Literally give one example of an existent non-physical thing

File: tower of babel.jpg (384KB, 1200x967px) Image search: [Google]

384KB, 1200x967px

Starts with a G.

My waifu

I love u anon

My gf desu.

>>9248670
Glanguage

>>9248663
logic

>>9248663
Define existent.

>>9248663
>existent non-physical thing

Language, culture, morality etc.

There's quite a few.

try having a nonverbal idea op

consciousness/qualia

>>9248663
Math

We can invent things that don't exist though, and they have an effect on the world and must not be disregarded. Any concept, word, name for a thing is itself an invention that can be used or discarded. Love is not a physical thing, it is an abstract concept. Each person and each area of knowledge will speak of it in a given way and this will mold relationships and alter the world in a pretty much physical and real way. Money is also a great example, the paper itself is not the money, nor it is the numbers in a given account, but what value do these numbers have in relation to the society that sustains that money. So money is a non-physical thing that exists, that I can not neglect, I am obliged to take into consideration that I won't trade my hundred dollar bill for your ten dollar bill, even though they are just very similar papers. It is invented, for sure, but it is not non-existent. Every concept changes with time, in older literature the word "spirit" means consciousness, mind, will, feelings, etc, none of which we can deny to exist, but in a modern concept, the word "spirit" evokes a much more mystical scenario. The word "atom" means indivisible if you take it by its roots, but science appropriate it to mean the particle that constitutes molecules and is actually divisible as they would find out. That's also why we can not jump to "define this" "define that" or to stamp certain concepts as invalid, because they are ideas, not things. There is a whole arrangement that must be taken into account so that you understand that idea's place in human thought.

>>9248663
void.
checkmate.

>>9248734
>implying void is non-physical

>>9248684
>>9248686
>>9248696
>>9248701
>>9248708
>>9248715
>>9248720
Are you sure ?

it seems i can never be sure.

>>9248739
non existence.
overkill. hah it was easy.

>>9248743
It's true, you can never be sure.

>>9248743
Give me 1kg of memes.

File: SPQRbob.jpg (23KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 480x360px

friendship

>>9248696
>Language
Language is physical, Language in all its forms is physical whether it be spoken language which is just a pattern of pressure waves traveling through the air, or written language which is just ink on paper or maybe just a bunch of pixels on a monitor like the one you're using.
However if you're referring to the abstract concept of a language then that doesn't exist.

>Culture
Culture is also physical for similar reasons.
Again if you're referring to the abstract concept of a "culture" then culture doesn't exist in that sense.

>Morality
Spooky stuff m8

>>9248801
Listen,i am the guy that never can be sure. I need to tell you the following about your reply :
Why coplicate it that way. Look simple, I say all those things (culture...) require the physical existence of humans to be considered existant. Humans dies and his creations including his concepts will follow.
I wonder why we find the concept of religion only in humans.
Now we talking real philosophy yeab.

Someone hasn't read his Plato.

File: 1376154961278.jpg (76KB, 644x484px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 644x484px

>>9248663
>Literally
What is signified by "Literally" isn't a physical think
>give
What is signified by "give" isn't a physical think
>one
What is signified by "one" isn't a physical think
>example
What is signified by "example" isn't a physical think
>of
What is signified by "of" isn't a physical think
>an
What is signified by "an" isn't a physical think
>existent
What is signified by "existent" isn't a physical think
>non-physical
What is signified by "non-physical" isn't a physical think (this is especially funny...)
>thing
What is signified by "thing" isn't a physical think
>Protip
What is signified by "Protip" isn't a physical think
>you
What is signified by "you" isn't a physical think
>suck
What is signified by "suck" isn't a physical think

>>9248852
>physical think
What did he mean by this?

>>9248841 same dude here
I see a destructive athiestic potentional in there. I love God. Sometimes i regret thinking.

>>9248663
Every material thing around you.

expanding universe

>>9248708
Read "from bacteria to Bach and back"

>>9248663
ghosts

>>9248855
kek

Just wrote the sentence once and copypasted it afterwards while I didn't notice the typo..
.
Um... I mean, the reason I wrote "think" instead of "thing" is so profound noone of you tards will ever understand it, no matter how long you will thing about it.

>>9248883
>>9248883
A special snowflake

>>9248663
Your self satisfaction while posting this.

>>9248663
mathematics and sentience. mathematical platonism simultaneously proves the mind's partial non-physicality.

>>9248902
Its directly relied to the physical world.
Some chemistry and some biology and you get the feeling.
A tree doesnt know what a tdee is. Because physics

Certainty.

>>9248919
No

Time.

>>9248933
The physical existence of memory creates time.

>>9248920
>Its directly relied to the physical world.
>Some chemistry and some biology and you get the feeling.
Who gets the feeling? The chemistry? The brain? Yet, the brain filters information it gives to you. Then why don't you have that information as well?

No, mate. You're confused. There is a user of definitions and maps somewhere. There is something that believes in brains, eyes and the like.

>A tree doesnt know what a tree is. Because physics
How do you know? You assume based on the model you use and faith surrounding it.

>>9248943
Time is a direction. Is a direction matter? No, it is defined as the distance of multiple points (material or not).

>>9248663
Protons

>>9248663
Women born with male genitalia.

>>9248663
Love Murph

>who gets the feeling
the brain and other thing that are clearly too complexe for me and you.
>ooga booga your are confused i knowit all
you speak like a 3rd wordler. Get up you were detected.
>how do you know simple things
reread the reply about what you asking.

File: image.jpg (238KB, 1040x586px) Image search: [Google]

238KB, 1040x586px

>>9248663
Pain

>who gets the feeling
the brain and other thing that are clearly too complexe for me and you.
>ooga booga your are confused i knowit all
you speak like a 3rd wordler. Get up you were detected.
>how do you know simple things
reread the reply about what you asking.>>9248720

>>9248943
What's the chemical formula of memories ?

>>9248977
>the brain and other thing that are clearly too complexe for me and you.
The brain is too complex to the brain, according to the brain. Doesn't sound like a very reliable fellow.

>>9248949
good lord learn some actual physics you mongrel

>>9248949
You are wrong about the definition.
And time depends on beings with physical memory. If those beings are gone time and other such concepts are gone. Time depends on beings to exist.

>>9248663
To op. There are physical manifestations of those non physical things. Ideas of these takes on form just like our appearance takes on the form of our soul.

>>9248988
>>9248988
You see. A tree dosent know what is a tree. Its the same.
About Brains,In reality Brains worked together to understand the brain. And i hppe they still are. There alot to learn :D
i hope we live to discover whats responsible of. consiouness in detail

>>9249020
And if you don't believe in souls. How can our body and these memories we have make us who we are. That essence you know is you and only you can truly understand it, what matters to it our body and memories we live through. The soul is life in fact, everything around us is all part of one great soul. We are merely fragments of it experiencing it changing it and be apart of it!

>>9249034
>You see. A tree dosent know what is a tree. Its the same.
Only assuming you know enough to even make a functional classification. Consider scientific history.

How reliable are you in contrast? How reliable can you be?

>>9249020
Hahahaha We know that. If someone doesnt know that we wonder how he will contribute to the thread.

>>9248987
What are photos, what are diaries, what are home movies? Memory works in the same manner. Besides memory stored using neurons are pretty inaccurate and every time you recall them they get corrupted.
>>9249020
You are still using language to describe something. No matter what you do, you are stuck using sounds and symbols which are physical in nature.

>>9249056
The sounds are physical manifestation of us.

>>9249056
>Memory works in the same manner.
Actually it doesn't. Our memory is very different from physical memory, as ours works like thought. More like waving our hands.
The patterns our brain process goes through, it invigorates those parts it needs. It adds things along the way.

Have you ever remembered something in the same way?
That's a scary no, no?

>>9249048
>>9249048
The only thing you made me know is that i dont know what reliable means.
Sorry english iq my fourth language and i cant stop learning.
Please can you complete your favor and tell me what do you mean with reliable ?

>>9249076
>>9249076
Y-yes, i did.You mean you can.t do it so other people cant. You are wiered

>>9249079
>The only thing you made me know is that i dont know what reliable means.
It can mean tipping the fedora and socially signaling or it can mean understanding that is authentic.

>>9249089
You are immune to entropy?

>>9249056
High five bro. Thats what i was trying to reach since the start of the thread.they d
forget that they owe thier existence to atoms that are togheter just to support thier slow learning process and 3rd world mentality. God help those atoms hhhhhh.

>>9248663
Ideas.

>>9249097
>>9249097
DWhat do you mean by authentic understanding. You mean an understanding that society has a say in or the opposit ??? Confused espicially whenyou added the memes that i bet didnt sound funny to you in the first place. Why do you harm yourself with memes that doesnt tickle your pickle, Why:( ?

>>9248663
That doesn't necessitate their non-existence.

To assume that it would is to suppose our understanding complete, our sensory perception - and the organ which interprets the senses - perfected.

Neither of these suppositions are in keeping with scientific thought, and you will be as unable to prove either of those postulates as we will be to provide definitive physical evidence of a non-physical object (which is a likely contradiction in terms from the start).

Absolute confidence in human understanding is the surefire mark of a man who has not yet learned to think.

things that have no form and can only be symbolically represented. check

*teleports behind you*

prove the existence of one thing, physical or nonphysical

Protip: you can't

>>9248663
More than 2 genders.

Lol jk.

But seriously you can't see you're vagina.

>>9248663
Your conscience?

>>9248696

Well spooked, my property.

mathematics

>>9248663
You

>>9248663
dreams. shadows. light.

>>9248663
virtue.

File: IMG_0008.jpg (34KB, 600x512px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 600x512px

>>9250645
>light
>non-physical
niggawhat

>>9248801
dumbass alert. you're defining existence itself as physicality. circular retard

>>9248801
"hurr durr if its abstract it doesn't exist"
cool, so you're always right according to your arbitrary definition of existence

>>9248663
Your dick

My waifu.

File: IMG_0009.jpg (63KB, 450x418px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 450x418px

>suffering from pre-quantum classical logic syndrome

>>9248867
Underrated.

>>9248663
justice

>>9248670
The platonic ideal of "Good"

>>9248663
The future

Mathematics

>>9249056
>Besides memory stored using neurons are pretty inaccurate and every time you recall them they get corrupted.
[citation needed]

>>9248931
yes, Benacerraf. i'm afraid so.

>>9248801
What if I poke holes in a piece of paper to make letters on it. They're no longer physical. That kind of fucks up your whole thing.

>>9248977
>wordler

>>9250651
our eyes cant even see the full spectrum of light so it may as well be non physical. seriously you guys need to take off your fedoras.

File: IMG_0031.jpg (307KB, 846x477px) Image search: [Google]

307KB, 846x477px

>>9250843
>i can't see air
>must not be physical

>>9248663
the property of authorship

>>9250808
not him, and they don't get corrupted (they become malleable), but it's true
Comes from a theory where long term memory and short term memory are juxtaposed in a way that assumes long term memory neurostructures must be fixed/stable, and evidence suggests that when recollection occurs it becomes subject to the original process of consolidation (the process that allows us to encode memory)
I recommend you research it yourself since it's a big and complex area, but it's probably to do with the process of writing rna into new receptors on neurons. Animal models have shown disrupting the memory process (eg with injections of hippocamus inhibiting substances or even more specific interventions) can destroy context learning plus a whole bunch of other variations of studies.

i

>>9248663
My waifu exists as part of my consciousness

>>9248663
The Natural Light of Reason

Probability

Ideas

>>9248663
Magnetism.

>>9251108
magnetism is a physical property, retard

File: IMG_2241.jpg (70KB, 850x400px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 850x400px

This thread is like a little baby.

>>9251127
Let's legalise murder and start with you, faggot

>>9250867
TAKE A LOOK AT THESE HANDS

Atheism. Allegedly it exists but no atheist has ever successfully produced one for me.

File: 1489754962284.png (170KB, 394x500px) Image search: [Google]

170KB, 394x500px

The sage I did on this thread bitch

File: Ayn Rand 04.jpg (78KB, 800x538px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 800x538px

>>9251025
Hello, Ayn Rand.

>>9250664
lol that image is perfect

>>9250827
holy shit this is hilarious lmao I am going to use this

>>9251241
I was talking about Descartes, tbqhwy. Wasn't aware that Rand had written about the topic

>>9248663

Meinong's Jungle, you fucking uneducated twat.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meinong%27s_jungle

>>9248663
Gravity.

And, because I can, space-time.

File: gottagofast.jpg (677KB, 1918x1197px) Image search: [Google]

677KB, 1918x1197px

>This thread

>>9248663
The soul that is using this physical avatar to transmit its thoughts and feelings

>>9248801
>However if you're referring to the abstract concept of a language then that doesn't exist.

concepts are physical patterns in your head you dolt

>>9248663
Conceptual scheme.

>>9248663
rigorously define "physical thing" and try to give literally one example. pro-tip: it's not a coherent concept and you can't ;-)

Language.

>>9252350
Physical thing:
Anything that is in -or contained within- spacetime

>>9248663
physicalists always cheat
they claim everything is physical, but not everything can be physical in the same way, so they end up endorsing a variety of different types of entities
let's say being physical is being constituted entirely by matter
the constitution relation is not itself physical under that definition; it's not something that is constituted entirely by matter, instead it IS the constituting by matter of something
(or if it is somehow constituted entirely by matter, it's so constituted in a different way from the way an object is constituted by matter)
so physicalists will say, well, a constitution relation is physical just in case it only relates material things
and so on
they need different definitions of "physical" to make the label apply to everything, which raises the question of what the fuck the motivation is for trying to fit everything under that label

>>9253472
on that definition, spacetime is not physical
neither is being contained within spacetime (in what sense is that relation itself contained within spacetime?)

>>9248663
Classic Hempel's dilemma. What is meant by "physical", if not what is taught by our best physical theories? But what do our best physical theories teach us? The entities they posit are left unquestioned as interpretational conundrums, and so the nature of the physical is left open to interpretation, nevermind the non-physical. But if physical is meant by what can ideally be described by any future physics, then what is physical is so by virtue of falling under an ever-expansive definition of the physical as something explicated by whatever future supra-discipline can explain all phenomenon.

But to answer your question: consciousness, colors, numbers, universals, sets

File: 1455828933704.jpg (49KB, 640x264px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 640x264px

The concept of infinity. Cannot possibly be physical.

The idea of freedom or 'will'. You can exercise freedom but freedom itself isn't physical.

>>9248663
What about the possibility of physicality itself?
What about the possibility of spacetime itself?
>(onto)logically prior to physicality/spacetime
>possibly existent in conjunction with the non-existence of physicality/spacetime
Or what about the essence or nature of physicality or spacetime, which the above-mentioned possibilities make reference to? (If there is no such thing as what it is for something to be spacetime, then there can't be the possibility of spacetime, since that possibility would have nothing to be the possibility of; similarly, if there isn't something different which is what it is for something to be physicality, then either there is no such thing as the possibility of physicality or that possibility is not different from the possibility of spacetime. So (onto)logically prior to spacetime and physicality exist such conditional truths as "If something were such and such then that something would be spacetime/physicality.")
Hence, what about truth itself, which the above argument establishes exists prior to physicality and spacetime?

>>9248663
Define physical.

>>9253503
ya I hate this

>>9251253
She just uses that kind of imagery a lot in Atlas Shrugged. I don't hate Rand like many here do, so that wasn't a criticism - just illuminating a connection I found amusing.

exchange rates

>>9248663
Memes

the future

>>9248663
Autism

File: Untitled.png (46KB, 672x380px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 672x380px

Consciousness

>>9248663
What's physical?

>>9248663
Consciousness

IMHO lads


'physical' doesn't mean anything

it just means the ontology of our current science, which is subject to revision


matter is no more or less physical than souls etc, one just preceded the other in our world of explanation

>>9248663
Thoughts you faggot

File: WillyJames.jpg (111KB, 540x699px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 540x699px

Honestly qualia.

The actual seeing of the color "red" isn't reducible to physical information. There is new information added that can't be physically explained in itself.

This doesn't mean we abandon science or anything, far from it. You're committing the fallacy of misplaced concreteness I.E mistaking the map from the territory. All of these physical models we have to explain something like a color are in fact, abstractions from the non-physical qualia

>>9248663
The rage I feel at knowing people as stupid as you exist is very much a real phenomenon

>>9255507
>The actual seeing of the color "red" isn't reducible to physical information.

I don't see why you presume this is the case, the wavelengths of photons is perfectly accountable. I think if you dig through this you'll only find the true anomaly is subjectivity itself.

>>9255522
This is to say to be clear, in the simple act of observing a dog being able to locate a red ball through into green grass everything is accountable in the physical model

>>9248663
Your dick

>>9255507
Qualias (does this word even exists lol) can be easily reduced to the very specific pattern of active neurons in a neural network. Since every feeling has its own pattern, which stays constant in the neural network (by this I mean that only this pattern can cause only this qualia), we're able to sorta consider them equal. Doesn't explain why red is percepted red though, but it's still a step forward.

File: 1458495604004.jpg (266KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

266KB, 1920x1080px

>>9248663
you're right OP. nobody can.

File: 1406776610512.png (306KB, 589x499px) Image search: [Google]

306KB, 589x499px

>>9255513
this, fuck off OP

>>9248663
your virginity

File: Adolescent alligator.jpg (368KB, 1600x1050px) Image search: [Google]

368KB, 1600x1050px

>>9255651
oh fuck its happening

>>9255546
I can't stop laughing at this post.

>>9255534
No you faggot. There is clearly a correspondence between neural patterns and a qualia's appearance, but you can know everything about the neural pattern's, wavelengths, photons, etc, and you will not know what the color red is actually like. There is new information added in the experience.

This doesn't mean we cant have scientific explanations we just need to remember the level of abstraction we are on.

>>9255655
thats a crocodile

>>9253503
>what the fuck the motivation is for trying to fit everything under that label
To make some sense of the world by bending its descriptions to their metaphysical preferences. It often makes them sound like arrogant assholes, but when you get to the whole "social constructs" thing you may decide that physicalism is the lesser evil.

>>9248663
debt

>>9255660
So how this proves the fact that qualia is non-material?

There's something common with the computer: on the inner level there are only ones and zeros, but you can see you favorite anime girl on the screen. If you don't have any neural networks, you will not experience qualia because each qualia is based on the material substrate.

literally my superior intellect

>>9255714
Ok but we only posit the existence of this material substrate based on the qualia, not the other way around.

I agree that the physical and mental are always found bound up together, but it is mistaking the map for the territory to give either one primacy over the other. Neutral Monism > Dualism > idealism >>>>>physicalism.

File: 1488867982169.png (89KB, 212x169px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 212x169px

Your virginity

>>9249002
>Time
>Physics
t. brainlet

Animal spirits.

>>9255507
>>9255660
>>9255808

Holy shit this guy gets it. A similar critique of physical reductionism is found in Husserl. Do you think William James shares affinities with Husserl (coming from one who hasn't read James)?

>>9248663
an hole

>>9256159
kek

File: some memes.jpg (19KB, 450x450px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 450x450px

>2017 aka your vantage point in the theater of linear time
>still losing arguments to materialists

Language is not only immaterial, it is also non-local, non-singular, and infinite on all levels. As far as spoken Symbol goes, pitch, timbre, and volume are irrelevant to meaning, so you're left with the individual sonic quality of each phoneme, which is just as irrelevant since bilingual people can correctly identify the same sentence in two different languages as the same sentence, even though the two versions might not share a single phoneme. As far as visual Symbol, how is this the same letter?

>but meaning is made in the brain XDDD
>is there a single way of observing and/or quantifying this process that lends itself to any kind of unit of measurement?
>U CAN'T!!111 semiotics is "dark"

Seriously guys...

This is dim even for slaves of the Demiurge.

File: 1482247546664.jpg (82KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 1920x1080px

>>9256869
>tfw you realize α is the Egyptian shen symbol, representing Eternity
>tfw it's the first in a line of alphabetical numerology that is ontologically prior to the other letters
>tfw those letters have ontological dependence on it, likened to the genagogic nature of the demiurge
>tfw the highest point of the genagogic progression is Being
>tfw the noetic demiurge is prior to Being, the source of being
>tfw α is Aion, the Paradigm of Being
>tfw α precedes is, the alphabet is
>tfw you realize without α is there is not

File: tmp_28698-Max_Stirner-k247937949.jpg (47KB, 501x525px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 501x525px

Spooks

that chin

>>9256869
Language is not immaterial.

Language is sound, brain waves, vocal cord movements, etc.,. - it is very much physical.

Not only is it physical, but without ears to hear, or eyes to see written marks, or the sense of touch to feel braille and other such textural language markings language would not exist, and these things are very much physical.

For all your arrogance your argument is incredibly flimsy.

>>9256892

So what separates Linguistic stimuli from non-Linguistic stimuli?

>>9256899
Can you clarify this question?

File: my farts smell like sewage.jpg (108KB, 518x544px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 518x544px

>>9256920
>I don't know, can you?

Where does the letter end and the ornamentation begin? What are the Material underpinnings of this separation?

>>9256935
Okay, so you're distinguishing between the gestalt and relative "constituents" of that experience.

Even if granted the qualitative experience of the letter J is immaterial, that does nothing to warrant your claim that it is non-local, non-singular, or infinite. It would be, in fact, a unitary experience defined in proximal parameters and the idea that it is infinite is a contradiction in terms, as to even recognize it as a thing is to delimit it to certain parameters, therefore denoting limit.

Now on to your claim that it is immaterial, the receptive faculties of cognition are conditioned by neuro-physiological processes; and therefore I see no reason to think that-which-is-intelligible is necessarily independent of these processes.

File: 1451333580865.gif (2MB, 300x240px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 300x240px

>>9248979
Came here to post this.

>>9248663
Try negotiating with pain and see how that goes, bucko.

>>9248663
qualia

concepts
fictions

>>9256869
That's the basis of the symbol grounding problem. In other words where does a symbol, word, model, representation, gets its "meaning."
>>9256899
Categorization / Pattern Recognition. The same manner how neural networks, self driving cars, google go playing a.i., Text to speech, and speech to text apps work.

>>9256952
>>9257109
>gestalt
>constituents
>category
>pattern
>recognition

None of these are Material.

>>9256887

underrated

File: Cw21sRoUoAAUpX5.jpg (170KB, 736x916px) Image search: [Google]

170KB, 736x916px

>>9257162

>>9248670
>>9248677

Gonna one up you.

Literally give one example of an existent physical thing

Protip: You can't

>>9250129
Good post

>>9257288
rubber duckies

>>9248663
Higgs boson

>>9248663
Energy

File: Gnostic-Feature-Featured-Image.jpg (277KB, 644x408px) Image search: [Google]

277KB, 644x408px

>>9257203

The only Materialist argument is at best a kind of superstructure - in the most literal sense of "above" and "building" - into which things like meaning get teleported through very a ham-handed Ontological process that Materialists essentially call "dark".

The whole thing resembling a reverse interpretation of Platonic Forms.

File: 1474529139718.jpg (32KB, 564x275px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 564x275px

>>9257571

unsubstantiated assertion; there hasn't been one meaningful response to any of the previous arguments

File: c3ja50301a-f1_hi-res.gif (135KB, 978x1356px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 978x1356px

>>9257632
>tfw you had a dream where people dancing in slow motion with their eyes closed and blissful expressions but one of them was on fire and it spread to all of them as they brushed against each other and you woke up almost crying

Good luck.

>>9248663
>>9250129
>>9257288
>>9257632

One must be able to receive before being given anything, as existence precedes essence; therefore an existent example of reality is in the eye of the beholder.

File: qwTjf20.png (161KB, 300x333px) Image search: [Google]

161KB, 300x333px

>>9257656

>>9248663
space

File: botan judging the souls of stupid men.jpg (33KB, 640x475px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 640x475px

The woman maintaining our simulation.

File: 1468034761260.jpg (158KB, 1254x1238px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 1254x1238px

>>9256831

File: imgres.jpg (8KB, 207x243px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 207x243px

>>9250658
>tfw no metaphysical dicked boyfriend

>>9257731

underdeveloped superego

>>9248663

>anons using phenomenological approach to determine that everything exists, therefore non-physical things don't exist

That's noice but it is incomplete. "But my language is perceived and there is waves and neurological process and' ok anons, we got it. The materialistical perception of anything exists and it needs to exist so we can have consciouness. But that don't categorize anything, which uses non-physical identites in which we can only perceive, but never ever, materialize.

Mathematics

a picture i imagine or the world i'm in, when i dream

>>9248663

the software running this website

>>9248663
Your lack of sex

>>9248696
>>9248684
These exist though, in our physical brains.

>>9248708
This is the only real answer

>>9258623
>logic only exists in your brain

>>9256899
All stimuli are potentially linguistic stimuli.

Your categories are bad.

the future

the past

time

>>9257162
Those concepts can be regarded as non-physical (though conceptualization still takes place on a physical level), but that is the extent of their immateriality.

In a real sense, a pattern can be physical or non-physical, but a non-physical pattern cannot be proven to exist, and, therefore, does not fit OP's criteria. Physical categories precede non-physical categories (and of these categories of non-physical things - how many could you prove exist?), and recognition is absolutely physical. Did you not notice the word "cognition" with it? Recognition is a physical event within the brain.

Stop studying esotericism - it is making you stupid.

>>9248663
PAIN.

I would as well be happy if you tell it doesn´t exist for you, as if you tell me it does.

>>9248720
I think it was Dante who said economy is like a snake in the grass!

File: 1474660246439.png (86KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 1000x1000px

>>9248663
Why should I care about anything the physicalist thinks when the psychicalist is incapable of describing the true nature of the physical? Ask your regular physicist what matter really is and they're liable to tell you it's a probability density. Ask them what that probability density represents and they'll redirect you to the nearest philosophy department. Get your own house in order before you start attacking the non-physical.

>>9258623
>These exist though, in our physical brains.
And consciousness doesn't?
space is the real answer.

>>9259344

I haven't studied anything other than the blueprint of your tautological carousel.

>>9254181

why would consciousness be non-physical..................

>>9248663
Colors

>>9260336

>>9255507
>>9255660
>>9255808

File: 1489861630549.gif (2MB, 300x306px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 300x306px

>>9259389
This is a good answer, anon.

File: 1486775666090.jpg (381KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

381KB, 1920x1080px

Equality. Nothing is equal to nothing. No physicality required.

>>9248663
Your intelligence, because it doesn’t exist

>>9259431
Ok, Dan Dennett

>>9248663
>Literally give one example of an existent non-physical thing
literally any concept
>love
>time
>space
also logic

Dark matter
Imaginary number (quantum physics)

/thread

The rest of you have been baited by OP, physical reductionist, into posting abstract concepts so OP can tip is fedora and say "No that's just a physical thing xD"

>>9262141
This may be the most ignorant post on /lit/.
>Imaginary number (quantum physics)
>quantum physics
lel

>>9262170
http://mypages.valdosta.edu/cbarnbau/phys_math/p1_qm.html

>>9248663
memes

>>9248663
the internet.

>>9262182
lel I'm a physicist but thanks m8. Multiplication by imaginary numbers is literally just a 90 degree rotation about the origin.
And imaginary numbers are used in very much physical applications. See: reactive power in electronics.

>>9262216
And it would be nonsensical to suggest that imaginary numbers are existent and non-physical but real numbers somehow are not. They both are non-physical.

>>9262141

dark matter is obviously physical.

Imaginary numbers are not but that goes for all numbers.

>>9248715
this is irrefutable

>>9248663
Color

>>9262495
Well that's just reflected light waves so...

>>9262717
>All people percieve the same wavelengths of light to be the same "color"
What about "colors" we can't see?
What "color" is the 662 KeV gamma of Cs-137?
What "color" is the emission spectrum of a Pd-103 brachytherapy seed?

>>9262717
Light is physical. Color is a purely psychological phenomena.
When you stare into a bright light and look away you still see a yellow/white/whatever color spot despite there being no physical light causing that color in your mind.

>>9262109
>facepalm

Are you serious? Really dude? Really? You might want to think a bit harder before you answer.

>>9263887
Great job disputing anything I said.

>>9260678
>new information implies irreducibility

That's false. Irreducibility means the qualia's existence depends on something non-physical. But brain imagaing shows a constant correlation between qualia and atomic/cellular activity in the brain.

In order to stand by your point, you'd have to argue that the atomic activity is dependent upon/caused by the qualia, which raises Cartesian questions: how does the non-physical interact with the physical? If qualia is a cause, what causes the qualia, or is Newtons law in need of amendment?

It's more consistent with the state of physics to think of qualia and consciousness etc as like a field dependent on certain atomic patterns...and free will as an illusion.

>>9248670
Gniggers?

Literally give one example of something that exists outside of your own mind.

Protip 1: you can't
Protip 2: materialists are dumb dumbs

>>9248663
Mathematics. GG EZ No RE.

>>9264122
>ask stupid question
>get BTFO
>move goalposts
ayy lmao

File: 1485376275319.jpg (73KB, 736x869px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 736x869px

>>9248663
>>9264137
Forgot to mention this: the reason why Mathematics is something that exists is clear, but the reason why Mathematics is non-physical is because Mathematics is a part of the world of being and not a part of the world of becoming for the physical world is the world of becoming where all is in flux and nothing tangible remains in a permanent state.

One man does not step into the same river twice.
One man does not measure the same thing twice.
Complete and perfect knowledge of the real world is impossible because of this.

>>9264146
That's my first post ITT. It's directed at OP (the dumb dumb).

>>9264137

Does math exist without its symbolic expression? Does its symbolic expression depend on materiality?

I would answer no, yes.

>>9264193
>does math exist without its symbolic expression?
That depends on whether you believe math is invented by humans or discovered. If you believe the former, then the answer is yes;if the latter, then the answer is no.

A question to answer regarding the discovery of math would be, did 1+1=2 before humans proved that it does?

I believe math existed before people were even walking on two legs.

>>9264231
>did 1+1=2 before humans proved that it does?
Well humans defined the concept of numbers, including 1 and 2, and defined the + operation and the concept of equivalency

>>9264231
>1+1 hum

Did symbol sym symbolsym

File: followme.gif (996KB, 500x353px) Image search: [Google]

996KB, 500x353px

>>9248663
My disgust at this thread

>>9248663
Boobs

My hard cock in three hours.

>>9248663
Everything that is, is and can't be anything else, physical is an adjective to categorize what is, a category that include everything is already "is", if you say "everything is and is physical" you added no information to your statement. Wording and reasoning do not qualify what already is.

File: sardin.png (2MB, 674x984px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 674x984px

>>9248663
I rephrased since my English is bad
Everything that is, is,
Everything can't be anything else, "physical" is an adjective to categorize what is, a category that include everything is "is".

If you say "everything is physical" you added no information, "everything is" is enough to define everything. Wording and reasoning do not qualify what already is.

>>9264389
>>9264403
>>9248663
So, if you were to say everything is physical, then the information "physical" would be useless.

>>9264245

Assuming the physical has to exist (relative to the universe of the discoverer) in order to be discovered and defined,

The metaphysical has to exist (has to be sound relative to the universe it is discovered in) in order to be discovered and defined, because "physical" and "metaphysical" refer to different senses/processes needed to be used for discovery and definition

A discoverer defines something that has been discovered by assigning a symbol to the discovery

Discovery benefits the discoverer if that which is discovered benefits the discoverer

Discovery of fallacies affirms the previous discovery that negates the fallacy, in addition to the additional "discovery" of the relationship between the self and !self (self, !self, "self and !self")

Is this what Hegel was on about, right fellow intellectuals?

>t. brainlet :^)

>>9248663
the meaning you manufactured with your keyboard you dolt

>>9264364
This.

>>9263914
That's my point. There should be no need to. It should be so obvious that you're wrong that you should realize it on your own.

>>9248670
Gamergate

>>9251011
Did you really type that in 20 minutes? I find it rather hard to believe. As a fellow /lit/zen, one who's been shitposting and dfwposting for over five years that is, I must warn you: you do not possess the power to write. You're simply below it. Just forget it. Why do you even bother coming up with a rule if you yourself did not bother to follow it? How many words did you write in 20 minutes? Less than a thousand? Jesus Christ, man. You should feel embarrassed, I'm not exaggerating. I bet my stream of consciousness will be the top 20 of /lit/. People will remember my name and yours will be discarded in the guts of 4chan archives. Don't take me personally, you just don't have what it takes to write. It's better to accept it now before you waste your time with it.