Materialism

File: 4pgpNcN.jpg (63KB, 480x608px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 480x608px

finally i have a reason to post this

>>500757
Your words are just some pixels dude lmao

>>500777
I'm not saying the chemicals aren't beautiful or that we'd be better of without them (It would be disastrous actually) I'm just asking is there anything beyond the physical?

File: 1432934648356.jpg (36KB, 400x352px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 400x352px

>>500773
Nothing can truly be proven, but to say reality isn't real and to ignore what we already discovered would be foolish.

What gives you warrant to say that anything is not a "good answer" without appeal to some norm of discussion? How do these dialectical norms arise?

>>500792
>muh naive skepticism

>>500794
The fact that argument from emotion or ignorance is faulty and get us nowhere other than emotional irrationality.

>>500773
is that dialogue from something else

>>500773
At some point you realize all knowledge is uncertain, and the problem of induction just seems trivial after that

>>500803
In what way is it faulty? That's what I'm asking you. You have to construct a grounds for normativity of dialogue before you can demand that I participate in a discussion in any particular way. What makes irrationality wrong exactly?

Just remember, you can only refer to material things in your argument for normativity of discussion, otherwise materialism is thrown out the window.

>>500786
You want a material explanation for the immaterial.

>Are emotions anything more that chemical reactions to stimuli?
Yes, and free will is just an illusion. You're a meat robot on a space rock. Get over it.

>>500827
Eh, Could be worse.

>>500817
The argument from emotions is faulty because emotions are inherently faulty at times.
They can cause us to act without assessing the information given and can be manipulated to give us an opinion we did not make on our on (by which I mean did not critically think about and asses)
Emotions are also extremely objective which is why people often pull the "the sunset is just so beautiful, can't you see god glory in it?" when some people can say sunsets aren't all that great, which means they wont pull any meaning out of it.
The argument from ignorance is wrong because it imply that any negative space can be filled with an assumption that can (and most often is) wrong.
I am not referring to educated guesses, which can imply something will occur due to previous occurrences, which can be trusted at least in part because of how many times it has and will occur in the same way, and how, if wrong it could just be an error due to outside circumstances, which if it isn't, leads to discovery. blanks assumptions don't prove much if proven wrong other than "yeah, that was wrong".
Another thing bad with it is if the assumption IS wrong, people can deny it for emotional reasons.

>>500826
I a want verifiable explanation for the immaterial.
something that if tested will yield a set result, even if that result is that is wont be set.

>>500865
you're not answering the question. I know what emotions do and what they result in but why should I care about any of that? What does faulty mean? I know you think being rational is the best way to be as far as discussion goes but you still haven't told me *what* in existence makes rationality preferable to irrationality.

Would you say that the best way to discuss things is the way that is most inclined to producing knowledge of facts about the world?

>>500893
>Would you say that the best way to discuss things is the way that is most inclined to producing knowledge of facts about the world?
I suppose, but you should define knowledge, because it can mean anything from knowing local gossip to understanding of electron orbits.
But rationality is preferable than irrationality because nothing has ever really came out of latter while everything has can out of the former, unless you are talking about imagination, to which I respond with Again, define your terms.

File: lead_960.jpg (244KB, 960x803px) Image search: [Google]

244KB, 960x803px

I have my own beliefs based on a number of things I've learned across the years, but essentially the answer is yes. I believe consciousness itself (not "the chemicals that produce consciousness," actual immaterial awareness of awareness) has properties, which can be verified by a number of means.

For a start, the double-slit experiment to me proves that merely the act of being aware already influences the universe in some way.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc

People like to say "durf well it's not classical physics it's quantum stuff so it doesn't count," but then fail to realise that in reality there is no distinction between classical and quantum physics, they're just convenient labels we place on phenomena to help explain our lack of understanding.

Also, our conscious reality =/= reality as is, ergo reality as is must include properties that we can't observe materially. Take this article for example, it basically proves that all other things being the same, two people (i.e. two consciousnesses) will not experience something in the same way. If consciousness itself is so malleable, does that not mean that there our forces beyond our conception acting upon our minds?

>>500970
Ok for some reason fucking 4chan isn't letting me post a link to the article, so just google this title and it should be the first link

>No one could see the colour blue until modern times

>>500918
whichever definition of knowledge you prefer is fine.

what do you mean things 'come out of' rationality? things 'come out of' any manner of speech that motivates and actually occurs, specifically the acts that are motivated by the mode of speech come out of it. But why should I care whether something comes out of my manner of speaking? It could be the case that speaking is just for itself and not for something else.

File: numbers.jpg (17KB, 307x168px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 307x168px

>>500869
isn't this impossible? if the immaterial interacts with the material, then the immaterial is material. One cool thing I learned from a book written about reality written by a physicist was: a buddhist concept of core emptiness, if you strip away all the bullshit you are left with nothing. And Von Neumann's way of creatng something from nothing, in this case numbers. something from nothingness. the book is "Decoding Reality" by Vlatko Vedral. You can skip to the more philosophical chapters, no need to read it all.

Since religious schizophrenics will always reduce any argument down to "well uouy can't no!", the best argument is that religious people tend to be extremely unintelligent. No, seriously. Since spiritual nutcases love to rely on unfalsifiable "arguments," it's best to point out the statistical fact that religious "people" are effectively subhumans who practically don't exist as intelligent contributors in the modern world. Nearly all of them are stupid.

>>501029
>Autism: The Post

>>500974
>No one could see the colour blue until modern times
A lot of animals are color blind actually.
color evolved along with sight.
look up cones and rods
>>500970
>If consciousness itself is so malleable, does that not mean that there our forces beyond our conception acting upon our minds?
Yes, except for the conception part.
They are called prior experiences and opinions
Lets say two people see an opossum for the first time in their entire life. They may react to it differently depending on if they like mammals, are afraid of germs, know what a rat is and how they respond to THAT, in what way they were shown it, and what mood they were in.
Also, I woulnt use new discovered and poorly understood science as an argument for your case just yet.
>>500982
>what do you mean things 'come out of' rationality?
Progress.

because, according to most human brains, progress is good because it extends life times and produces more happiness, but then again this is subjective. So your argument is somewhat demanding me to be subjective, and I guess you don't HAVE to care if something is rational or not, but again, THATS subjective as well, and doesn't really have to do with anything.

File: 1450646512186.gif (1MB, 625x626px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 625x626px

>>501046
>I don't have an argument so I will just taunt you
I agree with you but you're an ass for saying that.
If your going to fall for the bait, at least tell him why he's wrong because otherwise he'll just think he's won.

>>500995
>if you strip away all the bullshit you are left with nothing.
Explain
>muh numbers
math in itself is kind of an odd thing. lets you do thing that shouldn't be done. Can't really argue with that.
isn't this impossible?
Not if you can observe it.
and if it can be observed and it can 't interact with anything than it might as well not exist.

>>501056
>because, according to most human brains, progress is good because it extends life times and produces more happiness, but then again this is subjective. So your argument is somewhat demanding me to be subjective, and I guess you don't HAVE to care if something is rational or not, but again, THATS subjective as well, and doesn't really have to do with anything.

I'm not demanding you be subjective, I'm demanding you be objective in an honest way. If you want to say both (1) there is nothing immaterial, AND (2) there's something warranting standards of discourse, then it simply follows that there's a material thing warranting the standards of discourse. But I don't know of any material objects or substances that produce normative properties, and I'm trying to get you to explain to me where the material thing is that warrants discourse standards. I don't think this is working, so I'll try a different angle of attack.

Would you say the laws of logic exist?

>>501061
I'm taunting him because he is obviously so set in your ways and blind to reality that arguing with him would be pointless. He sounds like an ass, anyway.

File: 1442631302657.gif (194KB, 178x200px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 178x200px

>>501081
I'm sorry, but you are using terms that are going above my head here.
I know I sound stupid for saying it, but I honestly don't know some of the things you're talking about.
>standards of discourse
> normative properties
Please define these terms.
Would you say the laws of logic exist?
somewhat. In terms that, yes they are used, but I don't believe that this is as complicated as human thought can get, but I still need you to tell me what a law of logic is.

>>501068
>isn't this impossible?
>Not if you can observe it.
>and if it can be observed and it can 't interact with anything than it might as well not exist.
wow I fucked that up
>>500995
>isn't it impossible
Not if you can observe it.
If someone can observe it then they know it exists
If it can't be observed and it can't be interacted with than it might as well not exist in the eyes of everything in the universe.

>>501111
I'm going to sleep soon so I don't have time to explain all those things but you do seem like you're being genuine here so I'll just suggest that you read some philosophical material. It'll clear all these things up for you

>>500757
having fun in that box anon?

File: bullshit_screenshot_big.png (623KB, 1200x706px) Image search: [Google]

623KB, 1200x706px

>>500970
>For a start, the double-slit experiment to me proves that merely the act of being aware already influences the universe in some way.
Damn this Hollywood pop-sci meme.

Waves are affected when they are "observed" because there's no way to observe them without breaking them. Particles are so fundamental, that there's no way to measure their positions, save by interfering with them via another particle. It doesn't matter if you "observe" the wave with man or machine, it still collapses as a result. It's not consciousness that causes the waveform to collapse, it's the act of measuring it - as you're effectively measuring a balloon with a needle.

Not that we haven't more recently found ways around that:
http://phys.org/news/2015-03-particle.html

But no, quantum physics does not prove dogs have souls, or whatever other bullshit Hollywood and the new age snake oil salesmen are peddling.

File: pke_meter.jpg (15KB, 250x261px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 250x261px

Everything that exists is part of a chain existence, from the first cause (or what have you), and thus must follow the rules of physics that allow that flower to come into being from a single seed. Everything within the scope of that system is a result of something else within that same system, so nothing outside the system can play any part, or the complex weave of cause and effect that forms the universe breaks down.

Of course, you can debate about what came before the seed, and some fundamental laws of physics do indeed allow for the possibility of violations of causality, but even in those extreme instances, it is the system interfering with itself, simply out of order, and even the seed itself maybe a result of similar volatile action, or that "nothing" is merely a state of potentials.

That doesn't necessarily mean the supernatural doesn't exist. However, since the existence of this reality depends on the systematic consistency I just described, if it such things exist, and if they do have an influence on the physical world, then they will have physical explanation. To be compatible with the reality we observe, even somuchas we are able, that would be a requisite. Even if that existence is as intangible as radio waves or quantum fields, for something to interact with existence, is to be forever bound by the processes of laws that allow existence to be, for it were otherwise, that very reality could not exist at all.

The "supernatural" may simply be natural phenomenon that have yet to be described, or rather, to exist at all, it would have to be. That wouldn't be unprecedented though. We take for granted many things today that our ancestors could only describe as supernatural. Though, that is the rub - should we ever uncover such things, no doubt we will discover the reason behind their existence, and they will no longer have that lofty grand majesty of mystery, and merely be yet another component in our banal, natural, reality.

say "There are no absolutes in this world" and you contradict yourself.

say "There is no truth in this world" and you've made another oxymoron.

I can't contribute much else to this thread, but I'd consider the concept of absolutes and truth as immaterial.

>>500757
Does there NEED to be anything beyond the material?

>>501118
>if you strip away all the bullshit you are left with nothing.
>Explain

if you backtrace everything and also examine everything on smaller and smaller scales, you have to deal with the problem of "something out of nothing"

The book's main hypothesis is that only information is the only capable of being created out of nothing. Also, that information is physical, which is widely accepted in physics; that is related to hawking radiation and blackholes.

>>501551
No, I just wonder