things. If they were things, than they would not be concepts, because then they would be real.
If the conceptual realm does not exist than everything is real.
Challenge for materialist brainlets:
Name a physical object with the property "false."
Falling into your wing while paragliding is called 'gift wrapping' and turns you into a dirt torpedo pic.twitter.com/oQFKsVISkI— Mental Videos (@MentalVids) March 15, 2023
Heaven isn't real. Nobody ever flinched at a metaphor. Christcuck golems will flinch if you pull your punches in their face.
Why can't true/false just be a correspondence between claims and reality?
>Why can't true/false just be a correspondence between claims and reality?
What is a claim? I know what word-sound-waves are and what neurons firing are, but what, tell, is a "claim" and where does it exist?
So your brain can be false? How does a concept "come from" a brain? Does the brain secrete it like puss?
>How does a concept "come from" a brain? Does the brain secrete it like puss?
You're just making yourself look like a retard. Every thought you've ever had was just neurons in your brain sending signals to each other.
So thoughts are neurons? That would mean that neurons are false. Are neurons false?
I'm arguing against materialism. If you believe that concepts are not material than we're on the same side.
Concepts exist in the mind, and the mind is not a physical thing. That is why concepts can be false but physical things can not.
>That would mean that neurons are false. Are neurons false?
What are you even trying to argue here? False is a concept that comes from our thoughts which come from our neurons communicating with each other in our brain. It's not that complicated. You're trying to make this more needlessly complicated than it really is.
>It's not that complicated.
It certainly seems to be because you can't tell me whether or not neurons are false even though you claim that concepts which are false are made of neurons.
Neurons aren't false they create the idea of false in our brains. You fucking retard.
>Neurons aren't false they create the idea of false in our brains.
How do they "create" this idea. "Creation" usually means for one thing to produce another thing with separate existence, like a man "creates" a chair from wood. Tell me what physical thing the brain is "creating." What material is it using to create it? Where is it located?
>Tell me what physical thing the brain is "creating"
Are you claiming thoughts are "physical things". If you really want to know why don't you actually try to learn about how neurons work.
>learn about how neurons work.
"How something works" is an abstract idea of the relationship between individuals. "How it works" does not physically exist. Only the individuals exist. Abstract properties of collections of individuals are mental.
So you have defined a supposedly physical thing (concepts) in terms of something (how neurons work) which is itself just an abstract concept and not a singular thing.
I am simply asking what is the physical thing that a concept is, not for you to refer me to another abstract concept to explain what a concept is.
You can not define a concept in terms of a concept if it is physical. You must define it in as a physical thing if it is physical.
wow ur so smart and deep and philosophical
u would be laughed out of any classroom
Idiots laugh when they are too stupid to defend their beliefs.
I'm really not. You perceive it as autism because you have never made such simple observations as the fact that a geometric arrangement of balls in space is not an idea, color, emotion, statement, ect.
This is because perceive words as always imperative, telling people what to do and how to behave, instead of descriptive of what you actually experience.
If everything is imperative than we can only describe relationships and action "how something is" never essence "what something is."
This is all based on the internalization of behaviorism. Materialists physically think that communication can only be a physical act of one thing to change another, so then all statements have to be statements of how something ought to behave, and can not be true or false.
Materialists don't understand the words they use. They don't have a proper understanding of the distinction between description and command, which is why they can't understand the difference between "ought" and "is" and why statements of fact can never entail moral truths. For a materialist a statement of fact is always a moral truth because it is communication resulting in behavior modification, and behavior is desire and morality.
You're being too autistic about this. You want to overcomplicate things that have a simpler explanation.
The physicality of the concept is how it is stored in human brains as a memory of it. If all human brains that stored that concept disappeared, then it would no longer exist. It could however be rebuilt from data input into other human brains and some computation.
As i guess you’ll then ask «ok but how is memory physical», then the best thing would be for you to look up the process of memory storage in human brains, as i don’t remember, ironically.
Also notice i said the concept was built, not created ex nihilo, as you require sense-based inputs to build a concept. It doesn’t come from nothing.
Actually the mind is more material than what we perceive, our consciousness is the universe. What we perceive is just illusion
The mind is not material. If the mind were material then ideas would be physical things. But since some ideas are false, then ideas are definitely not physical things because physical things can not be false.
Proof? If the mind is not a 'thing' which is the collective consciousness of the universe, then God doesn't exist or was that your plan all along?
God is not a collective consciousness in the universe. That's a pantheist misconception. Our god is a bearded man in the sky.
>God is not a collective consciousness in the universe. That's a pantheist misconception. Our god is a bearded man in the sky.
Well not really. God is the subject of reality. So in the same way that you are conscious of a chair even though you are not a chair. God is conscious of the universe even though He is not the universe. But that doesn't mean God is a physical bearded man. A person in the trinity is a physical man, that being Jesus, but He is only one person in the trinity and God is not reducible to matter.
That's not what I was saying. God can both. He is everything and his own thing. Doesn't have to be mutually exclusive
The sky might not be what human "beings" perceive it to be, so yeah things of certain colors are filtered through personal experience, the only reason most people say the sky is "blue" because its an agreed upon consensus that it be so, nevermind the fact that "blue" wasn't even a color in ancient Greece. Back to the original statement, denying our own "reality" denies that existence is a predicate for consciousness, which in turn if experience is not real, and consciousness is not real, then what is the purpose of life? Certainly if its all phony then why are we here?
>Back to the original statement, denying our own "reality" denies that existence is a predicate for consciousness, which in turn if experience is not real, and consciousness is not real, then what is the purpose of life? Certainly if its all phony then why are we here?
I agree to this, and this is why I object to materialism. No one experiences reality in terms of atoms in space. We experience reality as objects with color and form, as well as non-material things like ideas and emotions which do not correspond to objects in our consciousness.
Proof of what? The physical things are not false? Because falseness refer to possibilities like "the sky is purple." It doesn't refer to physical things.
You want me to keep running in circles or will you just admit that falseness is not a physical property?
>If the mind is not a 'thing' which is the collective consciousness of the universe, then God doesn't exist or was that your plan all along?
I have no idea what you're talking about here.
>Name a physical object with the property "false."
OP's dilated axe wound "vagina"
Concepts come from our thoughts which come from our brain which is a physical thing.
Ideas are objects of thought and can be things
Where? Which physical thing is an idea?
If you can't figure that you have no consciousness
ideas are a subset of the physical world and they do have the property of being false/true unlike other elements of the physical world which don't have the property of true/false but have other properties.
light has property of color but doesn't have property of mass
a rock has the property of mass and emittance but it doesn't have the property of color, etc.
there are properties that are exclusive to only certain elements of the set of physical things.
saying everything is physical doesn't mean everything has same properties. only ideas and statements (which are a subset of physical things) have the property of being true, false or undecidable
So you're saying that when I say
>"The sky is purple" is false.
That this is a statement about the existence of neuronal patterns in someone's brain?
>That this is a statement about the existence of neuronal patterns in someone's brain?
Not him but yes, it is.
>ideas are a subset
Also, can you tell me what a subset is? What physical thing in the universe is a subset? If everything is physical then there must be some physical thing called "subset" which exists in the world.
If nature is just the interactions of individual particles than there are no "sets" of particles. There are only particles. There can be no ideas except the ideas of individual particle if individual particles are all that exist. "Sets" of particles do not exist, because that requires an external agent to differentiate some particles as being "in" and "out" of that group, but the reality is that atoms do not categorize themselves since they are merely individuals. Some external consciousness must, not the atoms themselves.
subsets are just how our brains make sense of the world. set theory, mathematics in general, logic, ideas, etc don't exist independently of the brain or computational machines. this is a major point of contention against ideas like plato's world of forms. ideas stop existing when a brain or computational machine no longer exists and we have no reason to think that a different intelligent species living in a different world (or even the same) would develop the same ideas
it's obvious that there is more than one way (probably infinite) to make sense of the world. i have no idea why we chose these methods instead of other methods. probably some neuro-evolution something
You see your train of logic in this conversation keeps going in circles.
I ask what false is, you say it is a concept in the mind. I ask what a concept is, you say it is a s subset of processes in the brain. I ask what a subset is, you say it is a concept in the mind.
Do you see what's happening here? We're never leaving the mind. Every definition you give pretends to be in terms of material processes, but when I ask you what any process physically is, we find out it is just a mental construct.
Everything we are talking about will keep getting tied back to mental processes, and never to the underlying matter that supposedly composes those mental processes.
What you are doing right now is sort of like this. Imagine someone said that the word of a book were all of reality. I ask what a concept is, you point to the part of the book that talks about concepts. I ask what a book is, you point to the part of the book that talks about books. I ask how you are reading the book, you point to the part of the book that talks about reading. I ask you what false is, you point to the part of the book labelled "false." I ask how you know that says "false", you point to the part of the book that says "spelling."
You are not the words of a book, but you will constantly refer to the words of this book whenever I try to convince you otherwise so that it is very frustrating to me.
This is what you are doing, but with geometric points. You are saying that these points in space are literally everything that exists, and every time I ask you what your knowledge of these points is, you point back to these points in space or a certain way you read these points (this group of points here means a concepts when they move this way.)
You are "reading" the language of arrangements of particles in space to be ideas, emotions, colors, etc., but you have to interpret those words (particles) with some language before that is even possible.
So your language exists external of the book (the particles in spacetime) but whenever I try to point this out to you you return back to
>the language I'm using to interpret this book is this part of the book called "mental neurons." See on pg 212, which is a dictionary of all the terms the book uses and what they mean.
Do you see how stupid and infuriating this is? Obviously you don't know how to read the book because you read it in the book. And obviously you don't know how to interpret groups of atoms because of a certain group of atoms.
You are interpreting atomic structures like neurons to be ideas, as if these these atoms can be read like a book. They can't be, not unless you already have an understanding of the language which has to be outside of the book.
you are forced to have circular reasoning when you have a brain trying to understand itself regardless of what metaphysical theory of the mind you have. that's why biology and neurology are superior when it comes to understanding the brain as they provides "anchor points" independent of your brain a priori jerking itself off (unless you want to go full retard and say reality is le fake).
>I ask what false is, you say it is a concept in the mind. I ask what a concept is, you say it is a s subset of processes in the brain. I ask what a subset is, you say it is a concept in the mind.
i didn't say that the definition of ideas is being a subset. i said ideas are a subset of the set of physical things.
here is an example to better explain this. a pen is a part of the subset of items in my ass. the definition of a pen isn't being inside my ass and the subset of being in my ass isn't the only subset it belongs to
basically what i am trying to say is that OP's premise of only ideas having the property of being false/true/undecidable doesn't necessarily imply ideas aren't physical or product of something physical. OP's conclusion doesn't follow from the premises
>Therefore, there must be a bearded man in the sky, and a israeli carpenter sacrificed himself to himself to save humanity from himself.
the perception of the non-materialistic thing entirely relies on materialism, such as your brain imagining it
>Name a physical object with the property "false."
A trans woman boobs and vagina.
>and nothing I say can possibly be false.
Your words are not a physical object
Materlaism: DURRR CANT SEE IT NO EXIST DURRRR
>theist: it's real because i read it from a book
Atoms, photons, cells, etc.
By that pants on head logic time doesn't exist because no object can be labeled as being time, or having time.
>By that pants on head logic time doesn't exist because no object can be labeled as being time, or having time.
Yes time is also not a physical thing. Anyone who claims that everything is physical also has to explain away that fact as well. I guess in this case "time is a mental construction of neuronal patterns in the brain" would be the explanation yet again.
lmao wut? Time is a physical thing, one of the most physical things. It's a fucking dimension. It's one of the fundamental substrates upon which all other physics is defined.
Objects define time and space.
We describe the distance between objects as "space" and their constant movement as "time"
God is beyond time and space
Nothing is beyond time and space
God is nothing
I could easily flip that on its head and say that objects are defined by changed in space, and actions are defined by changes in time.
> changes in time
Your attempt would fail since you wouldn't make any sense
Changes through time might be a better way of putting it. The point is it's a chicken and egg argument. Space and time rely on objects and actions for definition, and vice versa.
I will become a devotee religioncuck the day I will see dope ass miracles, flying angles, otherworldly monsters, angles guarding the souls of ascetics etc.
WHERE THE FUCK IS COOL SHIT? YOU WANT ME TO BELIEVE IN SUPERNATURAL WITH BORING ASS RATIONAL ARGUMENTATION? THIS BORING """ARGUMENTS""" DON'T MATTER TO ME
FUCK THIS BORING LIFE
The reason the world feels so mundane is because your world has been disenchanted.
Ya supernatural things don't usually happen but that's exactly why they're supernatural. If they were commonplace and predictable then they'd be natural.
>The reason the world feels so mundane is because your world has been disenchanted.
Not true even when I was a hardcore believer, had conversions with God everyday still things were mundane and boring.
How can I be wrong, if wrongness doesn't exist?
check and mate
Materialists say wrongness doesn't exist so I can't be wrong.
That, or they have some stupid mental gymnastics by which they try to equate it to something that isn't wrongness, in which case I still can't be wrong because their version of wrongness is not what people mean when they say "wrong" because it is a physical process and not a reference to an idea.)
Then how can the materialist position possibly be wrong? Huh, huh, huhuh?
Based socratic methodist dabbin on materalist retards
Here you go sir.
The physical arrangement of neurons encryptying the information "OP is a woman".
Statements are information and information exists through a support, all supports are physical meaning all informations are as well.
materialists don't claim that everything is physical, they claim that everything is derived from the physical.