Thread continued.
Still waiting on proof of this pooftery:
>There is not so much the thinnest sliver of evidence that the brain generates consciousness.
>Anyone who thinks that it does is essentially a dumb animal, even lower than a nigger because not even niggers believe that the brain generates consciousness.
>Why do people fall for this materialist meme?
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
plato.stanford.edu
rep.routledge.com
philpapers.org
philpapers.org
philpapers.org
gutenberg.org
gutenberg.org
gen.lib.rus.ec
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
en.wikipedia.org
yourlogicalfallacyis.com
en.wikipedia.org
yourlogicalfallacyis.com
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
I believe in the antenna theory now, literally just works even with the muh lobotomy and muh drugs
>consciousness
>my definition of the word assumes it's a mysterious supernatural thing that science can't explain
>science can't explain the mysterious supernatural thing
SEE THERE'S LIKE 4 DIFFERENT GODS OR SOMETHING
/ig/ Idealism General
QUICK RUNDOWN
>Dr. Godehard Bruentrup: What Is Idealism?
youtube.com
>In philosophy, idealism is the group of philosophies which assert that reality, or reality as we can know it, is fundamentally mental, mentally constructed, or otherwise immaterial.
ENCYCLOPEDIA ENTRIES
>Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
plato.stanford.edu
>Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy
rep.routledge.com
ACADEMIC ARTICLES
>Eliminating the Physical
philpapers.org
>A New Epistemic Argument for Idealism
philpapers.org
>How To Avoid Solipsism While Remaining An Idealist
philpapers.org
BOOKS
>George Berkeley-Principles of Human Knowledge
gutenberg.org
>George Berkeley-Three Dialogues between Hylas and Philonous
gutenberg.org
>John Foster-A World For Us: The Case for Phenomenalistic Idealism
gen.lib.rus.ec
YOUTUBE
>The Introspective Argument:
Part 1: youtube.com
Part 2: youtube.com
>Dr. David Chalmers explains why materialism is false
youtube.com
>Why substance dualism is roundly rejected in contemporary philosophy of mind
youtube.com
while this should probably go in x I'll bump to piss off the atheists
If anything it belongs in /his/
however, it is relevant to politics. Your metaphysics will determine your beliefs. For instance, if you think we're all blank slates, you will default to being an SJW.
thats fine
prove it scientifically
good luck
otherwise its just philosophy (at BEST)
reply i had all ready when last thread ended
part 1 of 2:
▶
>Falsify the claim that only falsifiable claims are actual knowledge claims... Show me the experiment that proves only science is the way to know things about reality... How the fuck will that experiment not be circular? You will have to rely on science to prove that science is the way to know... FAIL
goalposts
argument from ignorance
appeal to incredulity
>care to use proper words?
Your ignorance does not count as me not using proper words.
appeal to ridicule
>Even your favorite source in the world, wiki, has an entire article on it:
and?
most quackery subjects does
>Learn what a fucking fallacy is you noob.
you can look it up if you like
>The fallacy is when somebody insults you and then conclude you're wrong because of the insult.
no thats an ad hominem
That's not what I'm doing. I'm refuting you
yes, with sophistry and handwavium
> while also insulting you.
exactly, whereas i have not
yet you imagine a pedastal for yourself
>appeal to authority
It's not fallacious to point out your source is unreliable and mine is.
no, they are well sourced
and you are the one who claim some branch of philosophy could be peer reviewed
> Again, learn how fallacies work.
you can look them up, its not difficult
part 2 of 2:
>You think peer-review is worse than non-peer review or...?
strawman
and again:
meaningless outside of science and math
"philosophy" is science is not science
>You are claiming phenomena outside of physics;
Wrong. I'm talking about a totally different framework.
ok, then show the empirical tests for it that have been reproduced and verified according to the scientific methodYou
>You think I'm talking about dualism.
words in my mouth I'm talking about monism just like you,
and no, you are talking about non-scientific pipe dreams that cannot be falsified
>however I'm affirming IDEALISM instead of physicalism. Understand my position first before you criticize.
your affirming platoism, nothing more elaborate than that
and yet, no proof
without verifiable and reproduced tests, your claims are fanciful stories of fantasy
oh wait: you have papers of hypnosis and non-testable conjecture that somehow constitute "proof"
>read the Idealism General again.
wikipedia: hitchen's razor
still waiting for you to substantiate any of your claims
Scientism is self-refuting. Stop making excuses to avoid arguments.
Also we do have science if you would just read the /ig/
Science does not favor physicalism or dualism, but Idealism.
>youtube.com
>antenna theory
please post more about this
...
>No rebuttal at all to the arguments regarding falsifiability
You can't just throw out the names of logical fallacies as an excuse to avoid refutations. You have to at least give reasons to believe that one is guilty of said fallacies, and you have to actually refute what I'm saying... Stop being intellectually lazy with your self-refuting scientism.
>stop insulting me! waaah!
If you can't handle refutations+insults then get the fuck off this board you pansy. This is 18+
Again, learn how fallacies work
>and?
And you're full of shit. Scientism is a real term, and it includes the claims you're giving right now, which are in fact self-refuting.
>no thats an ad hominem
that's what you'r accusing me of by a different name. You're just complaining about me ridiculing you as if that's a fallacy... That's not how this works...
>exactly, whereas i have not
Your failure to engage with arguments is an insult. Your pseudo-intellectualism is what gives thinkers like us the bad rep. You're all over reddit and facebook with your fedoras and shitty arguments. Fuck off unless you actually have a rebuttal.
>no, they are well sourced
Wiki more reliable than an actual peer-reviewed article by an expert? HAHAHAHA
>and you are the one who claim some branch of philosophy could be peer reviewed
You really are this ignorant of philosophy aren't you? Wow. This is like a creationist talking about evolution. You have no idea what you're talking about. Check out academic philosophy, moron. It's peer-reviewed, you get PhD's, you get funding, just like everybody else. Why do fedoras think scientists are the only academics???
>you can look them up, its not difficult
So then why are you so fail at them?
ah, alright. read into this
en.wikipedia.org
>ok, then show the empirical tests for it that have been reproduced and verified according to the scientific methodYou
Ontology≠Epistemology. Holy shit you're a noob.
You and I are both cool with monism, but again, your scientism is self-refuting. Falsify the claim that only falsifiable claims are actual knowledge claims... Show me the experiment that proves only science is the way to know things about reality... How the fuck will that experiment not be circular? Why are you so afraid of to justify your claim if you're so confident in them?? Show me the fucking experiment you dishonest pseudo-intellect
>words in my mouth I'm talking about monism just like you,
Wrong. You said that I'm claiming some shit outside of physics. You straw-manned me, not the other way around.
>your affirming platoism
I'm affirming IDEALISM and I'm posting a pic of Berkeley not plato. Stop straw-manning, it only proves you can't refute me so you have to stoop to dishonesty.
>hitchen's razor
/ig/ has evidence you idiot. You're just making constant excuses to avoid addressing the arguments... Hitchens razor works against YOU this time, not me.
>consciousness
/ig/ does all that for you. You're just equivocating on the meaning of the term "substantiate"
Stop committing logical fallacies, stop making excuses to not address arguments, give me an actual rebuttal.
You dont, but I do, enjoy your lowered maxilla you fucking animal
>consciousness is a spooky supernatural phenomena!
people actually believe this?? Are you denying the existence of consciousness or something???
See:
I'm sorry on behalf of animals, OP you're just a fucking empty slave.
without empirical evidence, youve havent substantiated anything
and this isnt math
yourlogicalfallacyis.com
Stop equivocating.
Definition of substantiate: Provide evidence to support or prove the truth of.
Definition of evidence: The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
I've just given you several arguments and scientific findings in /ig/
Stop being fallacious, stop making excuses to avoid the arguments. Be intellectually honest for once.
Scientism is self-refuting. See:
>You can't just throw out the names of logical fallacies as an excuse to avoid refutations.
of course i can, and i did, and will
>If you can't handle refutations+insults then get the fuck off this board you pansy. This is 18+
its infantile and counterproductive
>Again, learn how fallacies work
the list is still there, waiting for you
and hundreds of other sites have the same info in different words
>And you're full of shit.
atitude, young man!
>Scientism is a real term, and it includes the claims you're giving right now, which are in fact self-refuting.
well no, the scientific method has been proven ideal, if not perfect, since its inception
you oppose that which has not failed us in fact and illumination for hundreds of years
>Your failure to engage with arguments is an insult.
to the juvenile mind, perhaps
> Your pseudo-intellectualism is what gives thinkers like us the bad rep.
you are not a thinker, you have proven yourself a quack who denies science and the scientific method in favor of sophistry and baseless conjecture which "doesnt need evidence because i say so"
>You're all over reddit and facebook with your fedoras and shitty arguments.
you mad?
i havent been to either of those in quite some time
>Fuck off unless you actually have a rebuttal.
en.wikipedia.org
>Wiki more reliable than an actual peer-reviewed article by an expert?
"peer reviewed philosophy that doesnt need evidence nor is scientifically testable in anyway"
enough said.
>You really are this ignorant of philosophy aren't you? Wow.
same fallacies:
appeal to authority
appeal to ridicule*ad nauseam
burden of proof
red herrings
etc etc
>So then why are you so fail at them?
im not the one employing them
so i havent tried *shrug*
All you have to do is provide empirical evidence of this "other than physical source of mind" and you have been validated
funny that you havent (cant)
fucking brains
how do they work
>of course i can, and i did, and will
Hitchens Razor :)
You can accuse me of fallacies all day, but without evidence that I am actually guilty of these fallacies then they can be dismissed without argument.
>waaaaah!!
Your lack of discipline is not my fault. Your inability to argue while also receiving some healthy mockery is not my fault.
>the list is still there, waiting for you
yeah so I don't see why you're so bad at them... You don't even know how they work. You should probably learn how fallacies work before you accuse people of them, oh and actually have some support for your accusations too while you're at it.
>well no,
Um, yes. I just gave you an entire wiki article and a peer-reviewed article from an expert in the philosophy of science... Scientism is a real term, you're affirming scientism, and its self-refuting. Notice how you still fail to give me an experiment that proves scientism is true? ...you're a pseudo-intellect dude...
>the scientific method has been proven ideal
You realize the scientific method was invented by a bunch of Christians btw, right? lol
I don't oppose science, I oppose the self-refuting philosophy of science known as scientism. Learn to read.
>you mad?
Yes. Spreading disinformation to the public is bad.
>i havent been to either of those in quite some time
riiiiiiiiight
>en.wikipedia.org
yeah exactly. I've given arguments/evidence and such, now it's your turn. You've failed to give me an experiment that scientism is true... You've failed to justify your accusations of me committing fallacies. You fail time and again to give support for your claims... Hitchens Razor, bitch
>same fallacies:
Ever heard of the fallacy fallacy? BOOM!
>Epistemology.
that doesnt render proof
and you are confusing that with math, if you think it can
you are resting on subjective definitions, not empirical science
so finally we get to the crux
your entire arugments is based on words alone with no other evidence
>your scientism is self-refuting.
nope
i never claimed any of that
im not interested in that
and what i am interested in is irrelevant any
its only what i can prove
and the scientific method is flawless for revealing fact
if you wish to discredit it you must show how it, correctly employed, can lead to something other than fact
good luck
>Falsify the claim that only falsifiable claims are actual knowledge claims...
without that, its just sophistry
again, your words are not math, however sound the logic may seem to you
>Show me the experiment that proves only science is the way to know things about reality...
the experiment is possible, but not with current technology
maybe that is what you are looking for
it would require a brain scan down to sub-atomic resolution in real time, hundreds of thousand or millions of samples per second
> Show me the fucking experiment you dishonest pseudo-intellect
again, goalposts
>You said that I'm claiming some shit outside of physics.
yet you just said you have nothing but words and no empirical evidence/scientific test is possible
>I'm affirming IDEALISM and I'm posting a pic of Berkeley not plato.
just a sugar coating for platoism
i.e. other-than-empiricism(science)
or you can propose a scientific test that proves it
>has evidence you idiot.
AHA finally, lets see the testable, reproducible, verifiable evidence that any sufficiently equipped laboratory can perform NOW
or is your "proof" just more mere words without evidence??
>You're just making constant excuses to avoid addressing the arguments...
all of science can be verified, whereas you have naught but strings of words without any further substance
>Get shot in head
>Lose consciousness immediately
>Get shot literally anywhere else
>Takes anywhere from 2 seconds to 30 minutes to lose consciousness
Apparently the brain is not a generator of consciousness, it could be some sort of mere receptor.
The scientist says the brain generates consciousness and that it is an entirely material phenomenon, and the proofs he gives is that if you damage X part of the brain X function of consciousness goes away, but that doesn't really prove his point as that is not only model that explains why that happens.
Think of the brain as a TV screen. If you damage the screen, the image will be deficient, sometimes to the point of providing no image at all (death), but what creates the image is the TV signal, which is independent of whether there is a receiver or not. Eventually your screen is so fucked up that you decide to trash it and buy a new one (reincarnation).
I got all this from listening a talk from Alan Watts and it really sounded reasonable.
Look him up, he's really freakin' woke.
>we are conscious
>the brain is pretty much the only organ sophisticated and complex enough to do it
>therefore the brain generates consciousness
you won't get better than this, I think
you think long winded wrriten "arguments" of philosophy/quackery are proof
when,without anything to back the words up (scientific test) it is just more sophistry
>Hitchens Razor :)
the list is still there on wikipedia
>You can accuse me of fallacies all day, but without evidence that I am actually guilty of these fallacies then they can be dismissed without argument.
is wikipedia blocked for you?
>Your lack of discipline is not my fault.
ridicule
red herring
etc etc
>Your inability to argue while also receiving some healthy mockery is not my fault.
I have substantiated all of my claims
you have referenced only words & nothing but that you think form their own basis equal to the veracity of science somehow proves them
>
yeah so I don't see why you're so bad at them... You don't even know how they work. You should probably learn how fallacies work before you accuse people of them, oh and actually have some support for your accusations too while you're at it.
yes im sure it would be different to you if i quoted/copy/pasted and laid out with surgical precision how you have fit them with your statements to a textbook certainty
>peer-reviewed article from an expert in the philosophy of science...
philosophy and words without evidence are not magically granted power by "peer-review" (where it is meaningless)
again: you speak not of math/science
though you with to put the later label onto it, meaninglessly
>You realize the scientific method was invented by a bunch of Christians btw, right? lol
and?
bulverism
ad hom
etc
>Yes. Spreading disinformation to the public is bad.
>science
>scientific method
>disinformation
yeah but:
>philosophy
>sophistry
>quackery
>objective truth
no.
>riiiiiiiiight
focus, stay on topic
>yeah exactly. I've given arguments/evidence and such, now it's your turn.
youve given WORDS
ive given empirical SCIENCE
again dont pretend me quoting WP or anything else (mere facts) will sway you
>that doesnt render proof
*facepalm*
The problem is our epistemology is different. You think scientism is true and thus you have a fucked up epistemology. But notice how you can't support scientism *at all*? You have no empirical science to justify the claim that "only claims that have empirical evidence are justified". I can give you evidence all day, but it won't matter to you because your epistemology is so fucked up and contradictory that it won't matter... Your philosophy is self-refuting...
Again, stop equivocating, stop making excuses to not engage with arguments.
>without that, its just sophistry
1. that's not an experiment. That's not science. That's just an argument, which is just logic! you can't just use logic to figure stuff out! you need to have it peer-reviewed first! hurr durr!
2. how are using logical arguments grounded in true premises sophistry??
>just a sugar coating for platoism
Wow you really need to read some philosophy. Berkeley spent whole portions arguing against platonism... you fedoras are soooooo pathetic when it comes to philosophy I swear to God
>or you can propose a scientific test that proves it
if only you would read /ig/ you would see there's a case of science and philosophy to justify the claims. But alas, you would have to read what I write and we both know you have no intentions of doing that. only sticking to your dogma
Its just atoms communicating with atoms through electromagnetic stimuli which the brain receives, and through that input, produces an output response to said stimuli.
>
yeah exactly. I've given arguments/evidence and such, now it's your turn. You've failed to give me an experiment that scientism is true... You've failed to justify your accusations of me committing fallacies. You fail time and again to give support for your claims... Hitchens Razor, bitch
you've given words without substance
no basis other than themselves
no empirical evidence
>>same fallacies:
Ever heard of the fallacy fallacy? BOOM!
you arent even injecting any particular assertions of the your case into your fallacies, just appeal to the stone, proof by assertion, and the rest
your fallacies are dying on their own entirely separate to your case
All of science can be backed up with real world evidence.
Your case rests on words which rest on themselves.
Until you have some substantial basis other than than fundamental tautology, you lose.
>You think scientism is true and thus you have a fucked up epistemology.
no, not that, just science
and it has not failed us once
philosophy/epistemology has never failed because it has never objectively succeeded
>Wow you really need to read some philosophy.
if it is within physics, then it is science
if it is outside of physics, then it is some form of platoism, until a test is produced that shows otherwise
>if only you would read /ig/ you would see there's a case of science and philosophy to justify the claims.
show me the proof that is not words that try to form their own basis
the _only_ way to do that is with scientific proof
>you think long winded wrriten "arguments" of philosophy/quackery are proof
Definition of proof: Evidence or argument establishing a fact or the truth of a statement.
HAHAHAHA
>when,without anything to back the words up (scientific test) it is just more sophistry
Do you know how we BTFO the sophists? With arguments, you idiot. We didn't wait thousands of years for the scientific method to come around to finally dethrone the sophists, we have philosophers using logic to back them the fuck off just like I'm doing to you right now you sophist...
>muh list of fallacies with no support!
yourlogicalfallacyis.com
Learn how logic works...
>I have substantiated all of my claims
Where's the experiment to justify scientism?? I'm not seeing it...
>1. that's not an experiment. That's not science. That's just an argument, which is just logic! you can't just use logic to figure stuff out! you need to have it peer-reviewed first! hurr durr!
You can't just create logical conclusions and call them fact. There needs to be a way to prove it with repetition.
>I can give you evidence all day
Please do, so far I have only seen you claim to have already done so.
our impasse is (this whole thing distilled down to its fundament):
you believe words alone can form objective fact
words alone are subjective unless referring to physics or mathematical terms
which means they alone, aside from speaking of physics/math cannot form or reach objective fact
>>Anyone who thinks that it does is essentially a dumb animal, even lower than a nigger because not even niggers believe that the brain generates consciousness.
Said with an arrogant, insulting tone so it must be true.
Our impasse is indeed in epistemology, the problem is you don't realize yours is self-refuting.
Give me a scientific experiment that justifies scientism. Go ahead! I'm waiting! According to your own epistemological standards, your position must have scientific grounding... So where the fuck is it??
>Definition of proof: Evidence or argument establishing a fact or the truth of a statement.
they are only true/fact if the meanings are objective
>Do you know how we BTFO the sophists? With arguments, you idiot.
that does not render mere words outside of physics/math into objective meaning/factualness
>yourlogicalfallacyis.com
we covered this, but with further fallacies you imagined you dismissed it, namely appeal to the stone and proof by assertion
>Where's the experiment to justify scientism?? I'm not seeing it...
right here (quote):
>the experiment is possible, but not with current technology
>maybe that is what you are looking for
>it would require a brain scan down to sub-atomic resolution in real time, hundreds of thousand or millions of samples per second
that would form at least the corner stone of the proof you seek
if for nothing else, than at least validation or refutation of your claims regarding the mind
>scientism
Stop
>You can't just create logical conclusions and call them fact.
That's why we have the rules of logic... If we can form valid arguments and justify the premises (remember, proof means evidence or argument) then the conclusion has to be true. you can in fact use logic to figure stuff out, that's what math is...
I read it on Sup Forums so it must be true
What the fuck is going on in this thread?
So we're like a hive-mind or ants. We get our thoughts from a queen?
But the problem with that is you can't take into your argument things you don't know you don't know.
So in the end you have proven nothing.
>Evidence or argument
You have only one of these.
kek yes i believe you may be on to something here
>Our impasse is indeed in epistemology, the problem is you don't realize yours is self-refuting.
whereas yours doesnt even have physical evidence, just words that seek to support themselves
>Give me a scientific experiment that justifies scientism. Go ahead! I'm waiting! According to your own epistemological standards, your position must have scientific grounding... So where the fuck is it??
Come to think of it:
actually, every test that has shown the method to be sound is another proof, another re-enforcement of it
so just look at any fact it has revealed to us, ANY, and all tests that led us there are PART of the proof you seek.
It has not led us astray.
However:
Because NOTHING beyond "i think therefore i am" can be ABSOLUTELY proven to a certainty, science can only be so certain as we trust our logic/math and senses.
My case rests on words, evidence, testing, verifiability, falsifiability, etc.
Yours rests on inifintely less, namely just words and assumed meanings that vary in "quantum-semantics" (if you will) from mind to mind
science and its instruments and method account for this as best as is physically able to weed out all human bias, error, subjectivity.
>they are only true/fact if the meanings are objective
See?! All you can do is equivocate. I just gave you the definition of the terms and your only hope is to redefine them... Why should I accept *your* definition rather than Oxford English Dictionary's?
>that does not render mere words outside of physics/math into objective meaning/factualness
You're drawing a false dichotomy between reality and argumentation. We can figure stuff out using logic, we do it all the time, we're arguing right now instead of giving peer-reviewed scientific quantitative experiments... Again, notice how you fail yet again to give an experiment to justify scientism?? All you can do is give an argument... You can't give science to prove that science is the only way to know things, that's circular logic. No amount of science makes bad logic into good logic...
>>the experiment is possible,
No it's not, it would necessarily be circular. You don't know how to logic...
Our brain literally allows us to see dimensions, they don't exist without it. Everything will still exist but the dimensions we experience it in are our own creation. Everything we experience is created by our brains are you fucking retarded or something?
consciousness itself is all the feelings we get from every inch of our receptors and brain; and the way the brain "realizes" it
it is in the fucking skull.
>have brain injury or severe drug intoxication
>conciousness goes away
wow that was hard
I don't know why people get annoyed at the thought of being infinite consciousness.
Would people not prefer to be that and fancy listening to some of the reasons why it may be that way?
>scientism
That doesn't mean anything but you keep saying it.
>So in the end you have proven nothing.
are you joking?
"without omniscience you can prove nothing"
because that is what would be required to be sure to know anything about any possible theory of science, math, or philosophy
.......
wow
>But the problem with that is you can't take into your argument things you don't know you don't know.
That applies to science too, dumbass. Of course we don't know what we don't know. But if the form of the argument is valid, and if the premises are true, then the conclusion HAS to be true. That's what a sound argument is. If you deny this, you're a logic-denier...
>So in the end you have proven nothing.
Arguments are indeed proofs, by definition. They just don't conform to your self-refuting scientism. Learn how to logic.
Guys, porn is the work of the devil I tell ye
Consciousness is a delusion, we are all p-zombies.
ITT: errybody on Sup Forums went full retard.
this thread is stupid as fuck and shouldn't even exist, especially considering its off topic as almighty fuck and has nothing to do with anything relevant other then distracting from topics that actually pertain to the board.
Proof consciousness exists, faggot
>Porn 1 are you 3
What if the brain is both generator and receiver of consciousness at the same time ?
As I said in the original thread, most likely the brain is some sort of physical-memetic hybrid system, that acts as an interface between the physical layer of reality and the memetic layer of reality.
This is probably one of two main functions of the brain (the other one being a repository for memory/data and gateway for signals between body/organism and consciousness).
Theory behind this: There likely exists a whole layer of reality, that we have not yet begun to fully grasp
--> a memetic plane of existence
Some anecdotal indications that point towards this assumption:
- Hallucinogen user reports about conscious non-corporeal entities and information transfer by those entities
- Reports about "information from former lives" retrieved during hypnotic regression sessions, falsely interpreted as indication of reincarnation
- Astral projection/remote viewing experiences
- Reports about some sort of "telepathy" between people, especially when close relatives are in dangerous situations or dying
- Reports about certain people just having the certain right idea (for an invention or some business for example) at the right time just out of nowhere
There is some connection between all of this...
--> Perhaps some types of information can under certain conditions be engrammed/inscribed into the "holographic information matrix" of our universe and then be retrieved at another point and other funny things might be possible aswell.
>whereas yours doesnt even have physical evidence
Mine has evidence, I just don't limit the term evidence to a physicalist framework. Besides, by your own standards YOU don't have physical evidence. Show me the physical evidence that scientism is true... You can't fucking do it, you intellectual fraud
>actually, every test that has shown the method to be sound is another proof, another re-enforcement of it
You can say that reinforces the scientific method, but that in no way supports SCIENTISM. Give the experiment which shows that science is the ONLY way to know about the world... Go ahead. I'm waiting...
>Because NOTHING beyond "i think therefore i am"
that's an attempt at an argument, not a scientific experiment...
>ABSOLUTELY proven to a certainty,
Um, nothing in science is proven to a certainty. If you can't falsify something then its not science...
My case rests on reasons, logic, and science. Yours tries to rest purely on science without logic and reason... Fail
No it isn't. You can make and prove observations with ease.
>That applies to science too
No it doesn't, physics doesn't care what you do or don't know, it will act the same regardless.
>HAS to be true
lol
Educated user here. Op is a faggot.
>See?! All you can do is equivocate.
unfortunate if it appears that way
> I just gave you the definition of the terms and your only hope is to redefine them...
nope
i showed meanings, now matter how well and in -depth stated are not identical from brain to brain
which makes it impossible for them to be objectively factual meanings
the only exceptions to this are math and physics terms
>We can figure stuff out using logic,
but you cannot prove it objectively true as you can with science
unless you can do a quantum level brain scan as i mentioned and be sure all terms and cognition regarding them are identical between 2 or more minds
this is where purely word based epistemology falls infinitely short of that which can be proven by the scientific method
>No it's not, it would necessarily be circular. You don't know how to logic...
if that is circular, then much more so is all of the
basis of all of your purely-word arguments for your case(s) as mine rely on sensory data + math(logic) and yours are entirely thought experiments
On a second thought, it's not a complete nonsense. After a quick glance through the thread and the previous one, I can't help but believe that some people's consciousness comes straight from their ass.
>being this ignorant
en.wikipedia.org
I was unconscious once. You can AMA but I don't remember shit.
>No it isn't. You can make and prove observations with ease.
thats my point
im on your side
not this.... other person's side
another summation:
it may appear one(you) can be sure of the conclusions you hold based on works you have read that others have written on this but however firm that surety may seem it falls short of anything which has scientific evidence
i state this dispassionately
and if science is hollow, then your claims which are based only on written "evidence" are tantamount to imaginary
>No it doesn't
um, yes it does. You can't control for factors that you don't know about... wow
*appear to one
>Scientism is a term generally used to describe the cosmetic application of science in unwarranted situations not covered by the scientific method.
You're dismissal of reality is still just as misguided and the term just as meaningless.
But you discover those factors by encountering them. You don't know until you know, but by your "logic" knowing is impossible and not to be attempted.
I asked in the other thread "then why am I conscious" in response to "consciousness does not exist" and got some pretty lame replies aka not an argument.
Put aside all the negative shite going on in the world right now, I can clearly see when someone is on the right path and when someone is on the wrong path. For me the path started when I was still a child, I experienced OOBE's which took me down many early 90's internet rabbit holes. For me being able to control an OOBE so that I could fully experience it, was the answer to my first question, "Do I have a soul which is separate from my physical body?"
The answer is YES we do.
Nothing anyone says to me can ever change my view due to those experiences being very real.
>unfortunate if it appears that way
it doesn't just appear that way, it is that way. Your only way out is word games, while I use logic and reason. We have the definitions of the terms, and all you can do to avoid contradicting yourself is engage with semantics.
>nope
Oh so you're not redefining them then? So then I'm right :)
>which makes it impossible for them to be objectively factual meanings
Oh but *your* definitions are the right ones though, huh? I can say my arguments equal science and you'll go "nuh-uh! that's not science!" as if science is objectively defined... You've just refuted yourself on a whole new level hahaha
>the only exceptions to this are math and physics terms
They use terms which need to be defined as well. check mate
>but you cannot prove it objectively true
Yes you can. Rules of logic. Again, show me the scientific experiment which proves that you cannot prove anything as objectively true unless you have science... SHOW ME THE FUCKING EXPERIMENT OR ADMIT YOUR'E A LIAR ALREADY
>if that is circular, then much more so is all of the
basis of all of your purely-word arguments for your case(s) as mine rely on sensory data + math(logic) and yours are entirely thought experiments
naw, because I'm not making self-refuting claims like scientism. I'm not saying "this is the only way to know things!", that's you...
>define scientism
>you're denying reality!
holy shit you can't read at all can you?
Scientism is a real term used by philosophers of science, you're just a newfag
consciousness is fundamental force of nature. what humans do is exercise it.
not supernatural, not given to humans by divine entity.
simply natural and orderly.
>But you discover those factors by encountering them.
Same goes for philosophy :)
Show me the scientific experiment which proves science is the only way to know things about reality or admit you're a fraud.
Any other response from you at this point other than providing this experiment is an admission that you're wrong and I'm right...
No. You're denying reality by throwing the word scientism at people to discredit the pleas for evidence.
>>/x/
Dumb fucks
Here is what is really going on:
You know you are conscious correct? YES
Right now we know consciousness exists.
You know you are conscious within your own body despite the probability of that body existing being almost nil? YES
Hence consciousness cannot be unique, one consciousness must inhabit all living things simultaneously.
We are all the same consciousness just looking at each other from tiny portholes.
and consciousness reduces entropy, without consciousness the universe would be chaos.
>using genuine terms by experts in the relevant field means you're denying reality!
Did I refute you guys so badly that I caused brain damage or something?
Are dogs conscious?
This is what I'm talking about. You have no point to make and no way to make it.
>Hence consciousness cannot be unique, one consciousness must inhabit all living things simultaneously.
>We are all the same consciousness just looking at each other from tiny portholes.
correct
it rather works trough entropy among everything else. .
when i say fundamental, i mean it underlays all of the other phenomena inside of universe.
What the fuck do you faggots even know? Nothing you fools! You can't even beging to comprehend what you can't comprehend. What
>You have no point!
>posts an entire general full of evidence and arguments ()
When you've been reduced to outright lies you should consider the possibility that you're completely full of shit.
Your ontology and epistemology is bad and you should feel bad
We are a collective consciousness because of genetic memory. We understand that at one time (before the big bang) we were all a single entity in the void before we were scattered into trillions of smaller consciousnesses, separate yet still connected.
Every religious system has a concept of becoming "one" again in the end. Even Christianity, the goal is to be united with God.
Scientism is a make-believe bit if sophistry used by philosophers and the religious to legitimize their own belief system, merely by using definitions to bring science down to their gutter level.
youre and idiot lol
I'm actually more in the understanding that with out consciousness, nothing could exist.
Everything on the surface of the earth that is not rock, liquids, metals, gases was an idea, all the plant and animal life giving rise to intelligence which created all the technology we have today. If I'm not stupid, I'd say that it is intelligent design...
not Jews, the end game for them is return of the Jahve that would re institute the holy land of Israel and give the Jews the rule over this world with them having thousands of slaves.
that is literally the epilogue of this entire game for them.
I don't think that's quite right desu
Anyway because we are all the same conciousness we should all love thy neighbor and animals too.
Sorry that you're incapable of trying to understand a belief unless it comes out of a pedophilic cardinal's mouth.
But you should know Jesuits believe the same thing.
Your logical fallacy is: ad hominem (circumstantial)
You're not giving me an argument, you're just attacking the motives. Stop being a sophist, start being a philosopher. Come at me with an actual argument.
Scientism is a real term used by philosophers of science: en.wikipedia.org