/lit/ - Literature

No

>>15759244
shut up and worship me

>>15759227
You cannot account for the fullness of phenomenological experience. As materialism is a framework of interpreting the world experienced from a conscious perspective, materialism is ultimately unable to even examine itself. Materialism is thus just another supernaturalism, giving no coherence to the concept of nature.

In contrast relational ontology (the ontology of betweenesses rather than substance) is able to account for both physical and mental phenomenon as it is neutral to substance.

>>15759349
so u r saying just cuz I don't know it all yet it means that it's not possible knowing it all?

>>15759227
what is this image from. AI gives me nothing

>>15759227
Change deez nuts

>>15759787
FAITH it's a videogame

>>15759878
thanks family

>>15759898
I expect to be PAID

>>15759399
The point is that conscious experience, in and of itself inherently cannot be exposing by materialism. You could perfectly map someones brain and still be no closer to understanding what it feels like to be that person. At best you’d get vague notions of what they were generally feeling/thinking based on brain activity

>>15759928
but we simply don't know that yet, the best we can do is map the brain of a worm, and it just makes sense that the more alive and well functioning you are the more you are conscious and able to see reality for what it is.

>>15759928
>>15759349
Surely everything operating in-between physical relations is just as physical as the physical relations themselves, otherwise how would these in-betweens be capable of coherently communicating its characteristics to the physical world or altering characteristics in the physical world? How could a non-physical thing interface with a physical thing?

>>15759962
No, because experience in immaterial and therefore can never be fully represented, explained, or documented in material terms.

>>15759227
t. P-zombie

>>15759983
epiphenomenalism Is the most popular way of reconciling that problem while maintaining an immaterial component to reality

>>15759990
Everything that leads you to formulate the view that experience is immaterial is based on material sensations and material forms of expression. On what basis do you even attempt to formulate a rational argument for this view, when all notions of what rationality is and all possible avenues of expressing it are material?

>>15760034
If experience (not brain activity, not neurons firing, but raw experience) is a material substance then where is it physically? How would I go about physically interacting with pure experience? Of course experience is related to and representative of material objects, but it is not material in and of itself.

>>15759227
I feel no desire to change your mind because you're a fag and changing your mind will effect no meaningful change in my life or the lives of others

>>15760213
well we can trace experience by looking at brain activity, but if you say that we are something else than even that, than all we can do is connecting 2 brains while the individuals are still alive and see what they say

>>15760232
u don't ever kno' uh