/lit/ - Literature

>>15371017
t. p-zombie

https://youtu.be/nPexHaFL1uo

Will women get wet over AI Chad dick?
Is this the end of men?

>>15371017
Materialism has been falsified

>>15371026
>believing in vitalism
Its 2020, grandpa.

>>15371017
BTFO retard

/thread

1. Quantum
2. Physics

The mere utterance of these words makes materialists cope in fear.

>bro what *is* "life"
stopped reading there

>>15371052
so you didnt stop reading? because these words are nowhere to be found there.

good!

>>15371043
No they don't, materialism is compatible with indeterminism. Can you guys stop rereading the same shitty arguments over and over

>>15371057
>what even IS life?
Are you pretending to be retarded? Obviously the "bro" thing was me shitposting

>>15371017
I was going to write a mean post about you but I realized that it doesn’t really matter
Have a nice day

>>15371095
Philosophy's primary focus is simple, general and fundamental questions, retard.

>>15371017

>things that everyone experiences aren't real

Then reality is a social construct, beliefs, desires, pain etc. are social constructs. They are still 'real' within the interpersonal relations of social structures. So what does this change? Oh, that's right, nothing, navel gazing tards.

Is it just me or is there one lowercase typing guy who makes a lot of these materialism/consciousness threads lately? Sometimes he makes 3-4 at once

>>15371143
The point of the social constructs themselves are being put into question. They are illusions. Emerging due to complexity, but illusions nonetheless.

The concept of emergence is being put into question as well.

>>15371017
>Neither consciousness nor life itself exist
Do I hear a metaphysical claim?

>>15371017

>>15371017
this is some advanced retardation

>>15371203
You cannot present any arguments against it, because it's an entirely rational worldview that could only be refuted by proving the existence of some supernatural/metaphysical life force.

Existence of which itself was refuted decades ago
(see: vitalism)

Tldr = you're a retard holding an objectively wrong worldview.

>>15371017
Lel i skimmed through all it and came to the conclusion that that poster is indeed a retard.

Of course we´re more complex to the point we have self awareness.

An ants leg is more complicated than an whole sun on the macro level.
He doesnt see the forest for the trees simple as that.

In the end we are just abstractions or concepts
BUT
we´re very special concepts with abilites (self awareness) other abstract things (e.g. crystal) simply dont have
>>15371026
this is your brain on /pol/ .

>>15371042
TL;DR

>>15371026
wow is that cringe, and the author 100% qualifies for his own label as "zombie"

>>15371038
wrong

>>15371227
Why is there matter?

If philosophy is useless then why do you spend so much time and effort trying to convince us to accept your philosophical position? We aren't even alive according to you.

>>15371042
skimmed, literally just random anons babbling about how it was God all along while ignoring the possibility of infinite simulated universes/multiverses ect.

>>15371337
The fact that this post was so eminently predictable, down to the accompanying image, is going some way to convincing me that you are not alive and OP is right

>>15371017
I was going to answer this, because It's easy to answer, but I won't waste my time, why not read anything about the subject at all, if it's on a board about reading?

>>15371357

>>15371299
>we´re very special concepts with abilites (self awareness) other abstract things (e.g. crystal) simply dont have
Self-awareness is rightfully refuted in that picture as the spook it truly is. In the sense that, yes, there is such a thing as "self-awareness" but that it's just an illusion, a form of complex but still ultimately inanimate matter, and that there's no sense in imagining some unrealistic thresholds between what's living and what's non-living.

The tldr of that infographic is:
we're all inanimate matter. There is nothing "great" about the structures that we call us.

>>15371017
You never explained how mind is physical. Obviously, if I feel anything, that is not a material thing, the feeling of it itself, though you may argue that it's caused by whatever you're talking about, but it is not that thing. Further, ideas. You cannot think of an idea, and see anything in the brain which corresponds to that specific idea, and even then, the idea is not in itself matter. And even if the idea was matter, then you would assign some value to matter, but how do you base this value? On other matter? Why preference that over other matter (because surely, you can think of the contrary idea, and that too is matter, so why not value that equally)?

>>15371017
/lit/, does anyone have other books which could broaden my view in the field presented in OP's pic related?

>>15371443
>Obviously, if I feel anything, that is not a material thing, the feeling of it itself, though you may argue that it's caused by whatever you're talking about, but it is not that thing
How do you know?

I agree with a lot of that evaluation, regarding complex life emerging as a self-perpetuating cycle of material arrangements and basic natural laws, but I receive the opposite conclusion that awareness and sense of reality and the mind are all as real as stone, and as truthful and eternal as the laws of gravity or electromagnetism. Yes, life is simply another thermodynamic pathway not inherently more significant than non-living thermodynamic systems, because all these phenomena emanate from the same natural laws. All of these are phenomena which perpetuate themselves and each other, creating conditions which parse and prune themselves automatically into their subsequent state of being. Whether a given arrangement of matter is actually physically expressed at a given time or place doesn't affect the reality that this arrangement of matter is intrinsically correlated with certain meaning. The fact that these phenomena self-perpetuate gives them meaning and that they demonstrate certain repeating trends indicates there is sense to these patterns of arrangement; if there was no sense to the determination of this arrangement than all possibilities would be equally likely and there would not be coherent, sensible phenomena or objects which retain their forms and characteristics continually. If there was not a defined hierarchy and natural order then given moment of time would not be differentiable to another, there would just be incoherence.

>>15371487
i like one thing OP's pic argued for:

Why focus on the human condition?

Why is the topic of.. considering bacteria as "life" avoided?
It's an interesting thing to ponder on, and yet everyone on /lit/ seems to reduce the subject solely to humans.

>>15371017
>It's all just physics dude
So much words for this.

>>15371017
>he doesn't talk to crystals

>>15371456
The second part:
>You cannot think of an idea, and see anything in the brain which corresponds to that specific idea, and even then, the idea is not in itself matter. And even if the idea was matter, then you would assign some value to matter, but how do you base this value? On other matter? Why preference that over other matter (because surely, you can think of the contrary idea, and that too is matter, so why not value that equally)?

>>15371167
>Everything is illusions and life doesn't exist.
K cool thanks for the contribution.

>>15371552
>t. brainlet
K cool thanks for the contribution.
>>15371549
Your argument is this:
>We don't know what material structure corresponds to ideas, therefore no material structure corresponds to ideas
300 IQ reasoning my dude.

>>15371167

How can a social construct be an illusion? It is 'real' as far as social being is concerned. And you are a social being all the time, you can't not be. So how can something that is real according to something in which everyone partakes at all times be false as far as the participants are concerned? And considering we are can't not be participants, why does it matter beyond the hypothetical.

I don't believe any of the things mentioned above are merely social constructs by the way, just that they at the very least are that.

>>15371017

>>15371041
>>15371227
>vitalism and qualia are the same thing

>>15371573
Why do you focus only on the part of the argument?
Further:
>And even if the idea was matter, then you would assign some value to matter, but how do you base this value? On other matter? Why preference that over other matter (because surely, you can think of the contrary idea, and that too is matter, so why not value that equally)?
The way you assign value to it is by assigning truth to reasoning.

>>15371573
>>We don't know what material structure corresponds to ideas, therefore no material structure corresponds to ideas
If material structures would correspond to ideas, knowing OF these material structures corresponding to experience would transfer over the knowledge in them, but it doesn't, that is, knowing about how atoms moved, even if we know exactly how they moved and so on, would not transfer into knowing how it feels like. You couldn't look at the atoms which constitute the material structures which correspond to ideas in rats, and then know how it actually is to hold the ideas.

>>15371588
You either believe that life is an immaterial entity, or not.
>>15371576
>How can a social construct be an illusion?
Well, consider crystals. We don't know if they're as sentient as we are, but inherently nothing distinguishes us from them. So even if the crystals were convinced of being something greater, to us it's obvious that they aren't.

We're like those crystals in the sense that we're inanimate arrangements of matter, like any other, but convinced of our own ontological superiority as a form of coping with the banality of chemical reactions, which we essentially are representative of, on a macro scale.

>>15371512
It's understandable that human beings, who have to derive awareness and insight through the limited senses afforded by our biology, would focus on what they have information for. But this only represents a small subset of awareness and intelligence being expressed through physical reality. They are expressed in different forms in things like bacteria and crystals, and are often unrecognizable as being fundamentally of the same essence as our awareness and intelligence. This is what I think it means for man (and the rest of reality) to be "made in God's image;" reality expresses the same fundamental principals through a multiplicity of forms, which are all unified in the perfect awareness and being of God. The fact that our awareness is limited and doesn't represent the whole of awareness does not logically dictate that our awareness isn't meaningful.

>>15371663
Ok, so let's then divert the attention from Man to Bacteria.

What makes bacteria animate?

>>15371017
>Man is the source of all value
there I summarized your view while simultaneously removing all the cringe

>>15371683
OP's view does not imply that.

>>15371017
Or...and try to follow me here...death doesn't exist. There is no fundamental difference between life and death? And you picked death? Nah brah, take the panpsychism-pill.

Eliminative materialists are the dumbest "people" in the history of human thought. An illusion is something that appears different from what it is. If consciousness is an illusion, then we're still left with the appearance of consciousness, which, seeing as appearance just is the nature of consciousness, leaves the problem of consciousness completely untouched.

>>15371649

Fuck crystals. You're not arguing that crystals are sentient, you're arguing that we aren't. That's retarded because A : you think therefore you are and B : We're the only sentient creatures around, at the very least the only ones with the ability to describe the world around us, therefore we get to decide what is and isn't sentient, because we ourselves are the standard for what is and isn't sentient. Everything else is speculation, sci-fi and being a contrarian faggot like yourself who pretends to believe things he knows aren't true on an anonymous message board.

>>15371701
OP here.
Yes, I agree with most of what you said but:

1. The primary focus of my thesis is the subject of life and the (non-existing) distinction between animate and inanimate structures. And not consciousness itself.
2. What my thesis does, regarding consciousness, is bring order to the problem of consciousness by revealing it to be a virtual illusion of a complex arrangement of matter rather than some metaphysical/supermaterial entity.

Ad.2: so instead of focusing on the question "Why does such a clearly metaphysical concept as consciousness arise from thoroughly barebones blocks of matter? and how?" we can rephrase it and refocus on the problem better by asking this question instead: "Why do material structures, after reaching a certain point of complexity, create seemingly metaphysical illusions for themselves? And how?"

>>15371315
Nope

>>15371227
>because it's an entirely rational worldview
So what? Rational is just matter, atoms moving around, why would that set of atoms have more value than any other set of atoms, that would contradict you?

>>15371784
>why would that set of atoms have more value than any other set of atoms
that's exactly what i'm saying but i'm focusing on macro structures rather than on atoms themselves

Essentially im refuting the concept of emergent phenomena as pure illusions.

>>15371793
But in doing so, you're assigning a value to the set of a set of atoms which tells you this (because it's rational, which in itself is just a set of atoms), so how is your view more justified than a contradictory idea, which is also just atoms moving around? Why is one set of them moving around better than another set? That is something you assume in your view.

>>15371680
Bacteria are molecular machines through which certain patterns of genetic material propagate. Similarly to the OP picture, I don't see much of a difference between the modes and conditions motivating a lifeform as opposed to a "non-living" system. The terms "animate" and "living' don't seem to have much meaning beyond linguistic expression to differentiate the mechanisms and genealogy of the "living" branches of physically expressed reality from the "nonliving" ones. There are no fundamental physical principles which affect one set and not the other. That the term "living" doesn't have inherent meaning beyond the linguistically defined meaning is not to say that living itself as a physical behavior is not meaningful.

>>15371017
I feel like you almost reach something here: "We both possess the feature of MOTION... we are just a bunch of tissue-scale reactions happening simultaneously in an immediate vicinity of each other." This question of motion is most interesting, because everything does indeed share the characteristic of motion... there is nothing disagreeable to me about the notion that things in the world essentially boil down to particles and speeds... but it's not interesting to you in the slightest why particular particles are kept locked in particular configurations that guarantee a regularity of speed? Like you can an imagine an unbounded particle in space hurtling along, unaffected by the force of gravity, but isn't that quite different than a particle taken up in a system like a human body... which relies on the manipulation of the speeds of so many particles to sustain itself--something as simple as using heat to cook food. The fact that we wish to preserve the speed of our particles isn't a given, there are plenty of people who do not wish to preserve the regular relations of their body, what about people addicted to hard drugs, or people who commit suicide? The notion that consciousness is simply a preservative feature may have been true at some point in history, but it's certainly no longer the case. I doubt even the simple directed activity of a crow could be reduced to mere preservation... when it solves a puzzle, when it arranges material a certain way, the particular contours that arrangement takes are not reproducible, even if the preservation of the relationships of speeds between the particles in the birds body occurs as a consequence. I just think that there are much more interesting ways to consider the world, and that there isn't any prize for conceiving of the world in a way that cripples your ability to act within it.

>>15371017
Agree with you anon, read Reasons and Persons by Derek Parfit. Matches up a lot with the Churchlands.

>>15371396
dude that´s litterally the ink argument!!

>UGH!! THERE IS NO SENTENCES ON PAPER!!
>JUST INK!!
>HIII HIII ME SO CLEVER
>ME NO WANNA GO ABSTRACT SO I ACT LIKE ABSTRACT DONT EXIST

>>15371801
Im not debating the existence of the effects or actions of various phenomena, because these are clearly observable.
Im just refuting the somehow metaphysical/immaterial/animate nature that people like to attribute to those "phenomena"

I do not negate the existence of capabilities such as perception or self-perception, in regards to super complex material structures. I negate their metaphysical status.
To me, self-perception or awareness is no more than just a very sophisticated way these complex quasi-crystalic systems have of responding to different stimuli coming from the surroundings.. or even from within!

After all, who said that those complex structures ought only to respond to the outside world?
The sheer complexity of these structures creates the possibility of eliciting answerable stimuli from within themselves!
Thus the nature of those systems is not just responsive, but also (and maybe primarily) self-responsive.

This continuous cycle of a self-responsive behavior in those super complex quasi-crystalic structures in itself probably follows like an almost (or maybe wholly) Darwinian pattern.
Fast-forward a few (or maybe more) such cycles and.. maybe it's in this pattern that this illusion we call consciousness emerges from?

>>15371227
>living things and objects are not materially distinct, therefore they are the same thing
>not realizing your presumption that everything is material based on pure faith
Lol, just.

>>15371946
They are the same thing regarding their fundamental nature. They're only different things superficially.

Differences that are solely superficial in nature are not enough to warrant philosophical pondering any further than what I did here:
>>15371017

>>15371357
It is predictable because it's right. OP is not only wrong but also a hypocrite.

>>15371979
You have no arguments. If I'm wrong, then answer this:
>>15371928

After reading the whole comment chain:
>>15371227
>>15371784
>>15371793
>>15371801
>>15371928

>>15371963
>They are the same thing regarding their fundamental nature.
You cannot prove that. You're just making a
statement after another, but not proving anything whatsoever. Just admit your position is pure faith based on a failed search for meaning and a lack of understanding about how philosophy works.

>>15372036
>You cannot prove that
That topic is literally covered in my OP pic:
>>15371017

>>15371928
Yes, but I don't see how you can do so and still justify the existence of truth as you do, for the same reasons as >>15371801
I'm sorry but I just don't understand how your comment addressed my issue.

>>15372047
>Yes, but I don't see how you can do so and still justify the existence of truth as you do
Essentially, I'm not negating the ability to arrive at meaningful conclusions by these complex material structures.
I am not saying that the conclusions they arrive at are inherently wrong because the structures which create them are inanimate. The inanimation of structures does not exclude meaningful conclusions. That's why I have this trust - I trust in the perceiving capability of the structure that makes me because it evolved (in the darwinian sense elaborated here: >>15371928 ) to do so.

>>15371017
First the physical world cannot be reduced to knowledge. Nor can consciousness be reduced to knowledge. This is no coincidence, both have the same mysterious origin.

>>15371928
>>15371989
You're very good at this. After all, how is someone going to counterargument your claims if you make no argument at all?

I say I believe in the metaphisicality of such phenomena. What your text has to say about that? Nothing. It is just the opposite claim.

>>15371017

cringe and materialist are synonyms

>>15371866
I like this post. It's certain that the phenomena we can observe is limited in a kind of "survivorship bias" to the phenomena which perpetuate themselves. It's a source of discontent for me that the phenomena we see may not be inherently just or good, but simply demonstrate efficient propagation, and the human conceptions of just and good - though effective enough to steer mankind to a certain degree of success and creativity - are doomed to incompatibility with physical reality. I find gnostic ideas regarding the demiurge interesting. On the other hand I think the fact that life has evolved toward more complex lifeforms, with greater capabilities toward awareness, morality, and intentionality of action, may demonstrate that conceptions of goodness and justice are evolving alongside living things, approaching a state ever closer to the truthful expressions of goodness and justice. I think gnostics have a concept about this as well, where humans gaining awareness through knowledge of good and evil was a necessary and desirable step toward emulating the image of creation.

>>15372090
Right, you believe. That's what I said at the beginning: >>15371227
>it's an entirely rational worldview that could only be refuted by proving the existence of some supernatural/metaphysical life force.
Essentially, either you're a rational person, and thus there is no other explanation but mine, or a believer/religious person, and thus you can do away with this difficult problem by simply inserting a god of gaps.

>>15372072
>Essentially, I'm not negating the ability to arrive at meaningful conclusions by these complex material structures.
I know, but you should, that's what I'm saying, the logical conclusion of your position does.
>The inanimation of structures does not exclude meaningful conclusions.
It seems like it does, like I explained in >>15371801 You still haven't countered the point.

>>15371445
No specific book but, Paul Churchland is the biggest author I can think of.

>>15372146
>Why is one set of them moving around better than another set?
Because otherwise such a view would be self-exclusive and internally inconsistent.

>>15372146
Not the guy you're responding to, but rather than rationality being a state defined by an arrangement of atoms I have the view that rationality defines what configurations and behaviors are possible within any ensemble of atoms. Is your point related to an "existence precedes essence" idea, or have I misunderstood. I have never been able to come to firm conclusions on this topic reading arguments from either side, but my current understanding leans toward essence presupposing existence.

>>15372115
>rational
>this cheap secular faith of yours
You were right when you said: "you cannot present any arguments against it". There's no argument to be confronted. But to alledge this idiosyncrasy is rational is beyond laughable.

I have to give you credit, you are funny.

>>15372188
That's not a justification, that just proves you wrong, since the conclusion of your point can't actually work. If the logical conclusion of your system makes it not work, then your argument is wrong, you can't just introduce a random value (without further justification) that makes you wrong.
It goes like this, your system implies epistemic anti realism. Epistemic anti realism is false, therefore, your system is wrong.

>>15371042
What ever happened to Bhodi Mantra? He disappeared off youtube

there are no other terms in which to describe consciousness, so either yes or not at all

>consciousness doesn't exist
What fucking mental gymnastics led you to believe this?

How exactly is this different from a hard determinism that already poeple like Descartes 400 years discussed?

Whether or not it's "true", it barely makes a difference either way.

Meta question: has anybody else noticed an influx of literal schizophrenics on /lit/ in the last few days? Or whatever mental thing they have. There are numerous posts by different anons with really long barely coherent existential ramblings. Sometimes they try to promote their philosophy like our OP here, but sometimes they just dump their word salad in someone else's thread for seemingly no reason. I'm not the only one who noticed that, right?

>>15371801
>But in doing so, you're assigning a value to the set of a set of atoms which tells you this (because it's rational, which in itself is just a set of atoms)
this is a rehashing of the donald duck nihilism meme, and suffers from the same criticism.

yes, some atoms configurations have value. not only does this fail to lead to a contradiction, it's even uncontroversially true! if i offered you to eat a pill that will alter some structure in your brain, consequently turning you into an irrational schizophrenic, you will reject it, and if i tried to force it on you, you'll struggle with all your life to stop me.
does this mean we've reduced rationality to a structure of atoms? no, because rationality is not rationality by virtue of being linked to a structure of atoms which makes one rational - the structure of atoms linked with rationality is linked with rationality because it's the one that makes you rational. whichever structure of atoms is the one linked to rationality, that's whichever structure you value by virtue of its link to rationality, not the other way around.

this is consistent with anything else we learn about the brain. the phenomenal world has an epistemic primacy, but this can't be used to contradict the results of our investigations into the nature of the physical world, except on pain of contradiction.

>>15371017
>consciousness is illusory

>>15372540
>yes, some atoms configurations have value
How?

If you want to say life does not exist, what other things don't exist? What about tables and chairs?

>>15372603
i attempted to explain how in the rest of my post. if you're asking what value is, then on my account value is the property of being valued.

>>15372103
>"survivorship bias"

very nice, you articulated something I've been mulling over for a long time now. the idea that's what's "here" is just what clawed its way to get here, ie what is natural is not necessarily "moral" and what is mundane and banal is the condition of evil and its perpetuation.

the gnostics were right about everything. existence is a bottleneck, what survives it isn't necessarily good or just or deserves to be here

>>15371017
Can you even articulate what people believe to be the problem with explaining consciousness in physical terms? If you want to feel confident in your position, you should be able to make the best argument for the opposite side, and then tell us why your alternative is better.

>>15372603
>if you're asking what value is, then on my account value is the property of being valued.
Could you explain closer? Is it based on how one feel of value then? If this is what's used to derive truth, (like it seems to be when you say
>it's even uncontroversially true! if i offered you to eat a pill that will alter some structure in your brain, consequently turning you into an irrational schizophrenic, you will reject it, and if i tried to force it on you, you'll struggle with all your life to stop me
), then that doesn't hold, since I can value some thought that's contradictory to what you say

>>15372273
>That's not a justification, that just proves you wrong, since the conclusion of your point can't actually work. If the logical conclusion of your system makes it not work, then your argument is wrong
No, I am talking about the hypothetical situation you present as being internally illogical therefore wrong. Not about my own concept. Please do not subvert.

>>15372669
>>15372103
>>15371866
OP here. This is not on-topic. Go away.

>>15372839
The 'hypothetical situation' I present is a necessity of your system. If your system would be true, than that 'hypothetical situation' would also be true, as I explained >>15371801 . But since that can't be true, then your system can also not be true.

Let me repeat.

>>15371801
Im not debating the existence of the effects or actions of various phenomena, because these are clearly observable.
Im just refuting the somehow metaphysical/immaterial/animate nature that people like to attribute to those "phenomena"

I do not negate the existence of capabilities such as perception or self-perception, in regards to super complex material structures. I negate their metaphysical status.
To me, self-perception or awareness is no more than just a very sophisticated way these complex quasi-crystalic systems have of responding to different stimuli coming from the surroundings.. or even from within!

After all, who said that those complex structures ought only to respond to the outside world?
The sheer complexity of these structures creates the possibility of eliciting answerable stimuli from within themselves!
Thus the nature of those systems is not just responsive, but also (and maybe primarily) self-responsive.

This continuous cycle of a self-responsive behavior in those super complex quasi-crystalic structures in itself probably follows like an almost (or maybe wholly) Darwinian pattern.
Fast-forward a few (or maybe more) such cycles and.. maybe it's in this pattern that this illusion we call consciousness emerges from?

>>15372852
>The 'hypothetical situation' I present is a necessity of your system
No? Only 1 situation is true. 2 self-exclusive situations cannot be true at the time.

So which situation is true?
The one that is consistent with the framework.

yours isnt.
Therefore my set of atoms is right and your proposed set of atoms isnt.

Thats all, faggot

>>15372725
value is just a feeling you have about things. when i say i value something i mean i have this feeling about it. when i say the thing has value i mean that i either i value it, or someone whose feelings i value also values that thing, so i value it because it because i feel a certain way about a person that feels a certain way about it. on my account then, value is subjective but in some sense objective(because there are other minds than my own). at any rate, when value is extrinsic to the object of value, on my account. i also value truth but that's a whole story and i anyway i'm just answering out of politeness, i don't see how any of this is relevant. if you don't mind eating the mental pill then you're just a retard because i say so.

>>15371784
Based

>>15372869
>No? Only 1 situation is true. 2 self-exclusive situations cannot be true at the time.
They are not self-exclusive, one is implied by the other, the only reason you call it self-exclusive is because you know one cannot be true, and use that as a separate justification for it not being true, which totally ignores the implication I proved existed in >>15371801 anyways.
>Therefore my set of atoms is right and your proposed set of atoms isnt.
See, the way you proved this is because it is neccesary to accept or else it wouldn't make sense, but this hasn't got a justification in your system. Something being untrue doesn't just justify it as untrue in any system. If I say that the sun is blue, and it turns out that the sun is not blue, then what you're doing is saying that, since the sun is not blue, it is wrong to claim that it is blue, that alone proves that the sun is not blue, and your system, which claims that the sun is blue, doesn't have to be concerned with the sun not being blue, since that's not true anyways.

>>15372918
>They are not self-exclusive
They are, you yourself said:
>What if your set of atoms is wrong and mine is right?

>>15371928
Based post anon

>>15372936
I don't mean my idea and yours are not self exclusive, I meant my 'hypothetical situation' and your position are not self exclusive.

>>15372876
It is vital too, see, since there is objective truth to some things, but your system doesn't allow for that. If your system does not allow for objective truth, it would contradict itself in that same statement.

>>15372848
You're such a fucking glow nigger I can tell

>>15372951
>I meant my 'hypothetical situation' and your position are not self exclusive
They are. My position IN ITSELF disallows your position to be true.

>>15372848
>dude just astroturf baby bitch nihilism on the only the board that might engineer a line of flight lmao

we don't want you here, pig slave of ialdabaoth, hylic meat slave, bucket crab nigger fuck off

>>15373228
>baby bitch insights
Retroactively refuted. Eliminativism in the form presented in that picture has been a thing in philosophy only since the 1970s. Its top tier state of the art philosophical thought.

Next!
GIVE ME SOME REAL ENEEMYYYYYY REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE !!!!!
this faggot:
>>15373228
WAS NOTHING
I CHEWED HIM AND DIGESTED HIM AND SHITTED HIM OUT LIKE A MOTHERFUCKER

>>15373228
>nihilism
Retroactively refuted in the picture.

Next!
GIVE ME SOME REAL ENEEMYYYYYY REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE !!!!!
this faggot:
>>15373228
WAS NOTHING
I CHEWED HIM AND DIGESTED HIM AND SHITTED HIM OUT LIKE A MOTHERFUCKER

>>15373199
The justification you used for that being the case is akin to the one I made at the end of >>15372918 , it is nonsense

>>15373236
hylic suffer pig, rank meat snake, death of us all and the last man. kys

>>15373261
Nice word salad schizo faggot! I ALREADY CHEWED YOU WHOLE AND SHITTED YOU OUT. GO ROT IN A SEWER. YOU'RE A NON-ENTITY TO ME AS IM ONLY INTERESTED IN ANOTHER ENEMY NOW.

GIVE ME A REAL ENEMEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

I WILL BTFO ANYONEEEEEEE

>>15373269
explain intentionality

>>15372598
Based

>>15371017

>>15371928
>metaphysical/immaterial/animate nature that people like to attribute to those "phenomena"

those aren't accepted outright but rather fill a gap in our understanding anon, just like your thoughts here. the fundemental harp problem is that a universe of philosophical zombies that dont experience qualia could well have been, but we know (you yourself know) that our universe is a different one from that. both systems of intelligence would be equally complex, but ours experiences experience. it is a property that our universe has, compared to that other universe. we dont know why. you can say, you cant question something that fundemental, but asking questions that fundemental has led us to a better understanding of gravity.

we know and accept that it is a biproduct of matter, but dismissing it as an illusionary biproduct would be like saying light or gravity doesnt exist.

i do agree with you that there isnt really a distinction between self-replicating things. they all survive through time. life isnt special in that regard.

>>15373344
>>15372598
>t. screencaps own posts
>when no one gives attention, samefag-replies "based"

>>15373350
>dead memes
>0 arguments
>cop out
cringe

>>15373466
Fuck, how did you know?

>>15373490
Cope harder. You didn't include a proper argument in OP, and you haven't actually read anything, so it shouldn't be on this board anyways. OP is cringe

>>15373517
who cares what you read mothafucka if youre makin no argument. stop waiting people's time and GTFO!

>>15373645
You're wasting your time not reading about this, when you know nothing about it.

>>15373671
I told you to get the fuck out. Why are you still here? No one forces you to stay here.

>>15371017
canged my mind

>>15371017
Imagine wanting to be nothing this badly

>>15371784
low tier bait but ill respond.
this theory is also determinisitic in that if every lifeform there is a complex web of simple autocatalystic functions (which are less complex), you can think of each exercising of "will" as a function in which trillions of variables(which could be determined by know every previous state) interact with each other and produce an outcome, which of course the outcome is a variable in the same set calculations.
Reality itself could be solved if we knew the starting point and computing power to outpace our current living.

>>15371017
Cogito ergo sum, fegtz

>>15371017
No. Neither can logic, the past, the self, the continuity of objects over time, the one and the many.
Empirialists, atheists, and materialists are fucking nigger tier

>when your reductionism isn't reductionist enough

>>15371130
Expect that is an absolutely meaningless question with no basis on reality. The most retarded shit is faggots being like bro, what IS beauty, what *is* intelligence? its whatever you define it to be dipshit
post

>>15375874
Thank you nominalist idiot

>>15371017

Holy fuck how pathetic you are. Do you realize all you are doing is projecting a conception?

>Nothing exists because of what my thoughts did!!

I don't fucking understand how is this shit relevant at all? Look around yourself. Is it real?

>well uh technically if you read uhh if you read this certain branch of philosophy that's what it uhh says.

And then you laugh at theists? You are doing the exact same thing but arguably worse.

If nothing exists why do you feel pain? Why would you care if I punched you in your fucking face nerd?

>yeah but that doesn't mean its not all nothing!!

If the world IS nothing, doesn't exist, whatever, and what we are experiencing is fake then WHY IS IT RELEVANT? You are trying to cope for your cowardly, sad existence by giving up. It doesn't feel cowardly, I bet it feels that you're brave, that you aren't seeing what others are seeing! Normies ree! Pathetic

>>15373466
Unfortunately I'm not yet based and skilled enough to write such a piece. But you can find that post by searching "dennet greentext socrates" in the images section of any search engine.

>>15375874
based. i had to write a paper a short paper as an overview of philosphy of love before corona, shit was fucking dumb. Love is caring for someone unconditionally. Love is a relationship where they share worries and interests. No you see, actually, love is such a relationship but where they become as one person, when they form a "we". No dummy, love is wanting to have such a relationship, not having one. Uhm, love is an appraisal of value. Sweetie, no, love is a bestowing of value. It goes on.
Retardation itself.

>>15375519
>b-b-but they're illusions, why is everyone laughing...

>>15375874
>ending your post with post
Kinda based

Philosophy that starts with scientific premises is cringe. OP you just posted cringe.

>>15371017
Literally made by a retard who either hasn't looked into /lit/ or is a STEM retard.

I can't even imagine how fucking retarded one would have to be to make this thread.

Fucking nigger.

>>15373869
I told you to go and read. Why are you still here. You could at least go back to r*dit.

>>15371017
Cool, you want to keep swirling around the drain? because that's all its ever gonna be. It doesn't mean anything. Its the same with free will, it doesn't make a difference if we have it or not. Is the sky blue, or black? space is nothing. It hurts when I cut myself. It doesn't matter man. I imagine fucking your mom violently quite often, did it really happen? doesn't matter.

Materialists are so stupid that it's not even worth engaging them. I treat them like the material they demand to be regarded as. It's literally like talking to a rock.

>>15371017
Consciousness refuted your ideology. No amount of empirical observation on atoms or whatever can explain our individual sense of being and existence. You prove existence empirically.

>>15376456
*Cannot prove

>>15371017
Cringe and seethepilled, I've never read anything worse.