Which one are you?

Which one are you?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=nsjDnYxJ0bo
youtube.com/watch?v=ZerUbHmuY04
news.mit.edu/2001/dreaming
youtube.com/watch?v=5HZpxEQAFIQ
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Neutral monism is the only acceptable answer until we figure out just what the fuck quantum mechanics really is

you cant know nothin.

but if I had to guess I would say physicalism

Physicalist.
I want to believe mind > matter but good luck proving that we're transcendent of basic shit like thermodynamics.

Physicalist. I won't care about my immaterial effects on the world i.e. my memes if I'm dead. So in every sense, matter > mind imo.

Physicalism or neutral monism.

Idealism and dualism are fucking retarded and divorced from reality.

Triplist: Nous and matter, but God is a substance beyond both.

Idealism or duality.

I'm a vampiredragonkin. I feel like in my past life I was an interdemensional winged beast.

...

Idealism, what's true is subjective to the human mind.

That would be neutral monism, you fucking snowflake.

>all those who aren't materialist should go to the board about conjuring
What? That's like saying all materialists need to stay on Veeky Forums

Monism means one substance. Idealism means only mind, materialism means only matter

Can I be both? Like I think some things are objective and other things are subjective?

No, that's like saying you, specifically, need to go to /x/ because you are a worthless shitposter who can't back up his retarded posts and just keeps repeating them thread after thread.

Fuck off there, you'll fit right in.

> What's true is subjective to the human mind.
U wot

If I throw a rock up, it's going to head back towards the earth no matter how much your inhuman mind believes it's false.

>>>/manners/

>idealism means only mind

I'm pretty sure that's wrong.

Then I'm pretty sure you haven't read Berkeley or Hegel

Basically this. Pretty sure mind and matter are the same thing, but fuck if I have a clue what that thing actually is.

I'll not be told by a dishonest little turd how to behave.

I'm pretty sure idealism is monist in that it avows there is only one 'type' of thing, if you get me. Monism typically is physicalist/materialist in that it denies the non-physical, but there's no reason why denying the physical couldn't also be described that way.

Physicalism desu
To anyone who isn't a physicalist, why do you reject physicalism?

Oh damn, I just looked at wikipedia, and I was wrong. I'll admit being wrong here.

What truthful rebuke did you just righteously utter of me, you worthiest of souls? I’ll have you know I failed God to the deepest of the pit in my class of worldly sinners, and I’ve been involved in numerous shameful transgressions on God's forgiveness, and I have over 300 confirmed faults. I am depraved in wicked thoughts and I’m the top coveter in the entire legions of the damned. I am nothing to thee but just another Satan. I will praise you to heaven and back with the most contrite of hearts the likes of which has been seen all too often from the sinner, mark my unworthy lips. You think you can serve away with your words of wisdom to me over the Internet? God bless, brother. As we speak I am contacting my holy communion of saints across heaven and your love is being traced right now so you better prepare for the Theosis, militant. The mercy that sustains the shining little thing you call your soul. You’re God's gift, kid. I can be all things at all times to all men, and I can bow to you in over seven hundred ways, and that’s just while kissing your hand. Not only am I extensively corrupted by unnameable vileness, but I have betrayed to the entire covenant of the Orthodox Body of Christ, and I will plead her to her full benevolence to sanctify your virtuous spirit off the face of the lie, you little star. If only you could have known what holy gratitude your little “meek” correction was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have blessed your benign tongue. But you couldn’t, you didn’t, and now you’re reaping the harvest, you God fearing joy. I will weep thanks all over you and you will drown in it. You've found life, kiddo.

I would say in a reasonable sense, I am a physicalist, though in a less reasonable sense I understand that I'll never be able to genuinely know if anything exists outside of my own mind.

Your shitposts are shitty indeed, but you're not half as clever as you think you are, and the fact that you abandon threads every time your bullshit is called out is a testament to that. The least you could do is stay and embrace your retardation like other tripfaggots.

Christ's Resurrection

np

I don't post on fast days

Which I start in the evening, by the way, and conclude in the evening

Ok yeah I guess anyone who's a Christian wouldn't be a physicalist

Actually, follow-up question: are there any religious Veeky Forums posters here who accept physicalism? If so, why?

Is this what passes for humor in your empty little head?

I'm religious in a vaguely Jungian sense, and so go with physicalism.

No, I mean I literally don't. Fast days include every Wednesday and Friday except select exceptions (Week of Nativity--that is, Christmas--and the week of Pascha--that is, Easter).

I'm sure this will all make sense once you explain to me how this relates.

Serious question: why do you give a tripfag so much attention? I don't even give a shit about tripfags, I just pretend they're anonymous, but every time I see this guy post there's someone, presumably at least sometimes you, randomly screaming abuse at him. What's the deal?

Could you explain your beliefs?

I just started today, after cornering him three times in several threads over the last week just to see him bail and then peddle his bullshit in new threads over and over again.

And I'm not going to stop, either.

He's obviously madly in love with her.

If you see me quick a thread and no respond long-term, it's probably because I'm fasting, not because I'm being a jerk.

*quit

God speed, user.

That's a nice excuse, but the last thread you abandoned was 3 hours ago.

I believe that religion is ultimately a healthy pursuit for the human mind, and that we naturally crave some sort of religious belief, to provide a lens with which to reflect our lives through. Ultimately I believe that there ought to be some sort of absolute perfection out there, which serves as the baseline of all truths, and various other entities that serve as various forms of baseline and archetype (much like Platonic forms, only strictly psychological) which serve as standards and larger than life concepts to aspire to. The specifics of such things, I couldn't really say as I'm still in the process of figuring that out. But at the end of it, I'm pretty sure it's all just a set of (important) mental gymnastics, and can't bring myself to take a leap in believing there's anything beyond the physical.

mind is simply one of the many products of combinations of matter.

I see, interesting.

No problem.

Which one do you mean?

The free will one. And before that we talked about the abortion issue, on I think tuesday, which also wasn't during the magic days you bless us with your absence.

Drop the trip and abandon threads like any other user who gets embarrassed when called on his shit, move your ass to or start having honest conversations that end without you having to run with your tail between your legs. Nothing pushes my buttons more than constantly seeing someone this overtly disingenuous. At least one can't tell who the other anons are.

I stop arguing with you because there's no where to go. I point out that the idea that all thoughts can be recreated by the right combination of chemicals is hardly scientific, and you bring up MRI scans. There's not much more for me to say, since you obviously think MRI scans are enough to deduce this from, which I don't see how. Is all you do is get angry at me for not kowtowing to your materialism, and your attitude is why so many people here are coming to Christianity.

>I stop arguing with you because there's no where to go.
There's plenty to go. I asked you why you think those pieces of evidence don't point to mind being reducible to matter.

> I point out that the idea that all thoughts can be recreated by the right combination of chemicals is hardly scientific, and you bring up MRI scans.
MRI scans on physical brains reading brains relatively accurately directly contradict your claim.

>There's not much more for me to say, since you obviously think MRI scans are enough to deduce this from, which I don't see how.
MRI scans are not the only thing I brought up, and I didn't even claim it's a 100% absolute proof. I was asking you why you don't think this is evidence contrary to your specious claims about irreducible magic.

>y-y-y-you're mean
Good. And I hope you, and every other weak minded sheepish moron who "comes to christianity" over something completely unrelated cry very much about it.

>relatively accurately
Not even close. MRI's don't read minds, they're extremely broad. When I can picture a picture of George Washington, and it can tell me what the picture is, then the MRI will have the kind of accuracy your're talking about, and even then it won't be enough to prove that I lack subjectivity or agency and it's all an illusion of chemicals unless it can explain the minute process of the formulation of the thought as well as its causation.

No dog in the race, but wasn't there a recent brain scan that could actually display images of what you were imagining at the time, albeit with really shitty quality?

I seriously doubt it, since we are imagining more things at one time than we are even consciously aware of.

>Not even close. MRI's don't read minds, they're extremely broad.
That's literally what they do, despite being inaccurate. It might not be obvious to you, but actually mapping the activity of individual neurons using what is essentially a sledgehammer is impossible. Reading your decision making processes is still reading minds, and I still haven't seen you respond to how that's evidence for minds being a product of physical activity.

>When I can picture a picture of George Washington, and it can tell me what the picture is
Curious you would mention something like this.
youtube.com/watch?v=nsjDnYxJ0bo


>it won't be enough to prove that I lack subjectivity or agency and it's all an illusion of chemicals
See, this is what I'm talking about when I call you a dishonest little turd. That's not what was being discussed, as I pointed out to you in the same post you're referencing. Stop changing the subject, turd.

>causation
Causation cannot be proven in the absolute sense you're describing for anything, this is a non-sequitur. Unless you're willing to go ahead and discard everyday causation along with this.

>I seriously doubt it
You would, not having the first clue about neuroscience.

I do have a dog in the race, though not to the same extent as either the tripfag or the tsundere user, but that just won't cut it. The issue is just not accessible empirically.

Like, imagine that machine is improved and now it can display the thoughts in your brain in like 4K or whatever. Does this prove that physicalism is true? Of course not - a dualist can maintain that the magic pixie-dust happens, the image is created, and the machine simply accesses that part of the brain where the interaction between the physical and non-physical aspects of mind occurs.

So the dualist might present the analogy of a movie projector. The fact that you can construct some device that reads a reflection off the inside of the projector lens and recreates the image being projected does not prove that the projector lens is generating the image.

>Curious you would mention something like this.
I'm talking about picturing something in your head, not just witnessing it. If can just think of something, without seeing it, and that can be reconstructed, that will be another matter, because that is a level unique to human beings, it's not in lower animals.

>Causation cannot be proven
It doesn't need to be, it's just a framework used, like mathematics.

>I'm talking about picturing something in your head, not just witnessing it.
I don't give a fuck what you're talking about. I gave you two examples of MRIs reading human brain activity. Give me a reason why this is not evidence for mind being generated by matter.

>If can just think of something, without seeing it, and that can be reconstructed, that will be another matter,
Do you honestly think that's not coming as technology progresses?

> because that is a level unique to human beings, it's not in lower animals.
Prove it. Dolphins, elephants and chimps are known to have abstract thinking abilities.

>It doesn't need to be
Then don't ask for it, dipshit.

Fair enough. My only thoughts on the matter are that I side with physicalism simply because it's the only one that seems to have any actual evidence behind it. The others seem obsessed with hiding in the gaps.

The brain is not a mere projector, it has processes going on that actually create and process the information that is "projected".

Yeah, so you claim, bro, and I don't even disagree, but we're not in position to irrefutably demonstrate that and we probably never will be.

Yeah, that's pretty much me, too. I just don't see any point trying to deny the gaps exist.

>Give me a reason why this is not evidence for mind being generated by matter.
Christianity makes a tremendous distinction between animal energies, and human nous. What you're showing is simply function of our brain common to all creatures with a brain, it's an automatic receptor, not a conscious thought; the person could probably be drugged to the point where they could barely think and you'd still see the same thing if their eyes were open.

>Dolphins, elephants and chimps are known to have abstract thinking abilities.
Could you please define "abstract"? Do you seriously think the idea of God could be explained to any of these creatures?

If that is up to question, then it is up to question if computers actually process information or if it's the result of some immaterial spooky dimension. The problem is this decomposes from macro objects to the quantum level.

There's no such thing as an irrefutable demonstration of anything. Absolute certainty is an incoherent concept.

>Christianity makes a tremendous distinction between animal energies, and human nous.
Yes, and it does so on the count of humans being egocentric. Until there's any evidence for this you can buzz off.

>What you're showing is simply function of our brain common to all creatures with a brain, it's an automatic receptor, not a conscious thought;
Do you have anything in terms of evidence why the brain isn't an "automatic receptor", as you call it?

> the person could probably be drugged to the point where they could barely think and you'd still see the same thing if their eyes were open.
That is completely false as drugs affect their visual cortex as well.

>Could you please define "abstract"? Do you seriously think the idea of God could be explained to any of these creatures?
Why would I need to? We were just talking about how humans are capable of picturing things in their head. Are you going to keep moving goalposts or are you going to acknowledge how asinine the points you're making are?

I hardly think god is a particularly useful milestone.
I'm not sure what he means by abstract thought either.
I've got a decent idea, such as the ability to communicate with symbols or pass the mirror test and such but he might mean something else.

>I've got a decent idea, such as the ability to communicate with symbols or pass the mirror test and such but he might mean something else.
Sure, that or having the concept of painting or music.

>There's no such thing as an irrefutable demonstration of anything.

See, now you're getting it.

I've never claimed otherwise.

>Do you have anything in terms of evidence why the brain isn't an "automatic receptor", as you call it?
We have no clue how dreaming works.

>That is completely false as drugs affect their visual cortex as well.
Regardless, it is egregiously dishonest of you to use an experiment measuring solely the visual cortex in response to my talk of thinking of something in your head, which has nothing to do with the visual cortex.

>Are you going to keep moving goalposts

You're the one who brought up abstract.

No, dolphins and chimps don't ponder thoughts like humans do. They have very complex memories, but they don't sit and think, no.

Prove it.

>We have no clue how dreaming works.
First off, "we have no clue" is not evidence.

Second, we do have a clue.

Third, animals also have dreams.

>You're the one who brought up abstract.
Yes, in reference to animals' artistic capabilities. Remember, we were talking about picturing stuff with one's mind. Try to keep up with your own bullshit.

>No, dolphins and chimps don't ponder thoughts like humans do. They have very complex memories, but they don't sit and think, no.
Where does "sit and think" come in? You said they don't ponder thoughts, prove it.

>Regardless, it is egregiously dishonest of you to use an experiment measuring solely the visual cortex in response to my talk of thinking of something in your head, which has nothing to do with the visual cortex.
Do you even read what you yourself write? You said a drugged up person would "see" the same thing as a sober one. It has everything to do with the visual cortex.

>but they don't sit and think, no.

youtube.com/watch?v=ZerUbHmuY04

I guess I'm a "Neutral Monist", not because I think minds or thoughts are immaterial (they're not, they're physical arrangements of matter in brains or in books) but because matter and energy are essentially two forms of the same thing, matter is not the ultimate "level of reality", it's a superficial and emergent property of much deeper physical laws.

Awesome video, by the way.

>Second, we do have a clue.
So a dream is purely the reception of something through the brain? What is the brain receiving?

>Third, animals also have dreams.
But only, insofar as we can tell, just as replays of their memories. Mice, for instance, who dream, often dream of a maze to the exact detail, the point their exact place on it can be traced: news.mit.edu/2001/dreaming

Human dreams, on the other hand, construct all sorts of elaborate and surreal realities based on combinations of memories, anxieties, hopes, loves, and so on. Human dreams are creative, they aren't just records.

>Yes, in reference to animals' artistic capabilities.
You mean Congo? Have you ever seen a video of him painting? He isn't even looking at what he's painting most of the time, he's looking around and smacking the brush like a toy: youtube.com/watch?v=5HZpxEQAFIQ

Some animals can certainly draw memories though

>Where does "sit and think" come in? You said they don't ponder thoughts, prove it.
Dolphins have a language. If they could think more than fundamentally about something, they'd have ways to describe, because they are EXTREMELY social.

>You said a drugged up person would "see" the same thing as a sober one.
It depends on the sort of drugs used, but that's totally beside the point.

>It has everything to do with the visual cortex.
I mean that picturing something in your mind's eye doesn't. Your mind's eye cannot be read, which is what I was clearly talking about, and you brought up an experiment involving the visual cortex, which was intentionally misleading on your part, since the visual cortex is not the mind's eye.

I'm not saying animals can't use tools or solve problems, I'm saying this crow is not going to be contemplating this outside of instinctual engagement with it. He's not going to ask himself where water comes from or why it is different from other things, he only "ponders" here, if you want to call it that, in purely a instinctual pattern recognition mode that he has from birth; in other words, he doesn't "ask" any questions that aren't answered by spatial cognition, which is like an animal knowing it's not a good idea to walk off a drop that's fifty feet.

>outside of instinctual engagement with it

a crow would not encounter these situations naturally, while making a nest is an instinctual behaviour.

Crows could certainly encounter water being too low to reach, and they call can do this instinctual. None of them take an hour to figure it out, they immediately jump to it (probably even faster than a human child would figure out).

>Crows could certainly encounter water being too low to reach

I seriously doubt that this would occur frequently enough to be a significant evolutionary pressure, rather that being an application of general intelligence.

Would they encounter it in such a way that instinctual grasp of how water displacement works would have a signficant effect in terms of effort invested to profit gained?
Would they encounter U-tubes?

It's been associated with crows since ancient times (see Aesop's Fables), I'm pretty sure it's instinctual--if it weren't, crows would try the same with containers of bird seed, which they don't.

Any hole or nook with water in it would do, in rock, dirty, or anything else.

And if basic problem solving is innate to crows, then human problem solving can be seen as a move advanced version of the same aptitude.

if it were, then all humans would be able to measure things based on eyesight so well, we would never need tape measures or any of that.

Our eyes are accurate to an extent, tape measures increase the accuracy.

We can and we do, we only use measuring devices when we need a degree of precision beyond our natural intuitions.

If our problem solving faculty were just like the crow's, but more advanced, the measurement by eyesight (which the crow can readily do) would be profound, countless times more advanced than the crow's. More precise than a measuring tape, most likely.

...

>So a dream is purely the reception of something through the brain? What is the brain receiving?
Who's saying this?

>Human dreams, on the other hand, construct all sorts of elaborate and surreal realities based on combinations of memories, anxieties, hopes, loves, and so on. Human dreams are creative, they aren't just records.
Human dreams are based mostly in memory. Dreams are at least in part a method for strengthening memory.

Mice aren't the only animals who dream. You're ignoring the fact that there are creative animals, and assuming on no evidence that they don't have dreams that are creative as well. Even dogs have dreams that don't necessarily map entirely to any particular memory, they have nightmares for Pete's sake.

>I mean that picturing something in your mind's eye doesn't. Your mind's eye cannot be read, which is what I was clearly talking about
What the fuck is the mind's eye and why can't it be read? Don't move goalposts again.

You weren't clearly talking about it as you were referencing drugs and actual eyes, and this comment came as some sort of a dumbass retort to MRI imaging.

>It depends on the sort of drugs used, but that's totally beside the point.
It hardly does, considering you were talking about "being drugged to the point of hardly being able to think", which means altered brain activity.

>You mean Congo?
He certainly looks like a primitive form of painter to me. His paintings are the height of abstraction, friend.

>If they could think more than fundamentally about something, they'd have ways to describe, because they are EXTREMELY social.
You're assuming things about dolphin culture by extrapolating from human culture. They have only one form of communication, this limits their form of communication severely.

>If our problem solving faculty were just like the crow's, but more advanced, the measurement by eyesight (which the crow can readily do) would be profound, countless times more advanced than the crow's. More precise than a measuring tape, most likely.
Where do you get off making this silly statement? You're not the authority of how much more advanced something has to be, and in what exact ways.

Neutral monism
If you want to be happy Money, matter and mind you need all that

Physicalist
We can now see from the brain patterns of cats what they were looking at, it's only a matter of time before we get the other senses and on humans

We can shove electricity and cause emotion and impulses

>the QM will answer philosophical questions meme
>implying the mind isn't a result of the ability to self-reference
>implying QM has anything to do with this
Fucking freshmen on this board I swear to God.

I have a somewhat similar mindset, so I'd like to know if there are any books in particular that you'd recommend?

Anything other than physicalist is retarded

>matter
>mind
>not pure experience