Idealism is the superior metaphysics

>>2473577
are you implying metaphysics isn't idealism?

File: Hard problem_of_consciousness.png (111KB, 800x719px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 800x719px

>>2473580
Materialism is a metaphysical thesis just like Idealism. Materialism happens to be false while Idealism true.

>>2473583
>Materialism happens to be false while Idealism true.
That is going to take a lot longer than a 10 minute youtube video to prove

File: Why Materialism is Almost Certainly False.jpg (15KB, 231x346px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 231x346px

>>2473589
>Nagel, Thomas (2012). Mind & Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False. Oxford University Press.

>>2473600
I guess you better delete this thread, since that solved everything.

>>2473603
You suggested you wanted more material so I gave you a heads up.

If you want to argue for materialism go ahead. An argument has already been introduced by myself: The Introspective Argument.

Still waiting for a rebuttal...

>>2473607
You introduced a youtube poop and a book. You haven't made any argument yet.

File: This is an argument.png (314KB, 841x426px) Image search: [Google]

314KB, 841x426px

>>2473610
Wrong.

You clearly didn't watch the video. If you don't want to engage then why are you here?

>>2473610
Did you actually watch the video? The argument for idealism is very strong.

Inspiring Philosophy is one of my favorite Youtube channels.

>>2473620
>>2473621
I don't watch brainlet videos that people masturbate to. If you truly understand such things you would be able to reiterate them instead of linking them ad nauseum.

Let's be honest, the only reason why you posted it here is because nobody in your social media sphere gives a shit either.

>>2473628
>implying using a video as a helpful tool means one cannot reiterate them
Fail. Go ahead and cover up your lack of ability to refute the arguments presented. It doesn't refute anything.

>>2473628
>So scared of being wrong you refuse to watch a well constructed argument against your position
Haha, you fucking coward

>>2473632
>>2473637
ok here I go

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqVTq17iIHs

wow, debunked. All I had to do was press a couple keys! Thanks for making it so easy

>>2473645
Wow actually not. Your video does not address The Introspective Argument. It addresses some other quantum physics bullshit.

You tried to make your point and absolutely failed. Why not actually address the argument? Scared?

>>2473648
You clearly didn't watch the whole video, nice try.

>>2473650
You clearly didn't read the description of the video you linked:

>This is response to InspiringPhilosophy's video "Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism".

god how do you fail this much? You know if you would just address the argument you'd stop making such a fool of yourself

>>2473645
>A 50 minute diversion by a brainlet who doesn't understand the argument and delves into the minutia of Quantum Mechanics to try and prove a single example incorrect
This seems to miss the point entirely, also the guy talking uses constant ad hominems and other logical fallacies. I obviously just listened to a few parts and skipped around but I don't think it's a refutation of the Introspective Argument at all. It's just another brainlet who cannot fathom anything other than realism and attempts to throw smokescreen to avoid facing the fact there is no physical reality.

>>2473659
>>2473662
So I have to watch and read everything you link, but you get to dismiss everything I link that is counter to you? Who is scared now?

>>2473662
You're 100% right, it's not a refutation of the Introspective Argument. It's talking about something else altogether.

>>2473667
No but if you want to engage with the argument you can simply check out the video or at least take 2 seconds to glance at pic related here: >>2473620

It's like you need me to spoon feed you everything just so you can continue to fail to address the argument. Do you have a rebuttal or not? Just admit you can't defeat Idealism and move on if you have 0 arguments.

>>2473667
I watched some of it but then I realized it wasn't actually addressing the core argument. The Introspective Argument still works without any appeal to Quantum Physics. It's a little bit unreasonable to expect people to watch an hour long refutation of an argument made in 9 minutes.

Since you're having a massive autistic fit over the fact that a video was made available to you to understand the argument better would it help I typed the entire thing out for you?

>>2473678
I boiled it down to a single screenshot for him and it still isn't enough. I don't think he has a response and this is just his way to cover it up. He's a coward

>>2473675
>>2473678
You keep talking about these "arguments" that you supposedly have stated. But all you have linked is someone else's. So what exactly are you arguing? That you proved idealism is absolute based on someone else's ideology? You have proved nothing.

>>2473694
I've had my own formulation for the thesis that all is mental for awhile and it's essentially the same as the Introspective Argument. Might as well use the Introspective Argument, it's a bit more elegant and concise than mine and has great visual aid. Same conclusion, same sort of reasoning, one is just prettier and better communicated than mine.

So you still trying to hide the fact that you can't refute the argument that has been presented?

>>2473708
So you still don't understand what I am saying? You can't see the most obvious argument that is laid right in front of you? You are fundamentally wrong, as shown by the fact that you cannot reiterate that same argument in your own words.

>>2473728
I understand that you're autistic because you're sperging over the medium rather than the message. If you were focused on the facts and the arguments you wouldn't be sperging right now. You don't want to argue, you want to bicker. Makes sense because you clearly have 0 rebuttals to the arguments that have been presented.

>>2473694
1. The Mind Exists

This one is irrefutable. Everyone has a mind, this is the single thing that every individual knows for a fact is real. You can simulate physical reality, but your mind is the conscious experience of whatever reality is.

2. The Mind has Properties that Matter Can't Have

This is sometimes referred to as the "Hard Problem of Consciousness" the general gist of the argument is that there is no reason why the tongue tasting sugar should give rise to a subjective taste of sugar. You can extend this problem by saying IF the Mind is purely a function of the physical brain then understanding the neural processes that generate the subjective experience of taste then that explanation should be sufficient to allow someone else to intuitively understand what the experience of tasting sugar is like, even if they've never tasted it in their lives. We know this can't be true however, the brain is generating experience that cannot be reduced to physical processes.

3. Substance Dualism is False

Fairly obvious. A Mind/Matter split is not feasible since that implies the ephemeral substance of the Mind must somehow interact with the physical Brain. We know the brain has a role in processing the mind otherwise physical changes to the brain would not affect the mind. Therefore dualism is wrong.

4. The Mind Creates the Physical

This is the logical conclusion from the other three points. If The physical brain cannot explain subjective experience, and dualism is false then was can instead go the other way from materialism and say that physical reality is a projection of the mind. Similar to the 'holographic' universe principle where the 3D reality is considered to be a projection from a 2D plane. Reality as we know it is a projection of consciousness.

>>2473600
Thomas Nagel gets like everything wrong about biology though. He's a total idiot. It's pretty embarrassing too, the guy constantly goes on and on about how postmodernists hate science and rationality but he demonstrably doesn't know anything about either.

Of course if he took biology seriously he'd realize that it does a better job of proving idealism. Empirically/naturalistically we see that the brain isn't structured to represent things in a direct, correspondent way. If we think reflectively on this and other facts about what empirical observation tells us about the brain and the further neural system (that is, the empirical/sensible correlate of the mind) we just see that the classical idealist thesis (that objects are in some important way dependent on subjective projection) is evinced by the thing that tried to negate it in the first place.

File: 1466852114771.gif (3MB, 640x266px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 640x266px

>InspiringPhilosophy

>>2473748
>Thomas Nagel gets like everything wrong about biology though.
What's an example of him getting biology wrong in the book I cited?

>Of course if he took biology seriously he'd realize that it does a better job of proving idealism.

Ever heard of Biocentrism by Robert Lanza?

>>2473747
>This one is irrefutable. Everyone has a mind
I beg to differ. "I think therefore I am" proves only the "I". How exactly can you prove that anyone else exists using this as a baseline? Seeing as only 1 mind is needed to create reality, why then are you reliant on the ideas of others to build your so called argument? It's because idealism is only that, an idea.

Every other point crumbles once you realize how uncertain that foundation is.

>>2473728
Boy you sure are awfully quiet about this: >>2473747

Just as I suspected. When all the cards are on the table you've got no rebuttal.

That's a great breakdown of what's said in the video and really not all that different from my own formulation of arguing for Idealism.

>>2473781
>I beg to differ. "I think therefore I am" proves only the "I".

I=conscious
ergo, mind indubitably exists.

>How exactly can you prove that anyone else exists using this as a baseline?

P1: I experience actions of a certain type.
P2: Actions of this certain type have their cause in consciousness.
P3: These actions do not have their cause in my consciousness.
C1: Therefore, these actions have their cause in another consciousness.
C2: Therefore, consciousnesses other than mine exist.

Idealism is on no more shaky ground in regards to other minds than materialism.

>>2473781
No I meant it's the one thing to you, personally that you know is true. I know I have a mind, you know you have a mind. The only thing certain for each individual is the knowledge of their own mind. The argument proceeds from there. The existence of other minds is not a necessary condition for the argument to continue

>>2473792
>Idealism is on no more shaky ground in regards to other minds than materialism.

So how can you claim Idealism is somehow better or more correct than Materialism?

>>2473794
>The existence of other minds is not a necessary condition for the argument to continue

That most certainly is a necessary condition to argue for Idealism. You must not fully grasp what Idealism entails. If all of reality is a projection of the mind (the "I", consciousness, etc.) then the existence of a separate mind is directly contradictory.

>>2473803
>So how can you claim Idealism is somehow better or more correct than Materialism?

First, as the other guy already said, the issue of other minds is irrelevant to the fact of Idealism. Second, I was only making the point that Idealism is not worse off in regards to other minds. If you want to bring up other minds here then you might as well bring it up everywhere else because it's not like Idealism has a special problem with other minds. That's just the problem of other minds which is a more general problem that doesn't belong to Idealism or materialism in particular. This is basically just a red herring from you at this point.

>That most certainly is a necessary condition to argue for Idealism.

No it isn't. Other minds could fail to exist and Idealism would still be true: that would be Solipsism.

>If all of reality is a projection of the mind (the "I", consciousness, etc.) then the existence of a separate mind is directly contradictory.

Non-sequitur

If reality is fundamentally ideal that doesn't imply all is in YOUR mind, just that reality is fundamentally mental.

>>2473776
an example of him getting something wrong about biology is his assertion that physicalist reductionism drives actual scientific (and thus, biological) practice. This is an inaccurate sociological judgment.
In terms of the claims made by biology, he makes a lot of claims which could be argued to not be "literally false" but are highly misleading at best, which are mostly about how much success science has had in explaining the fine-tuned behavior and structure of human beings.

>Ever heard of Biocentrism by Robert Lanza?

nope, but it doesn't quite seem like exactly what I have in mind.

>>2473813
>If reality is fundamentally ideal that doesn't imply all is in YOUR mind, just that reality is fundamentally mental.

And you say MY post was a red herring? LOL
It doesn't surprise me that nobody else is posting in this troll thread, you just dismiss everything that you don't agree with without even trying to explain why you are right. But go on believing that reality exists within the mind of the most convenience at any given time instead of rationalizing what it is in the first place.

>>2473835
>And you say MY post was a red herring? LOL

You don't know what a red herring is, do you? LOL

Me answering your point directly is not a red herring and I did explain in detail why I was right.