>The patient failed in all tasks in which he was required to match the seen color with its spoken name. Thus, the patient failed to give the names of colors and failed to choose a color in response to its name. By contrast, he succeeded on all tasks where the matching was either purely verbal or purely nonverbal. Thus, he could give verbally the names of colors corresponding to named objects and vice versa. He could match seen colors to each other and to pictures of objects and could sort colors without error. (Geschwind and Fusillo (1966)
Is this an actual case of inverted qualia?
wow i didn't even read all that shit and i still feel like i lost valuable seconds i'll never get back just from you posting it
THIS is inverted qualia
That's not what inverted qualia is. Inverted qualia man would be at the very least, consistent in his wrong answers to the name test. And that only makes sense if his qualia got inverted recently. On the other hand, even that actually doesn't make sense because the nature of the situation would be really obvious for reasons.
Not science or math
>explaining the scientific basis of human experience - an interdisciplinary endeavour between neuroscience, cognitive science, psychology, biology and quantum physics
Qualia doesn't explain anything and is not a scientific hypothesis. It's a circular idiocy pushed by narcissistic con men and theologians who want to say "soul" but don't have the balls.
Qualia is an experienced phenomenon and requires a scientific explanation.
>Qualia is an experienced phenomenon
>and requires a scientific explanation.
The invisible pink unicorn orbiting mercury doesn't require one
The private, ineffable, subjective phenomenal conscious experience as opposed to the informational, objective, effable content.
>The private subjective phenomenal conscious experience
And? Nothing about that is conceptually unique to qualia nor does it explain anything. most of that applies to worms and for conscious experience clearly applies to most mammals.
Words are a thing. Being aware of yourself is not magical, and can be expressed and explained. Calling it "ineffable" is just reaching for some "thing in itself" nonsense when on that basis literally everything is ineffable because words aren't the things themselves
>Nothing about that is conceptually unique to qualia
Is your issue that synonyms exist, or that the offered definition of qualia is not exclusive to humans? Neither seems particularly important.
>Calling it "ineffable" is just reaching for some "thing in itself" nonsense
Not at all, recognizing a thing as ineffable is a recognition of the limits of your language, and is the first step in creating the language necessary to alter that condition of ineffability.
>Is your issue that synonyms exist, or that the offered definition of qualia is not exclusive to humans? Neither seems particularly important.
claims it exists and requires explanation. All he did was puke out some vague notions and add "ineffable" which is either meaningless or not scientific.
>Not at all
Yes all. It can be effed therefore is not ineffable. So you either have to jump to retarded "thing in itself" notions or pretend you aren't, and guess which one you're going to do
Do you claim that it does not exist? Aren't you experiencing it right now?
# claims it exists and requires explanation. All he did was puke out some vague notions and add "ineffable" which is either meaningless or not scientific.
I just gave you the meaning.
>It can be effed
Then eff it.
>Then eff it.
You can explain what colors you can't see and people understand that, for example. Similarly, you can wear glasses to see like a colorblind person sees. There are millions of examples. Adding senses or altering senses are matters of technology, whether better or different hearing or different eyesight if you can tolerate those hideous VR goggles. People also tend to explain such things in similar ways, because similar brains. The so-called "quality of experiencing" is the experience, and experience can be described and shared.
If your response is some asinine "buht not muh exact" you're just being dishonest and everyone knows it. Yet even in that case with neuroscience you can give someone else the exact same experience. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain%E2%80%93brain_interface
You're really not left with any other choice but to declare something nonphysical or just lie. Experiencing experience isn't inexplicable nor ineffable, and you'll likely forever move the goalpost away from any effing just like souls totally exist we promise guise
Souls do exist though.
>muh analytic approximations
That converges to truth as n approaches infinity, but any real-world value of n will necessarily be finite. The ineffable is merely that which would become explicable (effable) at some degree of analysis n+k, k>0, for any finite value n.
>brain to brain interface
That's interesting, but to say that an idea is ineffable is to say it cannot be encoded into language. A brain to brain interface doesn't disprove the notion of ineffability, it bypasses language altogether.
>That's interesting, but to say that an idea is ineffable is to say it cannot be encoded into language.
Gave the example of colorblindness. Language is a reference, if you lack some ability the referent is one-way but still exists. For everyone else it's both ways. Point of the technology example is the simple fact technology can also provide the two-way referent if someone lacks the ability. Blind people can be poked in the brain to see colors even.
meant to insert "(effed)" after "encoded into language"
All life is conscious. That's the definition of life. You are the meta-consciousness of human consciousness.
Consciousness literally doesn't exist though
Consciousness is state of being, i.e. what it is like to be something. All life is conscious. Or to put it more correctly, all life is consciousness (being).
You are literally a stone cold retard though
Please keep coping. Free will and consciousness don't exist, you're a cellular automaton.
Imagine actually allowing your egoic mind to trick you into thinking that you don't exist.na self-created zombie.
Wolfram pls go
Free will and consciousness are the only things we can be 100% certain exist. Descartes was right about everything.
Consciousness yes. Free will no.
He wasn't right about everything. He thought there was a materialist dualist. That is wrong.
Dualism remains the most plausible stance on the philosophy of mind.
Not at all. Only idealism is left standing.
Idealism is a cope by pseuds who don't want to answer any question and just pseudoreligiously insist in "It just is, okay?" Dualism on the other hand is the scientific stance, using quantum mechanics to connect the uncomputable realm of free will with the deterministic world of physics.
How about no. You simply don't understand idealism. It exists above the apparently-deterministic world, not in place of it.
There is a shared reality. There is a "world." But it is not material.
Universal consciousness is reality/God. It encompasses every thought, idea, feeling. But it cannot know itself without separation. So, it has localized points of being. These are essentially localized points on the way to infinity. These localizations are what we call life. All life is awareness in localized form. But to interact these points need some medium through which they can know each other. That is our shared universe.
Within that shared universe, life needs a way to represent to itself/each other so that it can interact. This is the representation side of reality, what we call our "material" spacetime universe. After our minds perceive this "material" universe, our minds then a priori construct physics and math as a way to explain and predict what we are experiencing. Unfortunately we come to believe that causal relationships are "real" rather than constructed. From there, we invent objects based on utility. Chairs, pencils, bodies, elements, etc.
Essentially our "material" universe is the result of ideas on top of ideas.
Humans are special because we are aware that we are aware. Meta-aware. You exist as a localized point of awareness - the awareness of what it is like to be a human.
Idealism neither explains consciousness nor does it explain the mechanism by which consciousness allegedly generates the physical world. It only satisfies the narcissism of math pseuds who haven't yet discovered the inconsistency of "a priori".
?? There is nothing to explain. You are consciousness. It doesn't get any more real than that.
QM confirms that the universe conforms to each conscious observer. We each live in our own generated material universe that is a shared mental space. The fabric of the "material" is actually just quantum fluctuations - it is not physical. Surely you know this, being on a LULZ board? That was discovered decades ago.
The only point in time where a conscious observer gets involved is the collapse of the wave function. Before and after this event everything behaves deterministically. And note the word observer. It means we are observing something previously happening outside of our consciousness.
Nothing happens outside of your consciousness. You are insertion your own beliefs and assumptions as facts.
>QM confirms that the universe conforms to each conscious observer.
That is not what "Observer" means in QM nor does any evidence whatever support that notion. Https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_(quantum_physics)
Yes it does and delayed choice experiments already looked at this.
>Yes it does and delayed choice experiments already looked at this.
And none of them support your bullshit. If you think they do, you're either lying for jesus or wholly ignorant of them and are just used to name dropping among your fellow idiots
>You simply don't understand idealism.
Your reply is not written by Kastrup but by Sadhguru. See: we're all a role (local consciousness) played by Shiva (universal consciousness). You're masquerading religion as science.
It's written by me. Wtf you think I run my posts through KastrupGPT?
Religion and science are not diametrically opposed. Science is a method; a tool. It is not a metaphysical framework. Religion is one way that humans model their perception of reality. Physics is another model. They are not mutually exclusive.
Although I don't agree with your model, your reply is not wrong. Please do consider however that we can fall in love with metaphors so much that our reasoning becomes biased towards fitting reality in those metaphors.It's tempting for physicalists, idealists and dualists to use current technology as metaphors. For example: the brain is a computer (physicalists), all AI are the same processor (idealists), our body is an avatar (dualists).
I agree with that, but ultimately every word is an approximation of an idea. We can never express absolute truth, especially concerning reality-in-itself, which we do not have direct access to outside of knowing our own existence. I do not intentionally rely on metaphors, but I concede that every description is an approximation. The goal is to facilitate communication of the idea.
To clarify I mean: so much of our discussion is a reflection of the time, the place, the culture we live in, what ideas are popular, what search results does Google give us etc.
Almost as of we are products of a collective.... consciousness? 🙂
Yes for sure, except for some of us collective consciousness is a physical phenomenon and for others a metaphysical phenomenon. We come to an agreement through shared experience and descriptions of reality. That makes it difficult to agree on the existence non-physical phenomena. I'm agnostic: I wouldn't take a movie like They Live literally, but memes as life forms (egregores): I don't think that's schizo either, but it does attract people who are legit schizo or con artists. Confusing.
Fair enough. Based fence sitter lol
You exist as an idea - "life (consciousness) that is self aware." That's the fundamental you. The "you" that operates in the shared reality is your egoic mind, which is generated from the collective consciousness. Every human idea is linked and can be traced back through a network of ideas to the very first human thoughts. It is a neural network of ideas. From complex math all the way down to basic concepts of objects and causation.
Altho i agree idea of my self is indeed idea brought out by structure of society, the thing that carrys this idea is biological body which is true me. And individual structural process.
So altho i can say i do agree contents of my mind (Idea) including idea of my self (ego) is an illusion we should be carefull in specifing whad do we mean by "You".
My experience tells me that because we forget that contents of our minds are abstractions of reallity, we take them as a reallity get lost in them and instead of tallking about reallity we start tallking about concepts.
Your biological body is a representation of the idea of you, yes. It does exist
Wdym representation of the idea?
The idea is representation of it. I do not use body to represent idea, i use idea to represent body.
I would have body without idea but not idea without the body.
It is abstract and difficult to comprehend. The same way a feeling exists to you in your mind, you exist in the universal mind.
Yeah okay, i do not subscribe to idea that there is more to this reallity then there is.
Wether reallity exists in idea of some absolute mind or not, this is still only reallity we are presented with. It changes nothing. So ill stay agnostic on this question.
I used to think like that also in my 20s
Low quality bait gramps
Gtfo with your
>Everyone is dumb ass but me and my echo chamber boyfriends
Are you implying consciousness is just set of ideas by which we operate?
>[idealism] exists above the apparently-deterministic world, not in place of it.
and your evidence for this is...?
Anon (or Anons) dont try it its futile. They take concepts and reinvent them so it suits theyr preasumptioms and belifes. They do not build frameworks by observation rather interpretate what they observe with frameworks built out of belifes.
Every contra thing you say goes in that head and is crushed by machine that follows no rules.
Also no he does not have evidance. For it is "self explenatory" "self evident" to him because he judges what self evident and explanatory is by its relation to his preasumptions.
Just look that statement: Universe is God that needs to separete it self to be aware of it self.
Anyone with clear mind will understand this is assumption and nterpretation. Not to mention that hia concept of God obviosly is not God since it cant be aware of it self without spliting it self (its conditioned).
Mental gymnastics on point.
It is self evident because it is self evident that I exist. Everything else logically follows from there. What you are trying to say is that it is not falsifiable, which is true, but not a problem.
You exist. What are you? You are awareness of the state of being of your brain. What is your brain (apparently)? Matter. Matter has no properties at the fundamental level. Matter is all the same. In fact, we don't even know what matter is. There is no reason why you should exist when viewed from a materialist viewpoint. There is no answer. But you know that you exist, and you know that you perceive matter. You can then infer that other matter also has a similar state of being (other animals, people, life). There is no reason to believe that you are the only aware creature.
Every property of matter is a result of a conscious observer. You are the one creaturing the properties. Just read Kant's wiki for his metaphysics and cme back when you understand that. Then we can continue.
>Matter has no properties at the fundamental level. Matter is all the same. In fact, we don't even know what matter is.
If matter has no properties you cannot state "matter is all the same", for that is a property. If we don't know what matter is, then you couldn't say whether it has properties or is all the same. Speedrunning maximum incoherence?
Nothing you wrote constitutes evidence for idealism. You just wrote a bunch of crap against materialism. I could assume every single criticism you just made is true and you'd still not have presented a single shred of evidence for your position. Someone being wrong doesn't make some other idea right or in evidence merely because "I don't like that idea". Try again.
If there are no differentiating properties then it is the same.
Idealism is right because it is a logical intuition from the only true experience we have - our own state of being.
Sigh let's just get right to it. You are tiresome. The burden is on you to prove that matter is physical and that consciousness is deterministic. Go.
A logical intuition... it was logical intuition to logicaly conclude geocentrism. Oh and to think there are 4 fluids in us when disbalanced that they produce sickness. Oh no wait i remember better, when Aristotle intuitivly logicaly conclude that histerya is when womans reproductive organ goes on rampage in her feet.
The thing is, logic only tells us how to manipulate information. Not what truth is. So if you input an information that is interpretation rather then a fact or rather a belife rather then a facrty logic wont tell you that its true or false, only that it is good or bad thinking.
If i start with assumption that moon is made out of chesse it wont tell me that i am wrong.
The fact is, reallity is seted the way it is. We can name it, we can abstract patterns, but we cannot know anything else. Nore we have ground to claim there is more, nore if there trully is more to it we cant know it.
That matter has no propertys on fundamental level tells us as much as a persone answering "Right one" when we ask him what time it is. Every damn conclusion you draw from that fact is either probability or and interpretation. Both are not a fact.
>Idealism is right because it is a logical intuition from the only true experience we have - our own state of being.
So it's right because you feel it. Yeah that's what I figured.
>The burden is on you to prove that matter is physical and that consciousness is deterministic.
Literally 100% of all science supports that inference, 0% supports yours, and your best evidence is "it's true cuz I feel it is". Idealists are all the same yet never cease to amaze
>The burden is on you to prove that matter is physical and that consciousness is deterministic
I finde this so dense..
No you dont need tk prove thst matter is physical because when way "physical" we do not determin nature of matter, rather we refere to how it interacts via propertys it posseses (Mass for example).
This is the thing idealists dont se. Only one tallking about nature of things are you, everyonr else left that dream after Kant, Wittgenstein and positivism knowing damn well its just a dream.
They stoped interpretating and started naming and abstracting. Those are two different sets of aproach to reallity.
>It is self evident because it is self evident that I exist.
Clearly not. If so then its clearly self evident that universe came from nothing and naturalism is only truth.
>this level of projection
I would expect nothing less from an NPC that denies their own existence. There is something very wrong with you, you are probably best off in an asylum
Go ahead, give one good reason to assume a magical "free will" and "consciousness", when the simple physical interaction of neurons both explains behaviour and excludes "free will" at the same time.
"I want it to be so" is not a good reason.
I never mentioned free will psycho retard
Either both free will and consciousness exist or neither does.
>here is thing I just pulled out of my ass
you are a psycho retard
Fine, then provide support for consciousness only or fuck off, retard.
I have proven it conclusively here countless times over the last 8 years. I am not your personal tutor, check the archives
You haven't proven shit, homosexual.
I have proven beyond any doubt you are too stupid to be in this conversation
Free will requires consciousness. Consciousness does not require free will.
Free will and consciousness are not assumed, they are obvious observations. And quantum mechanics explains them.
Free will is assumed despite being "obvious." Consciousness, at least in me, is undeniable.
You are begging the question and starting from an incorrect premise. That's why you fail in explaining reality and always will.
>You are begging the question
Yah narcissists do that because their only measure of truth is whether they believe it or not. If they believe it it is true, if they don't then you are insane for even considering it. Facts, proof, logic, none of this has any meaning in the narcissists world, in fact they are their enemy as they expose how irrational their thought processes are
Now you know why leftists act so insane and bizarrely and say such bizarre nonsensical shit like you are a nazi because you wont suck off a tranny or let them use the restroom with your 8yo daughter. They are legit nuts and often times dangerous
Wrong. Only humans are. Memory, conditioning and learning do not need consciousness to occur.
No. Humans are meta-aware. But all life is aware of its own direct first person experience.
>mammals don't have memory and are incapable of learning
She said the opposite. Learn to read.
Did you just fucking assume their gender?
>And? Nothing about that is conceptually unique to qualia nor does it explain anything.
Qualia is a descriptive term, not an explanatory theory. You are arguing a strawman.
>most of that applies to worms and for conscious experience clearly applies to most mammals.
Animals may or may not have qualia. This is another open question related to the hard problem of consciousness.
>Words are a thing. Being aware of yourself is not magical, and can be expressed and explained.
Qualia is not the same as self-awareness. The redness of red doesn't involve self-reflection. I'd be more then happy if you found words to communicate qualia.
>thing in itself
No philosobullshit please.
>Qualia is a descriptive term, not an explanatory theory.
Either or. Learn to read.
>The redness of red doesn't involve self-reflection.
Which is already completely explained. Differences in brains and biology mean differences in experience. A sentient robot with different kinds of cameras would unsurprisingly experience different from someone with a human eye, or an octopus or lobster with yet another different eye.
>I'd be more then happy if you found words to communicate qualia.
Literally scientific testing. Degrees of difference are expressed in probability and statistics all the time. The degree to which individuals vary is extensively researched and the basis of most science pertaining to humans. Unsurprisingly, it comes down to the brain and biology.
How do differences in biology explain that some people (NPCs) have no conscious experience at all while being alive and functional?
>How do differences in biology explain that some people (NPCs) have no conscious experience
Same way subvocalization isn't conscious experience it's just one kind of representation. Some people read without subvocalizing they still understand the material.
>at all while being alive and functional?
The explanation is your idea about that subject is wrong.
Pointless if you fail at the minimum, entry level barrier to enter the discussion, which is not operating on a completely incorrect definition what qualia are.
You are equivalent to a chatbot spitting out text of no worth.
>go to /x/
>first thread I see is
>literally feels like LULZ
blame the jannies for not doing their jobs
Qualia is just a word for a quality of consciousness. The subjective experience of pain would be an example. Sadness would be another. You maybe don't experience pain or sadness or happiness, so maybe you are a bot. Conscious humans experience these things, and so we have qualia. You can look in a brain all you want and you will not find any observable subjective pain in there, no love in a brain. You can find claimed neural CORRELATES of consciousness, but not the consciousness itself. Pain and love, for instance, are subjective QUALITIES (hence 'qualia)experienced in minds, not brains. They are qualia and don't exist in space ('space' and the objects there in, including brains, are part of an experiencial virtual (informational) data stream experienced and rendered and emergent in minds. They (qualia) have no position or momentum in space, unlike brains. They are non-local (no location in the virtual universe). So physical things like brains are exhaustively described by objectively verifiable QUANTITIES, spin, position, momentum, etc, while subjective experience, which is not a physical object, is describable only QUALITATIVE means. The reason you and people like dennett must, if your erroneous world view is to be fully carried through, deny consciousness is that you are metaphysical empiricist physicalist ontological substance monists, so the non- physically quantifiable aspects of consciousness are very inconvenient for you. So you make the very bold but silly step of declaring your own mindlessness and that you lack consciousness and that consciousness and qualia don't exist.
>Qualia doesn't explain anything and is not a scientific hypothesis
You don't have a hypothesis to epistemically justify that qualia exist. Hit yourself on the head with a hammer. That pain you get is a qualia (quality of consciousness). Qualia are (should be, unless you are an NPC bot) the one thing that the observer (you in this case) can be certain exist. You can doubt the SOURCE of the pain, ie is it a piece of meat, the brain, that some how beams in the mental experience to the experiencer, or is it coming from a mind server in a consciousness based Massively multiplayer online virtual role-playing game, but the QUALIA of pain itself can not be doubted.
It is TRUE though that it can't be studied in the way that objective physical things can be, since YOUR subjective qualia can not be studied via MY experiencial data stream of the 'physical' world, and vice versa. This is why the hyped up recent headlines about 'mind reading' always say in the fine print of the actual studies that they need the subjects cooperation in, supposedly, decoding objectively observable neural correlates of subjective consciousness content. If it was REAL mind reading, there would be no need of the subjects participation.
>quality of consciousness
Yep. 'muh thing itself tho'circular reasoning. Every single time. >>>/x/
>Qualia are the one thing that the observer can be certain exist.
>physicalist ontological substance monists
Can't we agree that any kind of experience, wether an object like a tree or an abstraction like pain is made of the same stuff regardless of what that stuff is? Why is duality needed?
Holy fuck no one in this thread actually understands what qualia is.
Qualia is nothing more than a term that refers to what you actually experience as opposed to the learned label for that experience.
E.g. if my red isn't your red, we have different qualia that we both describe using the same label: "red".
That's all it means. This is like the worst thread on LULZ right now.
Are experiences private?
Yes, it's what you feel on the inside.
Also, maybe not all humans are conscious so if the concept of qualia is blowing your mind, you might be an automaton.
Yeah clearly only those that conceptualise subjective experience as qualia have it.
>Holy fuck no one in this thread actually understands what qualia is.
As typical of theologians whenever you adopt any given working definition of a concept some jackass comes in claiming you're ignorant of what it "really means" to argue something ocmpletely different.
>E.g. if my red isn't your red, we have different qualia that we both describe using the same label: "red".
Already dealt with that. So "holy fuck no one who believes in qualia can fucking read". Why are all you morons illiterate?
>interdisciplinary endeavour between neuroscience, cognitive science, psychology, biology and quantum physics
Do people actually believe this quackery?
It all comes down to acknowledging or denying your own existence as awareness. If you acknowledge it, then the truth flows from your own being. You realize that reality must necessarily be immaterial. If you deny your own existence, you will never know the truth and are trapped in a hellscape of nihilism and darkness.
>If you acknowledge it, then the truth flows from your own being.
No argument found. Zombie presence detected. Imagine believing that acknowledging your own existence constitutes narcissism, lol. wtf is wrong with you?
he is a legit actual NPD, he only even knows what that is because I exposed him as such. being a cluster B they can only mimic, he doesnt understand what most words and concepts mean due to being psychotic
tsk, tsk the schizo is projecting again everyone
I too believe my thoughts and my cups fundamentally are made of the same kind of stuff, lol
So what are they made of?
I call it "matter", but the word is not important
Circular definition. What is matter?
Oh, I got no clue. It's just what I call it
In essence, it does same thing as realism, names the thing the things are made out off.
But does 360° parkour mental gymnastics to assert unverfiable claim that the reallity depends on mind of some being or that the reallity it self is a being.
Meanwhile criticising science for creating blueprint of how it works because it goes against the narative they try to keep up based on unverfiable assumptions yet in same time use it to provide evidance for it.
>navel gazing thread
What is mind?
That is beyond our ability to conceive, because we are made of mind.
Okay well figure out what matter is and then get back to us.
So then what is your metaphysical belief?
>Literally 100% of all science supports that inference,
No it doesn't. First of all, QM does NOT support this inference. Second of all, science does not support the inference. Rather, science describes what we perceive. That's it.
>So it's right because you feel it.
Feeling is all that exists in reality. It is all that you know. You exist as feeling. Good luck trying to think your way to truth; you'll never get there. Been there done that before I realized the mistake.
>The thing is, logic only tells us how to manipulate information. Not what truth is. So if you input an information that is interpretation rather then a fact or rather a belife rather then a facrty logic wont tell you that its true or false, only that it is good or bad thinking.
You're the one making an assumption. I am operating in reality. The only reality we can ever know is ourselves, and we exist as immaterial/mental beings. So at a minimum we know that the immaterial/mental exists. It is YOU who is assuming that matter exists and basing all of your arguments on that assumption.
>So then what is your metaphysical belief?
That our knowledge of reallity is bound to nominal description and abstracting patterns of how reallity works.
What is it and why is it are projections of human form of existance (Intentionality and identity) to it.
So agnostic. That's fine. As long as you apply the same skepticism equally to materialism.
No i am not. For that would assume i belive there is substance. But i dont belive it.
What matter is, is beyond our ability to conceive, because we are made of matter.
Your little attempt fails because the one thing we know is that we are not matter. That's the point. We know that we are immaterial and we use that as our starting point. You miss the boat because you don't take that as your starting point. You don't know yourself.
>We know that we are immaterial
Is there something preventing your mind from being material?
K I figured it out. You are matter. Next question.
K show me the material properties of the color red, the feeling of pain, etc. You know, actual qualia? We have now come full circle in the discussion. Prove that subjective being-ness is material or concede.
You can't because it's not. We know this through knowing ourselves. You fools are in denial and only focused on the external world. You need to look within.
you as may as well be speaking Chinese, they can't even process this. theirind doesn't even know where to begin to be able to process if even if they tried
I'm starting to think this is the case. Some people are unable or unwilling to think outside of their belief system.
K show me the MENTAL properties of the color red, the feeling of pain, etc. You know, actual qualia? We have now come full circle in the discussion. Prove that subjective being-ness is MENTAL or concede.
Do you think it's a problem that there's no content to your theory of stuff being "mental"?
Why do you think it's a legit move in the conversation to ask me question, that you do not have competing answers to
My misguided friend. I don't have to show you the mental properties, and I can't, because you already experience them and cannot experience beyond them, because they are fundamental. It is the fundamental nature of being-ness, and as such we are not privy to anything beyond them. All we know is that we are them. Your attempts to flip the question around illustrate that you do not have a grasp of the concepts necessary to have a meaningful discussion.
Are you telling me that you don't have a subjective experience of what it is like to be you? I'm starting to believe so at this point lol
NTA but if we are them how do we know it? If you are a color red how do you know you are color red?
>If you are a color red how do you know you are color red?
You are the experiencer experiencing the color red. You either have that experience or you don't. It is a private experience, so you can never prove it to others one way or the other. Only you know this about yourself. That is the starting point.
>Why would the falsity of materialism follow from subjective experience?
You don't even understand the hard problem of consciousness if you are asking this silly question.
>We both think everything is fundamentally made of the same stuff as those experiences. (would have to be, there only being 1 kind of stuff)
Correct. You are 90% of the way there with this statement. Now you just have to realize that the ONLY thing we KNOW is that we have a mental experience. And if we also intuit that there is only one "stuff," then it follows that everything is mental. It's pretty simple once you acknowledge the premise.
>You don't think it's possible for matter bouncing around to be an experience?
Correct, it is not possible (in a materialist framework).
Idealism does not present the problems of materialist. It accounts for everything.
>If you drop his qualia tallk
aka if you ignore reality. continue...
>this qualia tallk is old reused notion of soul that is contained in body and animates it...
It is not contained within body. Your body is a representation of feeling. Soul, as you put it.
>You are the experiencer experiencing the color red. You either have that experience or you don't. It is a private experience, so you can never prove it to others one way or the other. Only you know this about yourself. That is the starting point
Soo we are not experience, yet the body that experiances it?
You are the awareness of the state of being of a human. Your experience is one with your awareness.
>Ofc. as i said, when you dont follow rules of reallity you can solve anything with a bit of imagination:)
I am telling you what reality is. You are ASSUMING what reality is and that is why what I'm saying is not computing for you. Our minds construct spacetime a priori. What you perceive with your five senses is not reality-in-itself. The problem is that you take this generated world and mistake it for reality, and based all of your thoughts off of this belief. That is why you are unable to comprehend what I'm saying.
>Nah, aka if you ignore unverifiable interpretation of [qualia]... continue..
You can not verify qualia to a third party. It is private. Only you know your own experience. Why do you need someone else to verify it for you? You don't know that your experiences exist?
I see and respect your concession.
>You are the awareness of the state of being of a human. Your experience is one with your awareness.
But if i am awarenes of state of being human, how do i know that i am aware?
Apart from that, where does this awarenes comes from?
>am telling you what reality is. You are ASSUMING what reality is and that is why what I'm saying is not computing for you
Okay prove me i am assuming what reallity is while you are telling me what reallity is is not assuming.
>You can not verify qualia to a third party. It is private. Only you know your own experience. Why do you need someone else to verify it for you? You don't know that your experiences exist?
Why is it private?
>Idealism does not present the problems of materialist. It accounts for everything.
Ofc. as i said, when you dont follow rules of reallity you can solve anything with a bit of imagination:)
>aka if you ignore reality. continue..
Nah, aka if you ignore unverifiable interpretation of it... continue..
>Are you telling me that you don't have a subjective experience of what it is like to be you? I'm starting to believe so at this point lol
Did I say anything to that effect? What's with the chest-thumping
This is so silly. Have you ever read anything people that disagree with you have to say
Why would the falsity of materialism follow from subjective experience?
>Your attempts to flip the question around illustrate that you do not have a grasp of the concepts necessary to have a meaningful discussion.
I think it shows that there is no meaningful content your position
but there's also a bit of wanting to show that you may not be asking well-formed questions
Like, what do we even disagree about at this point?
We both know we have subjective experiences.
We both think everything is fundamentally made of the same stuff as those experiences. (would have to be, there only being 1 kind of stuff)
>Like, what do we even disagree about at this point?
We both know we have subjective experiences.
We both think everything is fundamentally made of the same stuff as those experiences. (would have to be, there only being 1 kind of stuff)
The point is they think if they transfer reallity to realm of mentality that problems go away. Yet they dont. As you mention, both of you claim that reality is made out of 1 thing. And that one thing requires explanation to why it produces such and such phenomena (iow. how it works).
The thing is, if they transfer it to dimension of mentality they also think they are free of bounds of empirical investigation and allowed to procede with intuitive inquiry. But that is nonsense for as i mentioned, reallity still works in certain way (which means we need to follow rules that binde our intuition).
Aside of that if you say there are two types of things, you are in even greater mess then before. For now you need explanation of why two different types of substances even interact. Which is even greater mistery and leaves even more doors open for subjective interpretarion.
>material properties of the color red, the feeling of pain, etc
Those are the particular arrangement of matter in your brain.
>You know, actual qualia
qualia is a theory laden term, like, I don't have to grant experiences "essentially being private", they could be public
not that either is incompatible with materialism
there is nothing about materialism, that goes against "you have to be a bat, in order to know what it's like to be a bat". Don't know where people get that idea
Ah well there we have it. You deny your own existence. No further discussion to be had. You are a self-imposed zombie. If you deny your own experience then we are operating off of completely different premises.
I do get a chuckle from your magical hand waving, though.
>The colors you experience are not real experience, they are just matter bouncing around because.....it just is okay!!!!
>You deny your own existence.
Where did I do that?
You don't think it's possible for matter bouncing around to be an experience?
He thinks we are "qualia" and that body is not us. If you drop his qualia tallk he asumes you are zombie because he thinks experience can be separated from physical nature (your body).
Tbh.. this qualia tallk is old reused notion of soul that is contained in body and animates it...
Yet if he had read further literature he would know that if he takes this stance he is basically saying that there can be experience of redness without physical interaction of sensory organ and light.
Makes you think who is zombie here
Which is, if i must remind him, absurd action of denying factual evidance.
For we could easly take his eyes out, take him to some place he has never been too and ask him what is his visual experience of it. But oh you know.. no matter that hr claims he does not need eyes.. he wouldnt do it.. irony.
>No it doesn't. First of all, QM does NOT support this inference
Yes it does. You don't know anything about QM and probably think "observer" means conscious agent which it does not.
>Second of all, science does not support the inference. Rather, science describes what we perceive.
This is demonstrably false. How did things exist before we came to perceive them? Universe had to exist before we evolved, and had to operate on rules before we evolved. You're a retard.
>Feeling is all that exists in reality.
You have got to be some insane pathological narcissist who believes the universe revolves around him. Obviously this is not true because things exist independent our feelings. Fucking retard
Serious question is EVERY idealist also a narcissist? Because it sure fucking seems like it
Are you a bot? All of those were already addressed in this thread.
You seem to be confusing idealism with solipsism.
>Are you a bot? All of those were already addressed in this thread.
Nope. You addressed none of these in thread. Case in point repeating your QM lie. You just repeated already refuted bullshit because you're a pathological narcissist who can't not believe the world revolves around you.
>You seem to be confusing idealism with solipsism.
Nope. The consequence of idealism is solipsism, you just want to lie about it so your position seems stronger.
Tbh after all this years i finally concluded that idealism is go to method of arguing.
You do this wierd mental gymnastics to say what everyone is saying all this time but you use words that have no clear grounding in reallity so you can just fix away any problem by stating "Its this because it is" and only thing you have to do is belive your interpretations.
>Tbh after all this years i finally concluded that idealism is go to method of arguing.
It's no different from presuppositionalism or any other theologian lie. Just pretend nothing means anything unless it already agrees with you so you're always right. No easier way to identify narcissistic personality disorder.
>A human observer is necessary as evidenced by delayed choice experiments showing that a mere interaction with an inanimate device doesn't collapse the wave function.
lol o no it's retarded
>lol o no it's retarded
What kind of argument is this supposed to be? You have no facts, you have no logic, you're acting like an infant smearing shit from his diaper.
>What kind of argument is this supposed to be?
Mockery. Because you believe something as easily refuted as a basic google search and something that is OBVIOUSLY and necessarily not true. If consciousness were required for the waveform collapse then the only consciousness that could do it couldn't be us, and if it was us how did we evolve such that we could observe it?
Your interpretation is inherently self refuting and you are SO FUCKING RETARDED that has to be explained to you somehow. Of fucking course everyone's going to mock you holy shit
>von Neumann, Wigner, Schrödinger, Penrose, Feynman, Wheeler - they're are all retarded, unlike me, the genius undergrad on LULZ
Grandiose Dunning-K effect in action
>>von Neumann, Wigner, Schrödinger, Penrose, Feynman, Wheeler - they're are all retarded, unlike me, the genius undergrad on LULZ
As always idealists have to lie. None of these people EXCEPT wigner supported anything like your interpretation and Wigner completely recanted his very early speculation because that's all it was. A cute speculation that was obviously bullcrap.
I'm not the idealist retard. I'm a dualist. You clearly haven't researched these physicists' views on quantum mechanics or else you'd know they largely agree with me. Perhaps your google skills aren't as good as you imagine them to be.
>I'm a dualist.
You believe in ghosts?
Depends on what you mean by ghosts.
>I'm not the idealist retard. I'm a dualist.
That makes you even worse and even more the worse for lacking adequate embarrassment at admitting such a fault.
>You clearly haven't researched these physicists' views on quantum mechanics or else you'd know they largely agree with me.
Citation needed. Bet you immediately go to Wigner, who recanted is demonstrably asinine reifying of analogies and metaphors of earlier authors. It is in fact solely Wigner's folly that attaches the name, falsely, of Neumann to the so-called "Neumann-Wigner interpretation" even though Neumann professed nothing of the sort.
You think I have to google? Okay. Go ahead and tell me where in your reading of "The Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics" Neumann advances such a position. He doesn't, and I know you'll likely immediatley reach for Chapter VI because you haven't read it, and I'll have a real fucking hearty belly laugh.
There's a reason the consensus remains Copenhagen, and it certainly isn't because any of those authors agreed with you. They did not.
>There's a reason the consensus remains Copenhagen
Copenhagen isn't an interpretation. Copenhagen is merely a mathematical formalism. As Heisenberg intended: "Shut up and calculate." It intentionally omits any interpretation of the metaphysical nature of wave function collapse. Copenhagen only becomes an interpretation when you answer its most important open question by adding consciousness as the cause of wave function collapse.
>Copenhagen isn't an interpretation.
o no it's retarded
>it intentionally omits any interpretation of the metaphysical nature of wave function collapse.
The interpretation is the evidence admits no such ontology. Because it doesn't.
>Copenhagen only becomes an interpretation when you answer its most important open question by adding consciousness as the cause of wave function collapse.
Which none of the evidence supports. Furthermore, the proposition is self refuting as clearly explained in multiple posts before, and whose refutation none of you retards have even attempted to address.
If you think "shut up and calculate" is an explanation then you are operating on the level of a bot. Leave the intellectual discussion about the actual meaning, interpenetration and implications to the real thinkers then.
>If you think "shut up and calculate" is an explanation then you are operating on the level of a bot.
Nope. I am operating at the level of a scientist who is honest and pointing out to the LIARS aka YOU that the evidence does not support your LYING.
>Leave the intellectual discussion about the actual meaning, interpenetration and implications to the real thinkers then.
No, I won't leave the discussion to liars much as you wish I would.
Nothing I said is a lie. I only post factual statements.
Factually relating your subjective preferences is one thing. The lie is in relating those preferences as if they're indicative of reality. More specifically, that is why you make me think you suffer from narcissistic personality disorder, because only such a delusion could admit itself to such a conceit.
Oh look, it's a certified reddit internet psychologist diagnosing anonymous posters.
NTA but you're wrong about quantum. A human observer is necessary as evidenced by delayed choice experiments showing that a mere interaction with an inanimate device doesn't collapse the wave function.
You naggers dont have habit of writing
"What are criticisms of X" in goofle and chatgpt do you? You just see first info that happens to confirm your perspective and go with it.
Nice projection, fucktard. I did more online research on this than you.
I can see that. Thats why you hug interpretation (meanwhile not affirming it is interpretation)
Interpretations are of different value. Some have more intellectual depth and are less incomplete than others. The only serious alternative to von Neumann / Wigner would be Bohmian mechanics with superdeterminism. But the latter would invalidate the fundamental prerequisites of science and rational discourse, hence warrents no discussion
>Some have more intellectual depth and are less incomplete than others.
I am glad you are aware of your position in all this. Being honest to yourself is first step into becoming objective.
All interpretations of quantum mechanics are empirically indistinguishable, as they all predict the same outcomes to quantum mechanical experiments. It has been argued that the results of delayed-choice quantum eraser experiments empirically falsify this interpretation. However, the argument was shown to be invalid because an interference pattern would only be visible after post-measurement detections were correlated through use of a coincidence counter; if that wasn't true, the experiment would allow signaling into the past. The delayed-choice quantum eraser experiment has also been used to argue for support of this interpretation, but, as with other arguments, none of the cited references proves or falsifies this interpretation.
Note most impirtant;
>All interpretations of quantum mechanics are empirically indistinguishable, as they all predict the same outcomes to quantum mechanical experiments
Iow. good job you gave your story to why things are the way they are. Now pack up your shit and stand in line with other story tellers.
Your reading comprehension is poor. I talked about the intellectual value of interpretations.
Oh man oh man, and i bet the intellectual value is based on criteria (if its my side then its worth, if not then no)
Yes, epistemological criteria.
Oh boi oh boi tell me which epistemological stance (theory) do you take when evaluating which interpretation is most valuable? The one that suggests that interpretation is valuable if it predicts stuff? Oh boi oh boi but didnt we postulate few minutes ago all interpretations do?
>Wikipedia boy is still at it
For starters, let's look at explanatory value. "Shut up and calculate" for example has none and hence doesn't deserve the label "interpretation". There is no intellectual merit in "it just is, okay?" Same with Bayesian or relational or consistent histories or however the special snowflakes of minority QM interpretations call it nowadays. Those explain nothing metaphysically, they merely try to verbalize some aspects of the mathematical formalism. There's different frames of reference? Wow, totally cool and new "interpretation", dimwit. Random means you can't know it before measuring? Thanks for this novel and groundbreaking insight, dipshit.
Then there's logical consistency. An interpretation has to be free of obvious paradoxes. Transactional interpretation for example runs into the contradiction of simultaneously claiming a time-ordered protocol while demanding that it happens atemporally. Quite a Langian foolery.
Last but not least we require parsimony and consistency with the entirety of our current knowledge. Many worlds is simply grotesque, yielding many more open and unanswerable questions than it answers.
Von Neumann / Wigner is the perfect answer. It explains the collapse. It adds only the necessary minimum. It is logically consistent. It agrees with everyday experience.
>For starters, let's look at explanatory value.
That does nothing, and ya wiki boye is right. What distinguishes hindsight empirically equivalent theories, theories equally based on what we already know, would be evidence from novel predictions and experimentation that favors one in exclusion of the others. Looking among them for what YOU PERSONALLY find as more explanatory is without value. Cry about it or as the kids say cope and seethe
Oh boi oh boi i also thing it is higly logical starting with assumption that conciousness is something non-physical but then implying it has effect on physical reallity without wanting to admit it is physical.
Boi oh boi not to mentio we dont even know what conciousness is but boi oh boi here is a umbrella term of many phenomena to imply it crushed wave function
of all, science does not support the inference. Rather, science describes what we perceive.
>This is demonstrably false. How did things exist before we came to perceive them? Universe had to exist before we evolved, and had to operate on rules before we evolved. You're a retard.
I'm not that anon but it needs to be pointed out how dishonest you are here for 2 reasons:
1. a 200 million year old dinosaur bone is a description of what you perceive now.
2. another organism with different senses would describe different aspects of the assumed independent reality we share.
3. if you assume that reality exists independently from our senses than knowledge gathered through the senses is not reality which invalidates all science.
>1. a 200 million year old dinosaur bone is a description of what you perceive now.
It requires things preceded that perception in order to exist now. You're arguing for last thursdayism aka solipsism
>2. another organism with different senses would describe different aspects of the assumed independent reality we share.
Irrelevant. Reality has to work a certain way independent of the senses in order to behave in a reliable way independent our senses. Otherwise you're arguing an infinitely ad hoc supposition equivalent to living life as a perpetual delusion where nothing is true because nothing can be said to be true
>3. if you assume that reality exists independently from our senses than knowledge gathered through the senses is not reality which invalidates all science.
Yep, solipsist. In the bin you go.
>Nope. The consequence of idealism is solipsism, you just want to lie about it so your position seems stronger.
Oh look I was right but lol I'm dishonest somehow? no you idealists are liars like always. Thanks for proving me right.
No. Read Baudrillard about the perfect crime: murder of the real.
>No. Read Baudrillard about the perfect crime: murder of the real.
I'm not reading your clwon author. Your inability to count combined with the retardation of your argument makes it plain how inept your literary sources are, and I need not waste time further proving that fact.
Okay well figure out what mind is and then get back to us.
K I figured it out. You are mind. Next question.
How does "the mental" cause qualia?
>NOOOOO, you can't ask me that. Cuz I think qualia fundamentally IS the mental
How does "the material" cause qualia?
For some reason, saying that qualia IS the material. Now Idealists are not satisfied with the same answer.
Look, I can even say stuff about neurons, but that's not really pertinent to the discussion.
Glad someone else also sees hipocracy in this.
>he would know that if he takes this stance he is basically saying that there can be experience of redness without physical interaction of sensory organ and light.
Yes, that is correct. It is shocking to me that you would even treat this as an absurd claim. You don't see mental visual images? The entire world you experience is a mental production. Not to mention dreams and imagination show this quite clearly. I am now CONVINCED that you are an NPC zombie. There is no way that you could possibly be denying that we have mental experiences unless you are an NPC zombie.
>For we could easly take his eyes out, take him to some place he has never been too and ask him what is his visual experience of it. But oh you know.. no matter that hr claims he does not need eyes.. he wouldnt do it.. irony.
what are you even talking about? you are so far off track i don't even know how to respond to this absurdity. Of course you need eyes to perceive vision. But you don't need eyes to have a mental experience. This should be quite obvious to humans, I would think...
By the way, reminder that you DO have eyes. You have ideas of eyes; they are not physical. They appear to us as physical representations.
You think you are making some great point with this comparison, but you are not. I already explained to you that our own experiences are mental. Qualia are mental. They are not reduceable beyond mental because we cannot comprehend anything beyond our fundamental level.
The burden is on you to show that qulia is material. We're still waiting.
Now we are going in circles because you are a midwit unable of comprehending abstract ideas.
If you see hypocrisy then you simply do not understand and you should be quiet until your comprehension has reached a level that allows you to join the discussion with meaningful contributions.
>You think you are making some great point with this comparison, but you are no
well if (you) say so..
>If you see hypocrisy then you simply do not understand and you should be quiet until your comprehension has reached a level that allows you to join the discussion with meaningful contributions.
Do you actually have any good arguments for idealism apart of ad hominem all the time and presenting assumptions as facts?
Thought so. Go preach your religion somewhere else.
I see and respect your concession. Now go and preach your materialist religion somewhere else, this is a science board.
You know that you are aware from your own experience. That is where you have to find your own truth. It is private to you. Only you know your own experience. Mediate, search within yourself, do shrooms, whatever it takes for you to realize that you are the awareness of a human.
Where does it come from is a good question. Because why should there be separate ideas of humans? How would we all exist separately and not as one mind? The answer is that we necessarily must exist as ideas in a larger mind, the same way that there are multiple characters in your dreams or imagination. The same way that you exist "above" but also "as" your human counterpart. We are all localizations of a universal consciousness.
I have already done so multiple times in this thread. The only thing I know is that I exist as mental experience. The burden is on you to either deny that I exist as experience, or to show that my experience is caused by a different ontological category altogether (matter). You are the one proposing a novel ontological category, not me. I am operating in the realm of what we KNOW.
See my answer above - we exist as the idea of localizations of universal consciousness. Otherwise you are correct, there is no reason why we should necessarily exist as separate beings. Yet we do.
>The burden is on you to either deny that I exist as experience, or to show that my experience is caused by a different ontological category altogether (matter).
No it is not, as i told you once, naming something is not asserting claims about nature of reallity.
You are the one that has burden.
If you and me stood infront of a red dot, i would say (input name) and you would claim (oh its this and that whic implys this and that). You tell me why you assertions about nature of reallity have a ground to be taken seriously. Do you understand what i am telling you? Do you understand difference between naming things and asserting implications based on this things?
>I am operating in the realm of what we KNOW.
What you do is anything but that. You assert sentances such as: "exist as the idea of localizations of universal consciousness". What did you tell me with this? Nothing, you just added another elemenent that begs explanation.
You gave a possible reasson to why is it so but not to how it works. Yet "how" is all we search for. You are giving answer no one asked for nor thinks is usefull. Mystifieng reallity to evade questions of "how does it work" is anything but contribution to progress of knowledge.
Let me try to give you a better picture
We have a thing X.
Firstly comes materialist and says, hey lets call this thing matter and propertys it has physical mass (for example). And when someone asks what is matter we will tell him its this thing X we called matter and it posesses physical propertys (absolutely nothing implyed about nature of thing X, only nominal deacription)
Now comes idealist and says, hey this thing X, it is actually the thing Y the thing Y on other hand is such and such (ignoring that he draws notion of Y as negation of X so essentialy he is claiming that there is X but also not) and thats because such and such Z does such and such thing.
Without trolling anon, i ask you again, who here needs to give proves?
A persone who names what he sees and creates map of how that things interact, or you who assert implications.
Let me reminde you that proofs need to be given when are trying to prove something not when we name it.
It sounds like you're trying to say that materialists do not claim that matter exists, only that what we call matter is our description of our perception of it? If that's what you're saying then I will say that I agree with the statement, but I do not think that's what most materialists think.
In any case, if that's what you're saying, then yes. We cannot KNOW matter-as-itself. We can only experience our perceptions of matter. Except there is a narrow window to reality-as-itself - you. That's why I keep saying that you are the key. The answer is internal, not external. We can use our knowledge of our own existence to infer that other life also has states of being that are immaterial. And you go from there. You are like 90% of the way there, you just need to explore yourself internally to go the rest of the way.
Why is it so easy for you to suppose you (the You) isn't made out of the same stuff as the "matter" you percive?
I think we got so many good reasons to believe this.
Like being hit on the head with a hammer, or taking drugs (made out of matter).
>It sounds like you're trying to say that materialists do not claim that matter exists
No i am trying to show you like other anon thst there is thing X which we call matter. What is so hard to understand anon?
Do i really have to draw it to you difference between naming something and claiming skmething about the thing we name?
Anon i swesr to god, just visualize smalled unit of reallity (particle) its the thing X. And we say it is matter and it has such and such propertys (because it interacts kn such and such way). There are no implications here, just naming the observed information. Literaly anon..
While you from your position, imagine a particle the thing X and start aserting that there is more to it then we observe, that this "more" implys this and this.
You are just projecting another dimension underneeth of the one we observe and start claiming things about it.
And i am asking you, who here needs to prove claims? Us who simply observe and name, or you who implys informatiom originaly not contained in observations?
See the last post I made. You are very close to getting it. You have realized that matter is not real; it is a human fiction. You next will realize that QM is mental fabric. And then you might come around.
>or you who implys informatiom originaly not contained in observations?
our external perceptions are not reliable when it comes to reality. I am operating in the ontological realm of the known. I am not speculating anything.
>How do explain the hard problem of universal mind consciousness? btw
>How you get the small mind (you) out of the big mind
There is no hard problem in idealism. How do you get the small mind out of the big mind? The same way you can imagine a person talking to another person in your imagination/dream.
>How does consciousness arise from physical processes
It doesn't. Physical processes are the representation of life/awareness/consciousness (synonyms).
>I do not understand that metaphysics is not science, that science has totally different goal then metaphysics, i cant understand it even with banal explanations....
>ERGO.. you guys must me dense/obtuse/closed and i will not even consider that i am tallking to a guy who studyes this shit and trys to show me the difference.
>It doesn't. Physical processes are the representation of life/awareness/consciousness (synonyms).
How does conciousness make representations of it self?
You see polemics go both way, you can turn picture upside down all you want but you cannot evade questions.
Do you think imagined people in your dreams got a point of view, that "it's like something" to be them
>There is no hard problem in idealism
There totally is!
Is why Castrup send so much time on looking at split-brain patients to use them as evidence how to segment multiple minds out of his universal mind/schizo-god
Don't get me wrong. I think Castrup is silly. If mind is what's fundamental, how is looking at people's brains supposed to help with that? Mental got nothing to do with the brain on his view.
Actually, people with multiple personality disorder do experience dreams through different points of view. Minds can absolutely decombine and recombine. You can go deep into meditation or take psychadelics and also become other entities and lose yourself.
We can't understand the ultimate "why" because we are just characters in the dream/imagination, so we do not have access to the greater mind imagining us.
There is no hard problem. Whatever you perceive physically is simply a representation of that same perception happening mentally. They correlate 1:1.
Correct, but your experience of your own existence is not reliant on physical perception. You know that you exist. That's the starting premise.
>Tell me what is difference between metaphysics and science.
Are you for real?
>Then why would there be need to answer how and why physical processes give subjective experience?
I mean, the "need" is tied to meaning, and that is up to you. You could close this tab and go play Roblox. You don't "need" to do anything. So that is a strange question. But the reason why this question is important for humans is because it carries ethical implications. And to understand ourselves we need to understand what we are. It is how we find our grounding and sense of meaning. It is how we decide what is good and what is bad, what is right and what is wrong. Whether we can forgive ourselves and others for certain actions, or not. Whether we have any moral duties whatsoever. Which means trying to make sense of the world/reality.
So why would we need to answer how and why physical processes give subjective experience? Because we know that subjective experience is immaterial. We (society) believe that reality is not immaterial. So we have an apparent problem to solve.
>Correct, but your experience of your own existence is not reliant on physical perception. You know that you exist. That's the starting premise.
This is all i needed to hear. Now i can with asurance say that your whole view is just fairytale.
Good bye anon
>our external perceptions are not reliable when it comes to reality. I am operating in the ontological realm of the known. I am not speculating anything.
>Doubts the very thing he tallks about
>Doubts the very thing he abstracts things out off
If they are not reliable then they are not reliable to draw conclusions eaither the ones that you "ontologicaly" make.
You are clueless. I am telling you that the only thing we know about reality-in-itself is that we experience. Everything else is an intuition from that one fact. You are the one making stuff up and operating from a completely different and non-factual premise. You can't tell us what matter is, you can't tell us how it works, you can't explain consciousness, you can't explain life, you can't explain shit. You have nothing but an empty religion worshiping physical matter and putting all your faith into physical matter with zero connection to actual reality. Now you are doubling down on your dogma and I can tell this conversation is over because you are unable or unwilling to think beyond your dogma.
That is the hierarchy. You can visualize it vertically. Consciousness means awareness, or a state of being. All life is a state of being. There is something that it is like to be a human, a dog, a cell, a bacteria, a plant.
You are the awareness OF the state of being of what it is like to be a human. AND because of this you are also the state of being of a human, necessarily.
Just as you exist above your body, but also ARE your body, the universal consciousness exists above you but is also you.
What is happening with Alzheimer's? The brain degenerates or whatever it does and doesn't function like it used to. I'm not an expert in Alzheimer's. But the point is that your brain is real, Alzheimer's is real, yes. But it is not physical. It is mental. The idea of our universe is an idea of the universal consciousness. What you perceive as a physical brain is a representation of the idea of the brain.
This isn't solipsism. Reality exists. It's just not physical. The world we live in is a constructed representation of that mental reality. It's hard to grasp, I know.
>reality-in-itself is that we experience
Is that so? Then i guess neither can you explain to us shit apart from providing assumptions.
AND I AM TELLING YOU FOR LAST TIME, NO ONE EVER CLAIMED HE CAN SAY WHAT MATTER IS FOR WE DO NOT DEAL IN NATURE OF REALLITY BUT RATHER GIVE NAMES TO THINGS YOU DENSE CARROT
And again not a single constructive god damn argument to why are you assertions correct apart from ad hominem produced by missunderstanding.
Okay give me reassons to belive i am not my body, that i am experience and that there is universal consciousness
Also dont me reminde you thst you are asserting claims about nature of reallity:)
I already explained it to you. You are dense/obtuse/closed. I declare you a lost cause.
I actually think that what you're trying to do is play both sides. I think you understand the problems but are unwilling to abandon your hold on your "reality." I think you will willingly accept the idealist explanation when you realize that QM is actually the mental fabric of our own minds that constructed our spacetime world. I don't know when you will reach that point, but I do think you will get there eventually. So maybe not a lost cause totally; just a lost cause here and now.
Because if that were the case, there is no necessary and sufficient reason why I should exist in the first place. There is no reason why a state of being should exist for living creates. There is no explanation that is even possible in theory for how subjective experience of meta-awareness exists. It completely and utterly fails to account for the one fact that we undoubtedly know - that we exist. ("I think, therefore I am.").
Google the problems with materialism. They are numerous. I don't have time to run through them all. But it's obvious at this point that materialism doesn't explain reality correctly.
Hammers and drugs are real. They just are not physical. For the 1000th time. Read this over and over and ruminate on it until you understand that you need to undo your starting premise and start over:
>Hammers and drugs are real. They just are not physical.
>Hammers and drugs are real. They just are not physical.
>Hammers and drugs are real. They just are not physical.
>Hammers and drugs are real. They just are not physical.
>Hammers and drugs are real. They just are not physical.
>Hammers and drugs are real. They just are not physical.
>there is no necessary and sufficient reason why I should exist in the first place. There is no reason why a state of being should exist for living creates. There is no explanation that is even possible in theory for how subjective experience of meta-awareness exists.
What's the "mental" explanation for these things?
A hammer? Humans invented the idea of a hammer. The fabric out of which humans conceived a hammer? The universal consciousness shared space.
That's good, I actually like taking those words out. I am also going to stop using consciousness because it is such a weighted word.
>Hammers and drugs are made out of the same stuff as our minds. We are in full agreement.
Fully agree. The only question that remains is what is the implication of that? The implication is that everything is mental, because our minds are mental.
>How does conciousness make representations of it self?
The same way you have an imagination and dreams. You can imagine other people and things, can't you? There is no further "how" to understand. It just is. It is beyond our comprehension because it is fundamental...that is the essence of fundamental. It is fundamental to our understanding.
I agree, humans invented hammers, then made hammers in a shared reality out stuff that is fundamentally the same kind of stuff as their consciousness.
My guy... my guy...
Tell me what is difference between metaphysics and science. Cmon.
>The same way you have an imagination and dreams. You can imagine other people and things, can't you? There is no further "how" to understand. It just is. It is beyond our comprehension because it is fundamental...that is the essence of fundamental. It is fundamental to our understanding.
Then why would there be need to answer how and why physical processes give subjective experience?
>Hammers and drugs are real. They just are not physical
I don't use the P-word or the M-word anymore.
Hammers and drugs are made out of the same stuff as our minds. We are in full agreement.
Same kind of stuff still, right?
How do explain the hard problem of universal mind consciousness? btw
How you get the small mind (you) out of the big mind
>You know that you are aware from your own experience
So you are implying that only requierment for being self-aware is to experience?
Do please explain with this framework state of alzheimers.
What is exactly happening that causes them to start lossing awareness of things and memory.
>I have already done so multiple times in this thread. The only thing I know is that I exist as mental experience. The burden is on you to either deny that I exist as experience, or to show that my experience is caused by a different ontological category altogether (matter). You are the one proposing a novel ontological category, not me. I am operating in the realm of what we KNOW.
Nobody is supposing a new ontological category. We both agree that there is only 1 kind of stuff.
This is simply an epistemic issue, that we can't KNOW for certain anything else but that we exist/experience/think/whatever
I'm fine with having lower-case knowledge, stuff I can't be entirely certain about.
I don't know why you get so pissy about people saying neurons got something to do with you experiencing the colour blue.
>I don't know why you get so pissy about people saying neurons got something to do with you experiencing the colour blue.
Neurons don't exist outside of our minds. We invented them as a description. The burden is on you to show that they exist independent of our conception and that they cause the color blue.
>Nobody is supposing a new ontological category
Anyone who says that matter is physical is creating a new ontological category out of nothing.
Don't you at least think it's highly unexpected that people stop experiencing the colour blue, if you remove their neurons from their skull?
If qualia is not dependent on the neurons. How come that happens?
"I already explained to you that our own experiences are material. Qualia is material. They are not reduceable beyond the material because we the material is what's fundamental.
The burden is on you to show that qulia is mental. We're still waiting."
Look, I can keep doing this the whole day. Just tell me what we disagree about. (except the word being used)
If I smashed your head in with a hammer. Do you think it would still "be like something" to be you? Maybe we disagree about that
So you're basically asking what happens when we die. That's a big question. We can infer that our experience of awareness of a human being would end. But since we exist as part of the universal consciousness, our awareness is subsumed back into the universal consciousness. We have no way of conceiving what that would be like, except maybe NDEs and psychedelic drugs that allow one to experience "death" of the body attachment.
The idealists in this thread can't really tell me anything we disagree about, they are just angry.
It's fine we could all be "substance monists", we don't have to call it "matter"..
>So you're basically asking what happens when we die
I'm just trying to identify points of disagreement.
Reason I'm asking is because I think a lot of people are Idealists, because they are scared of dying, but think religions are silly. So they want a rational way to justify a belief in living forever.
>But since we exist as part of the universal consciousness, our awareness is subsumed back into the universal consciousness
Now, finally a point of disagreement. I think we die when we die.
I don't understand what it means for "awareness to be subsumed" , or what an "universal consciousness"
Everything related to our brains seems highly unexpected on Idealism
Like, if all you need to experience is mind, and you are mind, and mind is what's fundamental, anyway
What the fuck is the brain supposed to be? Where the fuck did that thing come from?
The brain is an idea. Humans are an idea. The physical brain is a representation. We live in a shared mental reality. The physical world is constructed by our minds from a shared mental reality.
If you're asking why anything is the way it is, in the broadest possible sense, then we don't know and will never know (until we die). That is beyond us because it is God's imagination (the universal consciousness). As localizations, we don't have access to the whole picture.
>The brain is an idea. Humans are an idea. The physical brain is a representation. We live in a shared mental reality. The physical world is constructed by our minds from a shared mental reality.
Again.. we get it, you habe your idea of nature of reallity. This still leaves question :How does consciousness arise from physical processes
>How does clouds make rain?
The same way you have an imagination and dreams. You can imagine rainclouds, can't you? There is no further "how" to understand. It just is. It is beyond our comprehension because it is fundamental...that is the essence of fundamental. It is fundamental to our understanding.
I think this is the third time you have tried making this same point in the same way. Yet again you fail to recognize the ontological differences between mental and physical, and you fail to understand what fundamental means. Therefore what you just wrote doesn't make any sense.
A cloud does not exist as a cloud. It exists as "matter," which is an immaterial quantum fluctuation. The perception of "matter" in the shape of a cloud is then turned into the idea of a "cloud" by humans recognizing a perceived pattern with a corresponding utility.
With that, I need to run for a bit and get some actual work done. I hope to return later if this isn't archived. I hope that even if I did not change the minds of the people with whom I am conversing, that at least some passive observers in this thread may have learned something or picked up a spark to do some more research.
>Yet again you fail to recognize the ontological differences between mental and physical
Do materialists make an ontological distinctions between mental and physical?
They flat out deny that the mental exists. Otherwise they would be dualists.
Right, so they don't fail at making a distinction.
Do idealists make an ontological distinctions between mental and physical?
Who is even supposed to fail here? Both views beliefs there to be no ontological distinction. That the "mental" and the "physical" have the same ontology.
But it's not the same ontology because physical and mental are ontologically different. Physical ontology requires physical determinism. Which requires that consciousness be no more than billiard balls bouncing around. Which negates free will. Materialism denies free will and subjective experience. Or if it acknowledges subjective experience, then it fails to provide a mechanism of explanation - there are no physical properties of thoughts.
They are bth talking about the same thing, but materialists mistake our descriptions of reality (physical causality) for reality itself.
>it fails to provide a mechanism of explanation - there are no physical properties of thoughts.
What neuroscientists are doing doesn't count?
Still not clear on what competing explanation Idealism got, or why I should prefer it
Okay so now that we're had idealists vs materialists thread #247, who is winning?
I have learned two things anon
1. I was on every side of majority of polemics (you cannot change other persons opinion) so i will finally drop it and save my self from this hell
2. I learned beauty as girl in your pic is really only thing that matters.
I'm colourblind so I have an intuitive understanding of the fact that art is shit.
You know what I think it funny with Idealism?
>things are real, just not physical
Could you build an actually conscious robot out of this real stuff on idealism?
Maybe our brains are like that, made out of real stuff but NOT connected up the schizo-god, just made out of stuff dreamt up by it. Yet we still be conscious, just another kind of conscious.
Wow, it's almost like this kind of Idealism commits you to all the beliefs a materialist already holds, plus some additional weird beliefs.
*uses to power of my mind to collapse a wave-function*
I do have consciousness! I'm not a zombie
You don't get to accuse me of lacking qualia or any of that stuff for rethorical effect ever again
Why Idealists keep lying about famous people agreeing with them?
>That is your brain struggling because it cannot comprehend thoughts at the abstract level necessary to comprehend reality. Your brain is sputtering.
Kid stand in line. I have 20 others like you with different interpretation then yours claiming "You cant comprehand reallity"
Nah.. i can.. its just, you failed to research why project of rationalism failed.
You dont see thst your are thinking about thoughts. You are sk detached from reallity that you need 2 year supply of antipsychotic to get back to your senses.
I held this positions 5 years ago and i left them for a reasson. You think you are special because you can tell complicated fairytales? I mean you are.. just not the kind of special you think you are.
>Neuroscientists have no clue what thoughts even are. We have no mechanism to explain being-ness.
Suppose they had a clue. Couldn't you just say there's an epistemic issue, and the only thing we can really KNOW is our own mind
>intelligence =/= consciousness
Which is why I postulated conscious
>A conscious observer is necessary for collapse the wave function.
No, but seriously. I have it on good grounds that I'm a zombie, and still I can collapse wave functions.
This is clearly false.
lol yeah same. if you're
I admit I am becoming a fan. We're coming at it from different ends but I am enjoying the thrashing you're dealing with respect to the empirical equivalence of the storytellers regardless of the historical literary details.
I may adopt something similar as it's often just easier, and to the observer more quippy, than relying on my more intimate knowledge of the source literature.
As already mentioned, the empirical equivalence is trivial. If you're unwilling to engage in intellectual discussion beyond the empirical that's fine. Anti-intellectualism is a valid, though despicable position. Just don't be too much of an annoyance.
>As already mentioned, the empirical equivalence is trivial.
As already explained your personal feelings and crying about what you personally find more persuasive absent novel prediction has no scientific value. boo fucking hoo for you /x/ is that way >>>/x/
Your superdeterminism has no scientific value because it actively denies the basis of science. If scientists don't have the freedom to reflect upon their findings and to set up experiments then they cannot gain knowledge. There are no insights in a deterministic world.
Depends on what you mean. If I am to state a preference it's de broglie-bohm if I had a gun to my head, simply because it can be made to comport with local emergence of such randomness and explains everything "if I gotta". Thing is though I don't toss my brain in the bin and proceed to declare my preference is indicative of reality only because I have a preference due to some long chain of inferences as to what would be "reasonable" TO ME, unlike you.
Is that superdeterministic? Well, it is determinism. It does require that you would effectively know the total state like in chaotic systems in order to know the local states, same as with other forms of chaos and randomness. Could be my preference is wrong and my inference is still true such that some other explanatory theory along the same lines is more reasonable still within those parameters.
>There are no insights in a deterministic world.
Oh really? Seems to have been working fucking fantastic so far. You're just upset it means you can't be the center of the universe it seems to me.
>You're just upset it means you can't be the center of the universe it seems to me.
NTA, but why do you keep repeating this? Why is your conception of idealism as the idealist being the metaphorical center of their universe in a derogatory sense? Why do you equate idealism with narcissism? I genuinely do not understand. Can you explain?
>I genuinely do not understand. Can you explain?
For one thing you're equivocating between my criticism of the idealist with my criticism of idealism. I am not appealing to motive to refute the idea, I am appealing to motive to point out the idealist will forever maintain idealism absent and against all reason due to motive. Namely, the desire for reality in some sense and to some degree bend to the whims of somebody.
That relates to narcissism in that the disorder is, in effect, to view the world as personal whim. Viewed that way, it can only make sense, and therefore be sensible, for a hierarchy of whim to exist such that the "greatest whim" explains why one's personal whims don't shape reality entirely and to worship such a being. It's certainly a twisted kind of thinking but it is very typical of people with NPD. Though the more delusional the more likely a given individual would be to adopt even more fantastical thinking such as outright believing magic and ritual is altering reality explicitly in their favor by exerting of their will over it.
Irony being theologians and narcissists both adopt the same flawed philosophy for ultimately the same reason. That is, to make sense of why reality isn't working like their personal ideas suggest it should. I think that is a very funny joke.
>Why do you equate idealism with narcissism?
So no, I am not "equating" idealism to narcissism. It has nothing to do with the rational refutation of it, only the refusal of persons clinging to the ideology to submit to such refutation asbent reason. Where, of course, such reasoning becomes absent.
Had to fix an editing error double negative. Yes it did bother me that much.
Upon reflection this deserves second pass, as you have made a critical mistake as to the nature of determinism and knowledge. Since you refuse evidence and claim appealing to it constitutes some "lack of thought" I submit your whole ideology makes reason and such thought impossible in the first place.
>If scientists don't have the freedom to reflect upon their findings and to set up experiments then they cannot gain knowledge.
>There are no insights in a deterministic world.
1. Without determinism scientists could not do so.
2. Knowledge necessarily requires determinism.
If events cannot be determined, then you cannot have knowledge about the world. If tossing a 1/6 die might get you a cow and the big bang, along with infinitely many simultaneous outcomes, then reason and knowledge are therefore impossible. Not only must instances be determinable, but their prior instances, and causation as a whole, as well as their degrees of freedom, must have determinable and determined limits.
What it amounts to is desiring such a world as if by magic where ones thoughts influence reality rather than thought being limited to predicting reality. There is a reason many people consider this narcissistic, because it depicts a world by whim whether one's sole whim or the whim of a so-called "greater" whim. In either case it is a cheap trick to attempt to get determinism with the convenient "out" of being able to ascribe by such means, and therefore by what amounts to magic, the plain determinism we ordinarily see. Such tricks are rightly relegated to the bin and such people as mistake tricks for true magic rightly mocked.
>If events cannot be determined
That's not what determinism means.
>That's not what determinism means.
why are people like this
It saves time and nerves anon.
Art is in finding the tool they use to construct storys. Deny the tool and you denyed the story.
I'm not ignorant of the notion. I could just as easily and briefly point out a further deterministic notion is supported by inference from prior determinism, and all stories denying determinism are least believable on that basis. That is, accept the (flawed) premise and still reject their desired outcome.
both of you need to fuck off back to r*ddit to circle jerk over your delusion of "owning the idealists" with your retarded takes
Finally, something testable
Zombies are conscious. Humans are meta-conscious. It doesn't take meta-consciousness to collapse it.
I can conceive of a zombie-fish, who doesn't float when it's swimming bladder inflates
it just sits there in the water, even if it's physically indistinguishable from a regular fish
this proves buoyancy is fundamental
Another L for materialists
We literally live in a world where 1/3rd of our time is spent in another dimension called dreams. If you become sufficiently lucid and deep enough into the dream it can literally become indistinguishable from reality. Yet LULZ STILL fucking believes it is made all particles. That is an entire THIRD of our lives that LULZ just ignores as memory sorting. Scientists literally ignore one THIRD of our lives
Is there something preventing dreams from being made out of matter?
The stuff in dreams is not made of matter. I can feel real raindrops on my skin in a dream and it isn't matter it is mind. Yet you keep pretending real life rain is matter.
>The stuff in dreams is not made of matter
It's created by your brain which is made of matter. It is contingent upon the matter, not independent of. This is that nonsense of so-called "supervenience" from concepts onto matter.
If you think it is feel free to show me the concept of a wall such that independent and absent matter it functions nonetheless identically to a wall.
lol idiot. I am saying the rain is indistinguishable from real life rain. It is not different in a meaningful way. That means the concept of matter is not ultimate or the most honest thing. It is just what a teenager clings to as he takes his first steps into the void. So fucking what? You gonna cling to your teen years forever? I guess that is the American way.
>I am saying the rain is indistinguishable from real life rain.
Well no shit since your sensation is a product of your brain. Stands to reason hallucinating any given sensation would therefore be indistinguishable to your subjective experience. You seem to be reaching for something other than that, though, and explaining it very badly.
LOL why the fuck would your opinion matter? Yes dude hallucinations are not an objective thing. What is it called when you can't see something that IS there? How come there is no word for that? Because society just wants to opress. Yes if I hallucinate rain it is just more proof of the illusory nature of reality. But go ahead and act all high and mighty as if it matters if you have a phd. Never have I ever seen a professor exert any real power over me hahaha
>Yes if I hallucinate rain it is just more proof of the illusory nature of reality.
Clearly not, since reality exists independent hallucination. Did you somehow never learn about object permanence as an infant? Are you surprised every time you turn a coin over?
No it really doesn't. I have never seen proof that your so called "reality" exists. All i have seen is assertions made in an essay published in an archive that nobody reads. Who really gives a fuck about what a scientist calls reality? All that matters is what effects real conscious people nothing else matters. And it only matters in the way it effects us. Sorry but a forgotten essay doesn't amount to much of an effect at all.
because I agree with him as to what I hope is your trolling
>Clearly not, since reality exists independent hallucination
If reality did not exist prior to my existing to think it existed, then I could not have come to exist to think reality into being such that I could come to exist.
Proof by negation.
So you cant prove it, you just assert your assumptions as a fact ..... got it
lol no. Proof is you can't know about the parts you aren't there for, so you can't have made them such that you'd have come to exist. Ergo, it is independent of you. stole this meme recently and it fits here too
>more baseless assertions
I have https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_contradiction
imagine being too stupid to see the holes in your theory. Prove you arent in a VR simulation right now and all these things you think existed before your first memory werent programmed by someone else. Do you think people are incapable of imagining things that dont exist? Be kinda hard to invent things if that was true now wouldnt it? dumb ass
>Prove you arent in a VR simulation right now and all these things you think existed before your first memory werent programmed by someone else
Then it would still be be true that there was a reality that existed before I did
Are you retarded?
Look, maybe you're God. And always existed, but just forgot about it.
Then it would be false that there was a reality before you existed.
>Look, maybe you're God. And always existed, but just forgot about it.
That would entail the same contradiction as making a rock too heavy to lift. In that to have chosen to not remember being God such that all attempt to demonstrate to myself also do not work I would have to surpass my own power, and surpass my surpassing of my power, on and on ad infinitum.
In other words the sum of the proposition of God/NotGod is zero, or meaningless in that the state does not exist.
Maybe making myself forget stuff is within my power, but not omnipotence
>Maybe making myself forget stuff is within my power, but not omnipotence
Which can't be done else such an asymmetry could subsequently be discoverable, and were such an asymmetry discovered it would therefore prove such a God exists. Since such a God does not wish to be discovered he therefore could not exist to satisfy the requirements, and would promptly vanish in a puff of logic.
>"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
>"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves that You exist, and so therefore, by Your own arguments, You don't. QED."
>"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
So QEDPHGTTG, "quod erat damonstrandum per hitchiker's", or "which was to be demonstrated by hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy". So there. Nyeh.
I am merely acting in accord to my nature
My nature is such that I desire to create Babel fish and forget who I am
>My nature is such that I desire to create Babel fish and forget who I am
Either way you slice it the salami is still a salami and I still prefer ham so it doesn't really add up to what I said I'd be paying for and my lunch better not be salami or else
>retard calling people retarded
>Then it would still be be true that there was a reality that existed before I did
This has zero to do with the argument at hand you moronic imbecile and I bet you arent smart enough to figure out why
>slaps bodhi around a bit with a large trout
Yeah I'm aware of the Aprippan trilemma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_trilemma
This is defeated by inference to reality by novel future testable predictions i.e. science, not infinitely regressive, circular, or dogmatic, further proofs. As to negating the contrary it is sufficient to dismiss by their lack of evidence. That is to say, the theory that I am a brain in a vat has not distinguished itself as possibly or probably true by the evidence of its testing.
So you can either appeal to some standard beyond proof i.e. reality, or you're left with mere preference where I can merely say you're wrong because I want to ad infinitum.
how do you think you can prove this
Explain to me your experiment like I am a 5 yo please
Oh oh i got one.
If reality is halutination, then all your knowledge about the world is halutination. Which implys, your cult ideology is halutination also as it is predicated on the world you are in.
Thank you for youe visit, dont forget to give us a "But only enlightened can wake up from halutination" or "Platos alegory" comment on McStory app in SchizoPlay
Look at this babbling retard
>the rain is indistinguishable from real life rain. It is not different in a meaningful way
If you collected some rainwater in your dream, then froze it
how much would it expand?
If you found a temple guarded by a busty gold digger what would you do?
try not to stare at her chest
I predict it would not behave as water you freeze when you are awake, because they are in fact distinguishable
There isn't typically enough time to freeze things. However I can tell you about the time I fed a frozen rat to my cat after baking it in an oven that extended into a deep dark infinity full of rust and grime.
>the rain is indistinguishable from real life rain. It is not different in a meaningful way.
I've been drinking only rainwater from my dreams for 2 years, and I'm fine.
It's safe to say there are no principal differences from ""real"" water.
lol always with the threats huh? Next you will tell me about how you plan to shove gasoline down my throat to prove your reality is real. Hahaha except you will NEVER ever do this and you will just cope and seethe in your powerlessness.
lol. this right here is the problem. materialtards are THIS insane and deluded. they actually think that dreams are made out of matter. you guys are absolutely insane - completely controlled by your egoic mind. you have completely disappeared and allowed your egoic zombie mind to take over. nut jobs. there is no point in arguing with you or showing you facts and reason, because you are completely and totally deluded in your belief that matter is real. you are so insane that you actually believe that thoughts and dreams are made of matter. go see a psychologist or something, you nuts.
I think dreams are made out of this stuff
What do you think they are made of?
So what I've gathered from this thread is that reality is composed of matter and mind or maybe just one or the other but it doesn't make a difference because matter is undefinable and is the same thing as mind which is also undefinable, but the mind/matter-mind exists thus leaving us with the groundbreaking conclusion of:
I hope you guys don't spend too much time worrying about this stuff.
Defining things is for losers. There is no power in a definition. Words are just a looking glass on an idea. But the science man said you get an FFFFFFFF if you don't write the correct words which means daddy will punish you!
It sounds more like a disconnect between the names of things and other data about specific things.
Jesus is the "word" scientists married the "word" literal christ KEKS
Maybe I DO drink water from my dreams. And I am healthier than I have ever been. Do you even know what a dream is? Do you know what a human is doing in their dreams?
I just keep falling into endless darkness when I can recall my dreams
Wonder if I'm always dreaming it, every night, just that I can't remember
Honestly it might be that you are having nightmares not dreams. I know once I started being lucid and really remembering my dreams every night yeah turned out they were disturbing. But I've learned to love a bit of horror. Still some of them are seriously messed up. The kind of shit that makes it hard to go to work the next day. But dreams don't matter to most of this world. In more ways than one.
I boil my dream water and pour it over my dream coffee grounds. I drink my dream coffee. Outside there is a dream city acting out the part of the dream land I live in. In my dreams I am not in control because I am not a "control-thing" i am more of a "look-thing" 🙂
everything we perceive is just an approximation. the brain just tries to come up with an internal model of reality based on whatever sensory data is available. there's no meaning or greater narrative.
it doesn't matter.
>it doesn't matter.
Matters to you as much as anything can be said to matter so don't go fucking it up more than random chance ensured it got fucked up for you ahead of time
too late, i've already lost the hope i didn't even know i had. functional alcoholism is my last cope
>too late, i've already lost the hope i didn't even know i had. functional alcoholism is my last cope
Worth investigating psychiatric or neurodevelopmental causes just because fixing the brain where it can be fixed is a lot better than alcohol. Alcohol is the worst option. Usually the two most common associations with alcoholism to cope would be something like adhd or depression, and at least adhd is very treatable.
Either way and regardless of the reason it's better finding that out than using alcohol.
don't you fucking understand? it's over. there's nothing left. no redemption, no hope, no solace. the further down this rabbit hole i go, the more i realise how meaningless my existence really is. fuck, i wish it were different.
I do. What you don't appear to understand is that feelings and facts are different categories of things. So you are either attempting to lampoon physicalism as a performative act due to failure to understand it or suffer from some kind of mental disorder such that you can't differentiate the two.
Either way that's pretty weird bro might wanna get that looked at.
hahahah look as this crying little bitch
Hello sir, welcome to McStory, what story do you want to try today?
Double-Mc-Idealism? Oh boi thats a profound one. Dont forget to call someone schizo for disagreing with you.
Fucker now I want a hamburger
Brother dont you want to starve to death since there is 2 more layers to this reallity?
Shuks i dont understand un-enlightened people like you.
>everything we perceive is just an approximation. the brain just tries to come up with an internal model of reality based on whatever sensory data is available
Brain scientists have stuff to say about how this works, 'schemas', etc
Whatever, consciousness is magic, and magic is fundamental. I don't care.
Proof by sex party.
If magic did exist it would be discovered by sheer driving motivating force of the added fun and safety provided to the possible sex parties that could result.
Ergo, magic doesn't exist because there isn't enough fun in the world to allow for it :C
that's some amazing bullshit. you call people with self-confidence narcissists because you are scared. deep inside you are terrified, so you put up a front of a smug academic. but in reality you are a charlatan. you are merely playing the part of a rational thinker; going through the motions. you aren't actually doing the work and putting yourself out there. and that's because you're scared of what you'll find. you hide in your ego and feel disturbed in the presence of self-confidence.
in truth, you are a coward because you refuse to face reality and you refuse to explore your inner self. you choose to operate as a zombie, even if you deny that you are making that choice. you are so terrified of the abyss of meaninglessness in your material worldview that you stick your head in the sand and completely abdicate your throne to the zombie brain inside of you. rather than taking ownership of the bad parts of yourself, you check out and leave the driver's seat completely. but that will not absolve you when the judgment comes, because you did make a choice - the choice to abdicate your God-given role.
Took you 20 minutes staring at the page to come up with that?
>you call people with self-confidence narcissists
Where did I write anything about confidence?
>you hide in your ego and feel disturbed in the presence of self-confidence.
Not really. Though it is a bit disturbing in a way that you seem to not comprehend that "confidence" and "world as whim" are two completely different things.
>rather than taking ownership of the bad parts of yourself, you check out and leave the driver's seat completely.
You base this on...?
now you are starting to understand
Why we have a brain, if we don't need a brain to think?
Cast away your flesh, move on to the next dimension