>there are actual brainlets on this board who think the materialist

>>1439122
what are you saying anon, compulsory military service from the age of 3 and a half?

>>1439122
>brilliant post. I like how supported all your arguments are

>>1439122
>frogposter
>imbecile

Pick two

File: Evola.jpg (66KB, 350x483px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 350x483px

>>1439122
I agree. Modern arrogant neglect of spirituality will be the downfall of man.

>>1439141
OP's fellow brain supreme here
Brainlets pls go

>>1439133
>there are actual brainlets on this board who can't just verify a statement for themselves by comparing it with their own experiences in life like a normal, non-autistic person but need to read le epin arguments just to take a shit

>>1439122
You can't escape physicality just because you want to be more.

>>1439168
hold on, let me check my personal experience. hmm... it seems to support materialism. seems I will need some help understanding the immaterial processes governing how I should take a shit

>>1439185
you can't neglect the higher because you're satisfied with being less

>>1439211
show me the higher exists then

File: pope-francis-1.jpg (96KB, 1240x930px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 1240x930px

>>there are actual brainlets on this board with such a shallow grasp of history and religion they will immediately accuse me of being a christcuck because if you're not a materialist you must be a rabid evangelical Christian

That's because you are, faggot. Now get on your knees and kiss those refugee feet

>>1439271
>it's a footfag pope
Let me guess, he browses /tv/ too
I want off this ride

>>1439248
>show me the Good

It can only be lived.

>>1439211
Higher what? Where is any shred of evidence?

>>1439281

Great dodge, you sure showed those "brainlets" with your non-response

*tips brain*

>>1439289
>>1439283
>d-don't tell me I have to a-actually l-live these principles, j-just tell if it's P or not-P already!!

Know thyself. the Good is self-determination. Becoming one's own principle, instead of being determined/conditioned by what is outside you.

>>1439122
>brainlets
I really like this word

>>1439302

You're spouting utter gibberish. I'm beginning to think that "brainlet" is just another word for non-retard

>>1439302
if you are going to make a thread you need to have arguments. If you don't have a single argument to make and continue to make nothing but assertions I will abandon your shitty thread

>>1439315
You think "not being a slave to your biology and the fickleness of the external world by becoming your own man" is utter gibberish?

>>1439330
I have no interest in convincing anyone. What's a 4chan thread gonna do to change your mind? Those who have seen, have seen, and that's all there is to it.

If you're open to this, I'll level with you. You're obviously not, so why would I waste my time explaining something you have no reference for?

>>1439330
You're so out of touch with your own self and reality you need a bunch of premises and a conclusion all wrapped up in a pretty pink bow to even begin to point you in the right direction. That's sad, m8.

>>1439343
>You think "not being a slave to your biology and the fickleness of the external world by becoming your own man" is utter gibberish?

Not only do I think it, it demonstrably is

>>1439122
Your post really hits close to home because these are the exact things I'm thinking about all the time. I feel I am the brainlet you are referring to and the exact opposite at the same time. Can you please further explain your points so I can get some deeper understanding of things?

>>1439351
>having a handle on your shit is gibberish

I don't think you understand words, m8.

>>1439370
I can't take the way I see the world and plant it into your head. I don't know the One Truth, but I do know I'm much farther along than what these brainlets would call the "truth".

All I know is that only a willingness to dig deep into your interiority will get you anywhere. Try meditating. Don't get hung up on the sectarian or religious baggage: the goal is to get of your head, to see what it is like to shut off the background commentary in your mind and to simply BE in the present.

Time is change, the present is the Now, and because all time is experienced in the immediacy of the Now, the Now is also, paradoxically, the eternal, timelessness. The degree that you are awake to reenact of your existing instead of being pulled into the past and future by your mundane consciousness, the degree you go beyond the silly modern mindset that only reacts to and is dominated by phenomena instead of dominating those phenomena yourself.

once you understand you are not your thoughts, that what you are is, fundamentally, an awareness, an "I" a Self, and not your neurologically-determined cognition, you'll touch something much truer and deeper than the content of your thoughts and emotions.

>>1439424
>I don't think you understand words, m8.

I don't think you do. What do you even mean when you're "not a slave to your biology"? What even is being a "slave to your biology"? Biology studies all lifeforms, regardless of their behavior. You're by definition a "slave" of biology by virtue of being a living organism, you dolt

>there are actual brainlets on this board with such a shallow grasp of history and religion they will immediately accuse me of being a christcuck because if you're not a materialist you must be a rabid evangelical Christian
This part that you're preemptively trying to deny is the only undeniably true part in your post. Go home, retarded christcuck.

>>1439424
tl;dr taoism

True.

>>1439444
Biology, as in your particular physical and psychological makeup which you did not "will", you simply were born "in them" and thus determine everything from your favorite food to your tics to your preconceptions about people to your character flaws to even your fetishes.

Of course by being a biological being you are determined by that biology. that's the whole issue here. The difference is that man can become cognizant of his conditioning, he can catch it in the act, and thus, he can, with a lot of work, determine himself and transcend his lower nature.

It's literally what you're doing every time you don't let an emotion get the better of you, among other things.

>>1439122

Blimey.

This is some serious shitposting.

>>1439468
Can you go more into the conditionality of human mental constructs sufficing for intellectual depth point?

>>1439468
Not letting an emotion get the better of you is still purely a matter of biology.

What you're describing is an ascension above instinct, which is conditioned entirely by human biology juxtaposed to animal biology. One is going to be a slave to their biology for as long as one remains a biological creature.

File: stirner2.jpg (99KB, 868x868px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 868x868px

>>1439343
>t. brainet

>>1439468
>The difference is that man can become cognizant of his conditioning, he can catch it in the act, and thus, he can, with a lot of work, determine himself and transcend his lower nature.

Only if he happens to have the right genes with the appropriate environmental conditions to do so.

>>1439468
>Biology, as in your particular physical and psychological makeup which you did not "will", you simply were born "in them" and thus determine everything from your favorite food to your tics to your preconceptions about people to your character flaws to even your fetishes.

Yes, except of course that this ignores the environment which you were born in, which determines whether you continue living to produce offspring, which has nothing whatsoever to do with genetic makeup

Also, for someone who is like OmG le Totally ENLighteneD, you have a hilariously reductionist and mechanical view of biology, one that many biologists don't subscribe to. You probably also think that human behavior of those dreaded "brainlets" (whatever the fuck that even means) is solely motivated by rational self interest, which only shows that all you've been doing in this thread is pushing over self-made strawmen

>>1439468
>It's literally what you're doing every time you don't let an emotion get the better of you,
You do realize human biology has a brain region designed specifically for this? Because going off on all your emotions immediately is not good for social cohesion and thus "not letting your emotions get the better of you" is adaptive?

>>1439122

>there are actual brainlets on this board who think the materialist account of reality has true explanatory power

Okay kiddo, explain to me using your magic non-materialist theory how you would get a satellite to orbit Jupiter.

>>there are actual brainlets on this board who think determinism is what's keeping them tied to their desks and jerking off

Whatever happens, happens and what's done is done. Are you saying conditioned habits are not real? Lemme hear about this new theory of free will you developed in your spare time.

>>there are actual brainlets on this board who think pointing out the conditionality of human mental constructs suffices for intellectual depth

This is meaningless word-salad

>>there are actual brainlets on this board who will deny the existence of truth or concepts such as the Good and then turn around and implicitly assume the hedonic wasteland that is their inner lives automatically applies to everyone

Couldn't really parse out this run on sentence.

>there are actual brainlets on this board who think chemicals somehow precede or determine mental activity themselves instead of just emotions and neural activity happening simultaneously

Do you have an example of a mental activity that precedes or determines a chemical activity?

>there are actual brainlets on this board with such a profane, elementary understanding of religious consciousness that they think because science has proved fairies don't exist that there is literally no reason to speak of anything in non-quantitative terms ever again


What do you mean by this cuddly "religious consciousness" do you mean believing what an old book says really hard? Or perhaps you mean, obsessing over a few rituals or practices, or embracing Mother Earth in our universal Oneness and brotherhood.

>>1439485
Of course, but there is absolutely nothing stopping you from transcending these drives as far as you are able.

>>1439482
Just because ideologies can be dogmatic or conditioned by social and cultural factors beyond your awareness does not mean every subjective evaluation of reality (while all views are, at the ultimate level, empty of true content) is invalidated, and it sure as fuck doesn't make you profound or deep when Parmenides was talking about this two thousand years ago, just scared to actually take a real position.

>>1439522
>Of course, but there is absolutely nothing stopping you from transcending these drives as far as you are able.
>absolutely nothing stopping you
>as far as you are able
Could you be any more of a doofus? Everything we do in its entirety is conditioned and limited by our biology. Literally fucking everything. Drop your dumbass point, you're wrong on it.

Be like the Tao, friend, and stop making an ass of yourself.

>>1439303
Based on my experience, anyone who uses it unironically is usually dumber than the person they're criticizing.

>>1439522
How are all views, at the ultimate level, empty of true content?

>>1439498
I was specifically replying to your biology point. Of course I'm not ignoring environment.

>>1439501
You're confusing the effect for the cause. More like, those who weren't hysterical weenies had a better chance of survival, instead of your explanation which reeks of an evolutionary teleology, as if Natural Selection^TM specifically invented self-actualization for the purposes of survival.

>>1439513
Your first point was a total meme reply. If I had been arguing for the actual, material utility of my views you'd have a point. But I'm not. Didn't read the rest

>>1439556
No, "self actualization" is a term made up by people who don't like the fact that they're brains. The ACC exists to control impulses, moderate emotions, etc. There is nothing magic about it.

>>1439536
Are you denying I can choose my reactions to my emotions and circumstances? No? Okay, then, the human being, as far as he is able, can determine himself. Or in other words, biology, past a certain level of complexity, has the tools to determine itself. That's it. Don't belabor such a simple point.

>>1439553
All views are relative because they are the product of finite and conditioned beings. At the level of the system itself which "birthed" these beings, their views reflect nothing but their own particularly determined "life-feeling" and cannot possibly reflect the ultimate nature of the system taken in its totality. All dualism are reconciled. There is no good, evil, big, small, hot, cold, for the one thing that exists because there is nothing outside it on which we can form a comparison.

What is responsible for qualities, concepts, etc cannot be subject to them itself.

>>1439562
I never posited anything magical or immaterial. Please stop responding to phantoms. Our Self, a product of biology, is nonetheless self-determining and self-configuring as far as that biology allows for the prerequisite awareness of our drives.

Do you ever feel like the material world is really the spirit world? If everything needs an explanation then won't our explanations become circular and we will be left in the same position our ancestors were? Isn't the fact that anything should exist ineffable?

>>1439578
>materialists are so stupid with their "le epin" explanations and meaninglessness
>what? I never proposed anything immaterial. Stop chasing phantoms

You cannot describe the universe completely with any accuracy unless you're willing to admit that it's both physical and mental in nature.

>>1439572
>Are you denying I can choose my reactions to my emotions and circumstances?
As a matter of fact, I would. What you call "you" has no choice in any matter and is simply perception of subconscious decisions made before they rose into awareness.

> Okay, then, the human being, as far as he is able, can determine himself.
A rock can determine itself as far as it's able. This is a statement devoid of content, the only content it shows is your obfuscation of a conceded point. Everything we do is conditioned by biology. Having a more advanced social instinct than most animals is not "above biology" in any sense. Go fuck yourself.

>>1439578

I love how you declare yourself self-determined and way above the unenlightened scum that can't determine themselves, yet still deeply care about what that same unenlightened scum think about your views, as if those actions don't completely contradict what you believe.

If you were completely above the man beasts, as you think you are, you wouldn't give a flying fuck about our opinions. They'd be like a dog barking to you. Yet here you are, getting all worked up about people disagreeing with you. You debunk your bullshit yourself, through your own behavior. You show yourself that you're anything but the enlightened scholar you think you are, and, through your complete lack of self-awareness, show that you may be even lower than the scum you're supposedly superior to.

Why don't you come back when you can actually walk the walk instead of just talking the talk

>>1439604
All the mental is physical.

>>1439424
Let me explain this to you: just like a cripple or an average woman is more physically limited than a man, some people are more psychically, mentally and emotionally limited in comparison to others.
You can work to change things, but in the end the boundaries of what is possible are beyond your grasp. Trying to benchpress a ton is as much a futile struggle as trying to have Batman's willpower.

You need more stoicism, because you are desiring what you can't have.

>>1439458

honestly listening to Alan Watts was the biggest waste of my life thus far, such a hedonistic prick he died young and I'm supposed to give a shit about him talking for 3 hours about how you can't taste your own tongue or bite your own teeth

Everyone I know IRL who has tried to talk about taoism is a faggot too

>>1439424

meditation/Buddhism/eastern religion in general is a meme in the west that produces annoying women who want to travel in Tibet to find meaning in their meaningless vapid lives and cucked men who think being passive is a transcendent quality

Eastern religious sentiment is cancerous to actually getting shit done in your own life because it gives you an excuse to not feel bad for literally doing nothing all the time, it might as well be an accessory to cultural marxism for how effectively it turns people into dumb faggots

>there are actually people using the word "brainlet"

I feel dumber just for knowing this.

>>1439612
I'm having a discussion. I'm not worked up. And I never claimed I'm enlightened you okay?

>>1439642
I never denied intrinsic limitations, but as far as one is able realize an inner freedom the more he is able to control his distress at these perceived limitations.

>>1439607
Your views are closer in line to what you're trying to refute than you'd believe.

>>1439693
Cool story bro

>>1439607
More like being "above biology" just means a biology that has evolved to the poijtbit can override it's own programming, which is what I said like my second post in response to you. You need to tweak your definition of biological conditioning if that conditioning is not so set in stone with enough self-awareness. Or in other words, "biology" can implement its own higher-order conditioning to replace merely evolutionary conditioning

>>1439578
Look, bro. Think of it like this.

If your brain is big enough in relation to your body mass, you are able to hunt prey (i.e. be a carnivore). If your brain is even bigger, you can form complex societies (i.e packs). Later on, you can eve become self-aware by noticing your reflection in a mirror is actually you.

The more and more bigger the brain gets in relation to your body mass, the more complex things it can perform. One of these things, which is found in humans, is conciousness.

That's it. If you bundle enough neurons together, you get consciousness. There's no further "meaning" to it. There is no "purpose".

It "is" what it "is".

>>1439879
Why do you think repeating shit back at me I understood when I was 15 counts as an argument?

Of course it is what it is, and my being able to choose to become a better person, enabled by my consciousness and by the very principles of well-being that are in effect everywhere in existence, also is what it is.

>>1439889
Because you clearly think some sort of mystic magical life-force is at play here-otherwise you would accept scientific theories on consciousness and get on with your life.

Science will lead us to space colonisation, lengthened lifespans, and a post-scarcity economy. Philosophy will answer questions about ethics that have little to no effect in increasing the living standards of human beings.

File: 1422305472589.jpg (11KB, 246x246px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 246x246px

>>1439122
>there are people that are so boring and unlikeable that they have to resort to having a sense of intellectual superiority on an image board
>there are people who still don't accept that consciousness is a physical phenomenon
>there are people who don't realize that the brain is an intentionality-producing system, and this is remarkable without even referencing qualia
>there are people who waste the only life they likely have worrying about unfalsifiable noncognitive nonsense

>>1439918
No, I don't. All "I" am is my internal, moment-to-moment, the contents of which I can make an effort to improve. This has nothing to do with the theory of evolution, scientific theories of consciousness, whatever epin science lesson you have in store next.

If you're gonna posit some magical subconscious entity that is who I REALLY am and making all these decisions for me, you're literally talking about the fedora version of a soul, where instead of being a divine principle instantiated in Man it's le epin deterministic ghost in the shell that pulls your strings.

And please don't give me that junk about "living standards" when material prosperity has been emotionally proven not to correlate with happiness. Come on.

>>14399457

>you're literally talking about the fedora version of a soul,

He clearly isn't.

> instead of being a divine principle instantiated in Man it's le epin deterministic ghost in the shell that pulls your strings.

That would be genes and environment, son.

"Le ebin ghosts" etc etc don't come into it.

Are you seriously making this thread again?

Yes OP! I'm rooting for you, materialists are such a bore, "Subjectivity isn't real, the actual manifestation of feelings in the human consciousness isn't real, I can't understand the difference between the body and the soul" stop denying yourself the examination of ACTUAL REAL subjective phenomena just because you love science and technology so much, the subjective itself is a lot more interesting and beautiful than empirical explanations of the mechanization of the universe, a thing is beautiful because it resemble the beautiful itself, explain what makes it beautiful all you want I rather concentrate on experiencing the beautiful itself as much as I can, a much better reality then the endless systematic inquiries as to how it works that only gets most people entangled in thinking that nothing has meaning because they forget that what's important is the thing itself not how it works or what it is made of.

>>1440111
You think my genes are equivalent with my internal experience? Do you seriously think I'm contesting we aren't products of our genes?

>>1440170
What's good bro. I don't have any problem with the empirical, mechanistic understanding. It's beautiful in its own way, because it is, in fact, what gives us beauty, but that said materialists who don't think matter and mind are not two sides of the same coin are smoking some good shit

>>1440182
They're not two sides of the same coin, they're the same side. Mind is made out of matter and energy, and not bullshit mystic ~energies~ but literally electric charges. You have never justified why the ability for life to arise is in any way divine, saying the word "epin" over and over in place of an argument.

>>1440192
I never once posited a mystical force. Mind is indeed matter, and matter is mind. The materialistic fallacy is granting an arbitrary primacy to matter because it can be quantified, and therefore objective, and therefore "truer" than subjectivity, as if the phenomenon of subjectivity in itself is not a phenomenon as objective as rainbows or earthquakes.

Please actually read my posts instead of propping up strawmen between the lines.

>>1440182
It is beautiful when it remains in its right place of being inquiries into an infinite unknown, I also enjoy basking in the logical complexity of the universe, but when people put said inquiries as if they are above the thing which they inquire itself and treat it as more important that I get annoyed, it leads them to say that meaning doesn't exist because they can't explain the mechanism of the whole of the infinite universe and than unaware of their folly proclaim in existentialist fashion that it is absurd or that morality and good and bad do not exist, it drags our civilization down and it's sad really because they actually believe they found some profound truth.

>>1440205
>I never once posited a mystical force
What's your phrasing? The Divine is the laws that allow for life to arise in the first place, because conciousness is so special there must be something in the makeup of the universe that caused it?

It's still just mysticism, no matter how you try to disguise it.

>>1439122
This guy knows, world will fall when people use a tool instead of a book to think

>>1440172
>You think my genes are equivalent with my internal experience?

Like it or not your genes and environment are what decides your internal experience.

>>1440217
You literally just agreed with me that matter, the very makeup of the universe, is what causes mind. So yeah, your ideological inertia notwithstanding, I am perfectly justified in believing consciousness is intrinsic to the universe not because little fairies told me but because it's what reality itself is giving me by being composed of an unconscious substance that becomes conscious in the appropriate configuration and complexity.

Neuroscience is just confirming ideas about reality that have been in play for thousands of years, that matter and mind are inextricable properties of the One Thing this existence is, whatever that Thing may be.

>>1440215
I'll never understand why pointing out what we're made of somehow invalidates the very perception that can make that judgment in the first place. it's mind boggling to me. Science and religion complement each other beautifully

>>1439122
*cringe*

Bravo OP you got yourself some attention. What's the next part of your plan?

>>1440217
Holy shit, why are you even trying to say "it's mysticism brah" to a good explanation, like that magical fucking word makes it worthless, to make something in a specific way takes some level of intelligence and self awareness, the laws of the universe themselves are a complex system to produce specific results as any scientist would agree, following that wouldn't it be a pretty good explanation to say that something with some quantity of intelligence made the universe specifically the way it is, that something being God? why do you deny the assumption as untrue, in a world where truth is the illusion of sufficient belief?

>>1440229
Great, which is exactly, EXACTLY, what I said like 70 posts ago. And while they decide my internal experience they are not actually my internal experience. I am my internal experience, an internal experience that can understand itself as the product of biological aggregates/environment and thereby take steps to minimize that conditioning and cultivate that "I" as opposed to indulging blind impulse. Do you see the distinction?

>>1440234
>I am perfectly justified in believing consciousness is intrinsic to the universe
As long as you accept that it is exactlt as intrinsic as stars, granite and beaches, yes.

>Neuroscience is just confirming ideas about reality that have been in play for thousands of years, that matter and mind are inextricable properties of the One Thing this existence is, whatever that Thing may be.
Exactly what is neuroscience proving that , in any way, discounts a materialist view of conciousness?

>>1439726
t. useless passive """"""Buddhist"""""

>>1440248
You're making an artificial distinction thanks to your genes that allowed you to be such an obnoxious douche

>>1440249
I agree - further, anything that Neuroscience doesn't know yet isn't a pass to say "muh mysticism/subjectivity" it's just something we don't know yet, like literally everything that's been figured out in all of history

>we don't know yet
>"muh god" "muh god"
>ah! we know now
>uhhh
>hmmm, now here's something else we don't know
>"muh god! muh god!"
>rinse and repeat

>>1440243
>to make something in a specific way takes some level of intelligence and self awareness,
False. Solar systems are made in a specific way without intelligence or self awareness.

>the laws of the universe themselves are a complex system to produce specific results as any scientist would agree
False, unless you can produce some peer reviewed article that claims there is an intentionality or goal to the universe to produce "specific results."

>>1440248

No, not really. This seems like a word salad.

>>1440249
There you go again trying to drag subjectivity down to the seeming insignificance of matter. Stars and rocks and shit are expressions of the matter side of the coin, mind is the expression of the conscious side. Both equally intrinsic and mutually supportive. No one is granted primacy over the other. The universe isn't made of epin meaningless atoms but atoms that can be both dead shit and symphonies.

Neuroscience has confirmed the Buddhist doctrine of the skandhas. The dual-aspect nature of matter has its parallels in tantric metaphysics. The innate irreducibility of consciousness (how do you reduce a living, subjective experience to its particulate components?) says much about the accuracy of Buddhist teachings in regards to non-self.

>>1440239
Continue to """"debate"""" stupid materialists.

>>1440265
How can you create something specific without being aware to what it is you want to create?

How can h2o equal water without something pointing it to be that specific thing?
The laws of the universe themselves are a manifestation of God's meaning

>>1440276
>>1440255

Take it one word at a time. Anything you don't understand isn't word salad. I can't believe I have to spend nearly ten posts to convince you my subjective first-person "I" isn't literally a string of nucleotides, god almighty

>>1440263
Neither is your ignorance of exactly what I'm talking about an excuse to post your epin god of the gaps argument every time thinkers of the past and epin science men of the present happen to agree.

>>1440277
>There you go again trying to drag subjectivity down to the seeming insignificance of matter. Stars and rocks and shit are expressions of the matter side of the coin, mind is the expression of the conscious side.
And there you go trying to separate conciousness into its own magical category somehow as fundamental to the universe. Mattet isn't even that fundamental, really, but somehow one particular arrangement of one particular type it is half the equation? If you fuck up the molecules and the charges, you fuck up conciousness. It is really that simple.
>The universe isn't made of epin meaningless atoms but atoms that can be both dead shit and symphonies.
Yes, it's almost like you arbitrarily deciding something is meaningless because it isn't magic is fucking stupid. A symphony being ink on a page or a particular pattern of neural activation doesn't make it "meaningless" because meaning is already a subjective term.

>Neuroscience has confirmed the Buddhist doctrine of the skandhas. The dual-aspect nature of matter has its parallels in tantric metaphysics.
Jesus. What does this even mean?
>The innate irreducibility of consciousness (how do you reduce a living, subjective experience to its particulate components?)
By examining each component part and then examining them as a system. So exactly what is actually being done.

>>1439918
> Science will lead us to space colonisation, lengthened lifespans, and a post-scarcity economy.
Utopian nonsense. This is why theists acuse you of being a religion. There is no evidence that any of that will occur beyond your blind faith.

It's more likely that science will lead to our extinction as a species. Your kind already deny that there's anything special about consciousness. It's only a matter of time before your kind go further, and decree that it is an anachronistic relic from a more primitive age and an obstacle in the path of to your "post-scarcity society", so it should be done away with.

People like you are why I abandoned my faith in science.

>>1440282
When hydrogen and oxygen are put together, the electronegativity of the oxygen causes the electrons to move in such a way that the positive charge of the hydrogen nuclei is partially exposed. Thus, the overall bond has a positive and negative end, and since there are two hydrogen and one oxygen there is a charge pattern over the entire molecule. When enough of these molecules are together, we call the resulting mass "water." The properties of the hydrogen and oxygen atoms, plus the properties of their interactions, cause a phenomenon. No intentionality anywhere.

>>1440284

I don't really care what you expect. Your conscious self is still a result of a combination of nucleotides.

>>1440311
You understand that these components are a part of the physical universe the fact that they themselves exist and produce the very specific and intentional result you have mentioned no matter how complex is what I am talking about, you again try to explain the mechanism as if it is more important than the thing itself, marking "water" like it don't exist, what makes water water is its quality of being water, everything else is just trying to understand what are the components of water but there will always be an infinite distance between what a thing is and what it is made of, if you can't understand this concept any further arguing is pointless.

>>1440297
What are you even arguing about? What even is your point? You're confused. The whole point of the thread is aimed at fedoras who dismiss subjectivity because they're unfeeling meme drones who have no understanding of the philosophical positions they disparage.

I'm not making consciousness a magical category, I'm identifying it as a very special phenomenon (don't have a heart attack) by very virtue of the fact it is an alive thing that emerges out of what is inert and unconscious. Which means the fedora has to either modify his view of matter or still somehow explain the world in such a way that consciousness is acknowledged as a real thing but still dismissed within the paradigm of "le epin meaningless quantum fart" that they think reality is, which would be absurd.

>>1440327
You don't get what I'm saying, do you? Are you so lost you don't even see that I'm partially agreeing with you? Hahaha oh man

The metaphysical confuses the heck out of me. I don't even know where to begin.

>>1440344
>very specific
Yes.
>intentional
No.
>what makes water water is its quality of being water
No, what makes water water are the properties of its components, the properties of their interactions, and the properties of the overall interacting with outside elements. Hydrogen and oxygen both predate their product, and their product predates the concept of "water".
>an infinite distance between what a thing is and what it is made of,
There is no infinite step, it is literally just the difference between examining components in isolation and examining the system.

>>1440345
>consciousness is acknowledged as a real thing but still dismissed within the paradigm of "le epin meaningless quantum fart" that they think reality is, which would be absurd.

Who are you to say it's absurd?Are you a neuroscientist? Can you refute the scientific theories about consciousness?

You sound like a creationist who's utterly incredulous about the fact the universe is almost 14 billion years old rather than 6,000 years old.

>>1440344
Time and time and time again I say "it's not how x happens, it's that x even happens in the first place" but they'll never get it. Thanks for getting it, anon.

>>1440345
Conciousness emerges out of unconcious matter, sort of how solids and liquids emerge out of particles that are neither.

Conciousness is a property of a system of neurons working in tandem in a specific way. That is it. No new understanding of matter is required once the cultural baggage has been shed.

>>1440372
Haha, okay, I've wasted enough time with you. told you like 5 times I don't think consciousness is some magical force, and is a property of matter (and vice versa), and that it must be acknowledged as such and not dismissed out of hand because scientific advancement has enabled us to talk about quarks. Not to mention you don't even get why what I just said is philosophically absurd (the equivalent of billiard balls spontaneously forming into the Eiffel Tower and fedoras waving their hands and going "well, I see the Eiffel Tower, but it's still not really a thing!!! Billiard balls are just billiard balls lmao!!!"

Stop posting. I'm not wasting my time on your posts again

>>1440344
>>1440375
Considering this exercise in mental gymnastics is not taught at any stage of science education, it might as well be worthless.

If scientists can get to the moon and cure diseases and build massive bridges without grasping what you're talking about, then why is it needed at all?

>>1440375
Here's the problem. Not only does x emerge in the first place, the entire alphabet does. You are saying that the entire alphabet exists specifically to produce x, for no reason other than it is your favorite. It is exactly backwards.

>>1440389
Because there is inner accomplishment, inner power just as there is external power.

>>1440392
More like my x is a fucking number, so what's it doing in the alphabet?

>>1440402
You are asserting x is a special letter, and whenever anyone points out to you that while it looks neat and is useful it really is just a regular letter, you double down and meme about epin meaninglessness.

>>1440412
No, I'm asserting the presence of X demands a reformulation of the kind of mindset that leads one to equivocate the universe with just a string of arbitrary, accidental units

>>1440417
And it has been explained to you, multiple times, why no such reformulation is needed.

>>1440371
Yes but you understand that eventually what matters is that water exist, not the fact that it is made of things, that much is obvious, but that water as a real fucking thing exist and that it is in itself a thing, no matter how much you explain it with physics, the fact that the result of all those causes and effects is specifically water, the thing, fundamentally doesn't make sense, it only explains with many other different things something else, but it isn't in itself the thing, can you explain to me why what a thing is made of is more important than the thing itself?

If you can than what I ask you is what made the laws of the universe specifically the way they are?
We agreed that to make something specifically some specific laws must be established, what can make laws other than something which has intelligence and is aware?

Those are my questions, if you are able to give a proper materialistic answer that will satisfy both of these to a sufficient extent I will renounce my beliefs in subjectivity and become a materialist like you.

>>1440354

Of course I get what you are saying.

It means something to 'be like' a human that, presumably, it doesn't to be a glass of water.

But hey, that difference is going to probably be surpassed in AI within the next two decades.

It's all still deterministic.

>>1440419
No, the very fact that even YOUR position agrees with mine that mind is a property of matter, and thus the stock fedora riposte of "we're just atoms bro" says absolutely nothing, is why we need a reformulation of matter away from its more mechanistic connotations

>>1440426
>giving me all this shit over every little point and giving me as faith-based as any to come out of christcucks mouth

This thread was a mistake

>>1440441
No don't say that
Materialists needs their shitty views to be challenged

>>1440389
If you don't grasp what he's talking about then what justification do you have to hold up those things "done by scientists" as being of any worth?

Just like water those events are simply emergent properties of their constituent components. There is no accomplishment in those things.
It just "is" what it "is".
Clearly doing those things aren't important in the slightest.

>>1440421
>the fact that the result of all those causes and effects is specifically water, the thing, fundamentally doesn't make sense,
Of course it does. If oxygen and hydrogen happen to bump into each other, you get water or hydrogen peroxide, and the hydrogen peroxide quicky converts to water. If hydrogen and nitrogen happen to bounce into each other, you get ammonia. Water only "doesn't make sense" if you look at it in isolation, instead of looking at it as one of many potential products.

>can you explain to me why what a thing is made of is more important than the thing itself?
It isn't? Fundamentally to understand something you must understand both the components and the system as it is. You can't understand the properties of a molecule by examining all the atoms in isolation, you also need to know how the atoms interact with each other. It's just that emergent properties aren't magic.

>
If you can than what I ask you is what made the laws of the universe specifically the way they are?
With the way the currently@observable universe is inflating, it apears that there may be a multiverse. Not in the pop culture mirror-world way, but as in completely different universes that do not really interact. Those would likely have different values for the fundamental forces, etc. Only the universes that had the right arrangement to support life would.
>We agreed that to make something specifically some specific laws must be established, what can make laws other than something which has intelligence and is aware?
The "Law" aren't really laws, they are just convenient summaries of existing behaviour. It's not like an electron consults a list of laws to know how to behave, it's just that two electrons can't occupy the same space, and we call their characteristic movements "laws."
>I will renounce my beliefs in subjectivity and become a materialist like you.
This isn't a religious conversion, it's a discussion. Believe whatever you want to, it's a free Internet.

>>1440435
No, "mind" is not a property of "matter." "Mind", specifically human thought, is a property specifically of the human neocortex. To say that proves "mind" in general is a property of matter in general would be like saying that the Eiffel Tower is a property of matter in general, even though it only occurs in a specific context.

>>1440484
>With the way the currently@observable universe is inflating, it apears that there may be a multiverse. Not in the pop culture mirror-world way, but as in completely different universes that do not really interact. Those would likely have different values for the fundamental forces, etc. Only the universes that had the right arrangement to support life would.

This answer has absolutely no explanatory power

>why is there a dildo in my ass
>there's actually a million dildos, but that's the only one you feel

come on

>The "Law" aren't really laws, they are just convenient summaries of existing behaviour. It's not like an electron consults a list of laws to know how to behave, it's just that two electrons can't occupy the same space, and we call their characteristic movements "laws."

he can then just rephrase his question as "why is the existing behavior the way it is".

lord give me strength

>>1440484
You're beyond saving, that was my last attempt in trying to explain this to you, enjoy your existence.

>>1440503
No.

For neurons to produce consciousness, they must have some mental component which emerges in their structural complexity. Neurons are composed of the same atoms as anything else. Therefore, all atoms have some mental component which is actualized when they compose the cells of nervous systems.

Or else there's some magical neuron-matter that can only produce consciousness, is what you're telling me.

Consciousness exists en potentia in matter just as the specific qualities of the Eiffel Tower's metal, hardness, reflectivity, etc., exist en potentia in individual atoms, they just need to be configured right.

Mind/consciousness/awareness, whatever you want to call it, is as intrinsic to the nature of matter as are the properties of metal, but where metal is just metal, mind operates on its own (seemingly antithetical) ruleset, and thus it is perfectly justifiable to single it out if we are attempting a full picture of matter and not tipping our hat

>>1440506
>explanatory power
Astrology has tremendous explanatory power. It's also bogus. Explanatory power is not as important as predictive power.

>>why is there a dildo in my ass
>>there's actually a million dildos, but that's the only one you feel
If you are asking "why is there a dildo in MY ass" then yes, there are a million dildos and only so much space to put them, one of them ended up in your ass because it didn't fit in your mouth or ears.

>"why is the existing behavior the way it is"
Because of the properties of the involved actors, which are themselves (likely, we aren't certain yet, so here is a gap for you if you want an "out") a product of the fundamental forces, which themselves may be different in other universes.

>>1440441

Last time I checked all you did was meme.

>>1440527
I engaged with you point-for-point in an honest discussion and you still think I was memeing. Sure thing m8.

>>1440524
But you see the question is why there are dildos in the first place right

The other guy was right, you're hopeless.

>>1440522
>Or else there's some magical neuron-matter that can only produce consciousness, is what you're telling me.
No, conciousness is a product of the particular arrangement of activation. An emulation of the human brain running on sillicon would likely be concious too. Because it isn't the matter itself that is concious, but the system it is supporting.

>metal, hardness, reflectivity
No, somehow the actual little pointy bit and the platforms are hardcoded into the atoms and the universe itself, by your view. They aren't just a product of the arrangement of atoms to produce a pointy bit, no, pointiness is a fundamental property that merely needs actualization.

>seemingly antithetical
Here is the crucial term. Seemingly antithetical. Because once you start studying in detail it is not actually antithetical at all. Impressive, yes, but fully within the bounds of not-magic. With a strong enough magnet you can literslly deactivate parts of thought.

>>1440540
>I engaged with you point-for-point in an honest discussion and you still think I was memeing. Sure thing m8.

When you say "point for point" you kind of missed making a point, ever.

I quite happily acknowledged that yes you do have a subjective experience as a conscious being.

You never had anything in response except the usual troll level memes.

>>1440555
No one gives a shit to what consciousness is made of, but to the fact that this infinitely complex thing exist at all, also you have tons of assumptions in your writing,science currently doesn't understand consciousness and can't explain what it is made of physically.

>>1440566
No you are the troll, I refuse to believe someone this ignorant exists

>>1440590

Ignorant of what?

When challenged you resorted to assorted memery.

File: aesthetic-ariana-ariana-grande-funny-Favim.com-3089046.jpg (61KB, 306x306px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 306x306px

>>1440555
Ayy m8. This is the last time I'm going to reply to you.

>No, conciousness is a product of the particular arrangement of activation. An emulation of the human brain running on sillicon would likely be concious too. Because it isn't the matter itself that is concious, but the system it is supporting.

What? So the system is conscious as per the patterns of electrochemical gradients in the neurons ... so something is conscious right? Something which is rooted in, and emerges out of matter, right? Which is exactly my argument, right? And you do realize what you quoted was me being sarcastic, right?

>No, somehow the actual little pointy bit and the platforms are hardcoded into the atoms and the universe itself, by your view. They aren't just a product of the arrangement of atoms to produce a pointy bit, no, pointiness is a fundamental property that merely needs actualization.

>pointiness is a fundamental property that merely needs actualization.

>Consciousness exists en potentia in matter just as the specific qualities of the Eiffel Tower's metal, hardness, reflectivity, etc., exist en potentia in individual atoms

Literally what I said. You're getting hung up on semantics. No, atoms don't arrange themselves into pointy shapes, yes pointy shapes (and consciousness) emerge from the total interactions of properties within a system. Are you high?

>Here is the crucial term. Seemingly antithetical. Because once you start studying in detail it is not actually antithetical at all. Impressive, yes, but fully within the bounds of not-magic. With a strong enough magnet you can literslly deactivate parts of thought.

Magnets deactivating parts of the brain has literally nothing to do with my argument and doesn't refute it either, since for like 10 posts I've been saying consciousness is not some spirit force but is in the brain (but not fundamentally of the brain).

>>1439298
lol

>>1440596
Ignorant of what my argument even was if you think I was just saying "I think, therefore I am"

>>1440577
It is physically the pattern of activations within the human neural network, as much as "patterns" can be said to exist physically. But it is facilitated by which connections exist and how they are attuned to each other.

People who want to know more about conciousness in reality care very much about what it is "made of", because that is one crucial step to learning more about it. Declaring it magic is not conducive to understanding.

>>1440611

But I never thought you were saying that and you didn't make an argument.

Would you care to summarise your actual argument?

File: 1467078047366.jpg (71KB, 640x780px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 640x780px

>>1440623
It's that it exists in the first place

it's that these "patterns of activation" even give rise to subjective experience instead of simply controlling the body in a mechanistic cascade

it's that there is something to speak of in the first place

it's that there even is an observer of your precious physics

Jesus Christ dude.

I think you admitted in one these threads previously that the trend towards greater complexity in the universe that you feel implies meaning and purpose is also born out of the continued destruction of all things; that if the "purpose" of the universe is to trend towards consciousness and complexity, that its ultimate trend is towards its own dissolution. Would this imply that the meaning of the universe is to end?

Personally when it comes to spirituality, I'm rather fond of a Taoist pantheism, in which the universe is much like a river running through the riverbed that is the Tao. Its meaning and purpose are simply to be.

>>1440596
>ignorant of what
Of the fact that even though it is obvious that every a thing is made of a system of specific rules that define its unique existence as a thing different than another thing, individual, unique, the thing itself doesn't equal the system of specific rules that enables its existence but ultimately the thing itself =the thing itself no further argument is possible, sure every system of rules is a thing which becomes a system of rules when looked at from the highest view point in a linear time scale, but there are infinite rules and infinite systems as the universe itself is infinite, you will never grasp the whole, and as men what is important in the search for truth is that the truth is itself truth not the things it is made of, and only by inquiring subjectivity itself will you reach meaningful conclusions, all the things science has done to humanity are meaningless when you understand the fact that happiness is overall not more abundant today in western civilization than it was 2500 years ago in ancient Greece, and that science without the proper guidance of virtue equals nothing.

>>1440656
>I think you admitted in one these threads previously that the trend towards greater complexity in the universe that you feel implies meaning and purpose is also born out of the continued destruction of all things; that if the "purpose" of the universe is to trend towards consciousness and complexity, that its ultimate trend is towards its own dissolution. Would this imply that the meaning of the universe is to end?

Where matter hasn't "awakened", entropy is the rule. Otherwise, our very bodies are a middle finger to entropy, but entropy - or rather, what is entropy in the human organism (concupiscence, indolence, the phantasmagoric nature of schizophrenia, psychosis, so many psychopathologies, all representing the dominance of the arbitrary, "random" physical element) - continues to exist and what defines the struggle against our dark side, both individually and collectively.

>Personally when it comes to spirituality, I'm rather fond of a Taoist pantheism, in which the universe is much like a river running through the riverbed that is the Tao. Its meaning and purpose are simply to be.

and that's what the Good is. to be fully yourself

>>1440597
>Which is exactly my argument, right?
No, your argument is that it's somehow a special intrinsic property of matter in general rather than a specific phenomenon occurring in a specific context.

> And you do realize what you quoted was me being sarcastic, right?
A sarcastic summation of my position, which I clarified. Similar to how I gave a sarcastic summation of yours a section later.

>emerge from the total interactions of properties within a system.
So pointiness/conciousness is not a fundamental aspect of matter. One does not need to modify their idea of matter in order to deal with the emergence of pointiness/conciousness.

>but not fundamentally of the brain).
If it was not fundamentally of the brain, the magnet wouldn't work. In humans, conciousness is fundamentally of the brain, but conciousness could arise in a non-brain if it was emulated.
>>1440642
>it's that these "patterns of activation" even give rise to subjective experience instead of simply controlling the body in a mechanistic cascade
Subjective experience is a mechanistic cascade, just an incredibly complex self-referential one.

>it's that there is something to speak of in the first place
Why wouldn't there be, if life is possible?

>>1440675
>Where matter hasn't "awakened", entropy is the rule. Otherwise, our very bodies are a middle finger to entropy, but entropy - or rather, what is entropy in the human organism (concupiscence, indolence, the phantasmagoric nature of schizophrenia, psychosis, so many psychopathologies, all representing the dominance of the arbitrary, "random" physical element) - continues to exist and what defines the struggle against our dark side, both individually and collectively.

But our bodies really aren't a middle finger to entropy, we're just an efficient utilization of the external energy of the sun. But we are none the less sustained via a continued process of entropy. All creation we observe is just change and destruction, our consciousness isn't an exception.

>>1439141
Pepe the frog is very comfy. Do not talk shit about Pepe the frog.

File: 1468804850035.png (3MB, 1716x1710px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1716x1710px

>>1439122
I don't remember /his/ being like this in the first period, did we get raided permanently by /sci/ and their autism?

>>1440691
I'm only replying because out of the maybe hundred anons I've debated you're like one of the two that's actually forced me to think on my toes.

>No, your argument is that it's somehow a special intrinsic property of matter in general rather than a specific phenomenon occurring in a specific context.

There is no meaningful distinction. The issue is not where or how it happens, but that it happens. And that it happens as the result of the activity of matter in a certain configuration. The specific context (the brain) is what sustains and actualizes the intrinsic property (whatever it is about electrochemical gradients that produce an "I").

It must be an intrinsic property or else we allow a dualism. An intrinsic property can only be brought out in a specific context, anyways. No atom is intrinsically "wet" but it is intrinsically "wet", or anything, en potentia.

>So pointiness/conciousness is not a fundamental aspect of matter. One does not need to modify their idea of matter in order to deal with the emergence of pointiness/conciousness.

If your conception of matter is the fedora one, then yes, you do, because matter has demonstrably been proven to give rise to subjectivity, so consciousness cannot somehow be an emergent property of all this complexity and STILL be equivalent (or even subordinated to) mechanistic action

>If it was not fundamentally of the brain, the magnet wouldn't work. In humans, conciousness is fundamentally of the brain, but conciousness could arise in a non-brain if it was emulated.

That's like saying if this fire wasn't fundamentally of firewood, it wouldn't be put out by this water. Of course it needs wood to be fire and continue to be fire, but fire is not equivalent to the wood

>>1440596

By the fact that you haven't replied to this >>1440666
I take that you understood your faulty cognitive process and now experience reality as what it is and not as what it is made of?

>>1440642
What makes you so sure quailia exist the way you think they do?

>>1440767
t. Black science man

>>1440767
Come on man, get real.

>>1440754
>There is no meaningful distinction.
Of course there is. The distinction very specifically underlines the actual point of contention here. No proton in isolation intrinsically has the ability to form a hydrogen bond, it only does so when situatied in a specific context with electrons, oxygen or nitrogen or fluorine. It is a product of the charge of the proton, sure, but the specific properties of a hydrogen bond only emerge as a product of a specific system.

>whatever it is about electrochemical gradients that produce an "I"
The electrochemical gradients themselves don't produce an "I", the system of electrochemical gradients influencing each other in a specific way is what produces an "I".

>It must be an intrinsic property or else we allow a dualism
It's not a dualism, it's an emergent property. Something that only exists as the result of a system working together, not reducible to any one component part. There is no inherent "lightbulb"-ness to a given piece of metal, glass, and a certain electric charge, but if you combine them in one specific way you get a lightbulb.

>and STILL be equivalent (or even subordinated to) mechanistic action
Why not? The system is within the context of itself mechanistic. But it operates as one coherent unit separate from other systems. Hence, subjectivity, as the "I" system subjectively experiences the external.

>but fire is not equivalent to the wood
Right, but the fire is a product of the wood. Conciousness is not a brain, it is a product of the brain, and in humans fundamentally of the brain.

>>1440857
Once again, the issue isn't the details, but that it happens. And what happens here is what is unconscious and inert becoming conscious and alive. It is not like other material phenomena, because it is phenomenon that can know itself as a phenomenon.

This is a philosophical distinction, not one that is reducible to all this shit you keep repeating as if you can point to some pattern of neural activity and say "HAH! see?? subjectivity doesn't exist, matter isn't really alive!!" when it obviously is, and it becoming alive is what the entire argument rests on: which is the fedora account of matter is premature and stillborn, and in castrating the physical of the subjective, they explain nothing at all by pointing to mechanistic action as anything OTHER THAN the physical substrate of consciousness. The physical gives rise to a qualitative dimension the experiential component of with cannot, by definition, be reduced to merely electrochemical impulses beyond saying "this is where it's happening"


I'm done.

>>1440911
>Once again, the issue isn't the details, but that it happens.
The details are crucial, because they are what tells you exactly what is actually happening. Ignoring them is what allows you to come to unsupported conclusions.
>And what happens here is what is unconscious and inert becoming conscious and alive.
Well, for one thing, not all that is alive is concious, and not all that is dead is inert. Is the sun inert? It is neither concious nor alive.


>It is not like other material phenomena, because it is phenomenon that can know itself as a phenomenon.
And, objectively, there isn't anything special about that. Within the bounds of human experience, obviously it is extremely important, but in terms of the function of the universe it is not inherently more notable than the evolution of a galaxy.
>This is a philosophical distinction, not one that is reducible to all this shit you keep repeating as if you can point to some pattern of neural activity and say "HAH! see?? subjectivity doesn't exist, matter isn't really alive!!"
Matter in general is not alive. Certain bits of matter when put together in certain ways function in a way we collectively call "life." Again, you're missing the importance of both systems and details.

Also, I never said subjectivity doesn't exist. In fact, I very specifically pointed out where it is, in one system acting as a coherent system interacting with externals and itself.

>by definition, be reduced to merely electrochemical impulses beyond saying "this is where it's happening"
Yes, an emergent property cannot be reduced to any part in isolation, that is what makes it emergent. I said this very clearly.

>>1440911
>I'm done.
Like a pigeon playing chess.

>>1441052
Once again you fail to understand we are speaking of subjectivity as such, and not how it arises or where it arises or what. On the universal scale, what is dead becoming alive is still a Big Deal, since we're speaking of what is objective becoming subjective, which has nothing to do with how large of a frame of reference we're talking about.

Let's just accept you just don't see what is unprecedented about consciousness and leave it at that because there's been no getting through to you.

>>1441112
>Big Deal, since we're speaking of what is objective becoming subjective
Which happens pretty much every time a coherent system interacts with externals. Part of the reason why it is so hard to come up with good, consistent definitions for life is because almost every aspect of it applies to some system we consider non-life. It is an extension and combination of other, non-alive processes and mechanisms. Not particularly special in an objective sense.

>>1441155
That the definition is fuzzy doesn't mean there isn't something called life, or a semblance of something called life, that we are referring to in the first place

>>1441158
But the lack of a hard distinction in nature does mean that where we decide to cross the line (for example, viruses are not alive) is in some sense arbitrary. It's not that there is some special distinction that actually exists, it's one we use for convenience. Conciousness, the way we commonly talk about it, is similar. (Almost) every one agrees that humans are concious, but what about other great apes? Cetaceans? Even outside mammals, what about crows? The lack of a hard divide in nature again implies that where we choose to draw the line about concious versus non-concious (as opposed to unconcious) thought processes is kind of arbitrary and chosen for convenience. I find it difficult to draw ultimate conclusions about the fundamental nature of reality from such a fuzzy thing.

>>1441174
It's a spectrum of quantitative to qualitative, matter to mind, all "expressions" of the same thing

I enjoyed this thread thank you to both sides

OP, why do you keep making these threads?

/his/ BTFO

>>1441158
>That the definition is fuzzy doesn't mean there isn't something called race, or a semblance of something called race, that we are referring to in the first place

>>1440309
This post is so fucking stupid I feel like displaying it to random people and saying "Hey guys, look at how stupid this random dumb fuck on 4chan is, just fucking look at this mental retardation you guys.", just thought you should know that.

>>1441989
No u

>>1439122
ITT: smug OP thinks he's further along the path than everyone and flaunts his hollow ego about like a whore
>practice humility
>leave this board lest you be forever tainted
>make some real fucking progress
incidentally kill yourself because you are way too into the smell of your own shit. get the fuck out of your viewpoint and stop believing that you are enlightened. you are a stupid, passion-driven mortal and you will never become 1 with the Tao.

File: 1450643563005.jpg (13KB, 258x289px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 258x289px

Come on, m8. Reductionist materialism is narrow-minded, but you don't need to go full religitard.

>it's the same guy doing yet another thread about materialims, gets told another time, still doesn't understand what people are telling him, and acts smug about it
Can't wait for your autistical ass to do another thread. End yourself.