>still believing that material objects exist

>Just tell me why you think what you believe

Can you not read? I'm talking about a lack of a belief. Please read, moron.

Tell me why you believe material objects exist at all in the first place. Why hold this belief? It seems you have no reason at all, so why continue to hold this belief?

things that don't exist cannot consider their own existence, therefor I know that at least my own mind exists

>How To Avoid Solipsism While Remaining An Idealist
philpapers.org/rec/HENHTA

Well you have as much proof that the material world does not exist that god is fucking with you especially due to the fact all the stuff about god is found in the material world.

Even if you see angels and shit (let me know cause that would be cool), you don't really know if its a demon just fucking with you.

I could take a hot poker and shove it in your crotch until you believe in reality. Problem is that until you really feel "real" pain, you sort of just go about life like its no big deal.

I have experience intense physical pain recently where I would do anything to make it stop.

That is how you tell that its real.

>implying a material world exists

why is it so impossible for materialists to give a single argument? they talk shit on theists all day long about "muh evidence!" when it comes to God, yet they have absolutely no problem believing in an entire fucking reality they call "physical" without a shred of evidence. Unbelievable.

Either you have reasons to believe material objects exist or you don't. If you don't, why call yourself a skeptic™? You're just like any other theist you look down upon for their own faith.

You're just assuming that because you're experiencing something that means its physical. Why believe that at all? Experience is experience. Why then postulate this extra "physical" on top?

I'm not saying anything about what you're experiencing not being real, just what reasons are there to believe in a physical reality.

It doesn't matter. If I have a hot poker, I can get you to say anything I want you to. If we were in that situation, I'd make you say "The materialist view is right." Maybe I'd go all 1984 on you with electric devices and shock you until you actually believe it yourself.

Maybe you really don't exist and just are an NPC to me and you aren't really experiencing the pain, but if I have the material power and you act like it hurts, then I feel good about it so it doesn't matter.

Ergo. If you can manipulate the material plane, you can affect experience.

Even if its an illusion, it doesn't matter as long as you can control it.

Speaking of which, if I had total control of the material world, I could put you into another level Basilisk/AM style and just do whatever I please to your experience and make you believe whatever I wanted you to believe.

Even if there is higher states of existence, or its an illusion, it doesn't matter because no one is stepping down form that level to stop me.

>material plane
>implying there's a material anything at all

you can't even make your argument work without assuming your conclusion in the first place lol nice circular reasoning buddy

also appeal to force means jack shit. torturing people until you're right doesn't mean you're right. what a dumbass point for you to make.

>Even if its an illusion, it doesn't matter as long as you can control it

Nobody is saying anything is an illusion. please read. yes we have experiences like pleasure and pain. that's great. where does the "physical" come into this? I'm not seeing any reasons to believe it does. I'm seeing experience and more experience. This idea of a "physical" reality is looking like something of blind faith

>Look, lads! It's another "babby's first solipsism" thread!

Literally who cares, Neo?

>control

no idea where you're getting any of this mumbo jumbo about control

what's being discussed is the existence of an alleged physical reality. Why believe that any of the objects you experience are "physical"?

>solipsism

see: and learn what Idealism is and what the burden of proof is.

Hrm... To be fair. I don't have the power to put you into a torture simulation. So I simply lack the power to show you why not believing in materialism is irrelevant (otherwise... wait a few decades if I ever end up getting the ear of the Roko Basilisk)

But let's say in near future you get kidney stones or something that cuts deep in your flesh.

Actually... You can experiment this on yourself without too much self damage.

Get an acupuncture needle off amazon. Get some alcohol and a clean cloth to sterilize it. Pick a spot that has fatty tissue (you don't want to poke the muscle as it weirds me out when I do it to have it involuntary twitch... which is why I think that is the point of acupuncture)

Press the needle. It will hurt, but the skin is the most difficult part. Once you puncture the skin is slides right in. If you do it at an angle push the needle towards the skin so you can see the needle's shape under the skin.

Sit there and experience it. That is real.

The experience is.

Now whether its an illusion, simulation, or really atoms, it doesn't matter. The experience is real.

Then work your way up from there.

I mean it's entirely possible that God is fucking with you regardless. I wouldn't put it past OT God.

Physical is simply the description of the experience. The needle pierces my skin and I feel pain. That experience is real. I normally don't have mysterious beings stabbing with me demonic stuff, so I put my faith in the needle is real. Now, it could be really non-material, energy based, simulated, ether, or some other illusion, but that is irrelevant. The pain is real. The experience is real. So therefore manipulating whatever appears to be the material world affects experience and the pain that follows.

Therefore for all intents and purposes the material world is real.

PS If you can show me ways to manipulate the material world through non-material means, I'd love to hear it. Otherwise, I'm going to keep trusting science and material objects to affect my experience.

What does pain have to do with any of this? I'm well aware of the existence of pain. You're giving a complete non-sequitur right now. Idealists are well aware of the existence of experience and have no need to believe in this extra thing you call "physical" to get around in the world just fine.

>Sit there and experience it. That is real.

That's the point an Idealist would make. Experience is reality. The materialist is postulating this extra "physical" reality on top of it without any reason whatsoever.

>Physical is simply the description of the experience.

Either you're equivocating on the meaning of the word "physical" (traditionally physical/material is defined as independent of experience) or you're reducing the physical to experience. The latter would make sense but in that case the word physical seems completely useless as its just another word or experience and there is no world independence of existence hence no actual physical world.

>science

science works off experience, right? cool. that's what I'm talking about. a parsimonious approach to science, which I'm sure is valuable if I'm not mistaken, would be more conservative with assumptions. material objects existing? seems unnecessary. I can just talk about experience/observation without postulating this hypothetical material world at all.

>Eliminating the Physical
philpapers.org/rec/ELLETP-2

Actually. I'm not sure if I am explaining to you very well to get my point across.

Did you have any sharp needles in your house. Since we are hear and I am not going to on Veeky Forums for a while after tonight, can you take a needle and pierce you skin?

Just enough to draw blood. Then get back to me when you do. I will tell you the other part of the explanation.

oh look, another thread that confirms "& humanities" was a mistake

I can suppose material objects exist without believing it. Checkmate faggot.

Yeah, you can't read...

Just for anyone else who is able to read: this person is equivocating on what pain is. They think that because they feel pain they are automatically correct. If only theists could get away with such shitty logic lol pain is an experience, which is something an idealist would not deny the existence of. The problem is postulating this extra world on top of experience called the "physical". You have to explain what reasons you have to believe what you experience is actually physical. You don't just get that for free. If theists don't get the existence of God for free then you don't get the existence of an entire physical reality for free. Burden of proof lies with you. Either you can meet it or not. If you can't, just be real with yourself already and admit you have blind faith or just drop physicalism already. geez

Yeah. I should have thought about saying that earlier to OP. Material objects don't care if you believe in them or not.

>I don't believe in my ass cancer so its not real

>drink beer
>get drunk
>drink imaginary beer
>sober

>hurr durr why would anybody be so stupid as to treat material objects as real?

If you don't believe that reality is actually physical then this thread doesn't really apply to you.

you can leave now, faggot

Have you stabbed yourself with a needle or not?

I'll accept burning yourself with a lighter or slapping yourself across the face.

I can't really explain my point until you do. Just humor me this. It will become clear.

>objects exist so that means they have to be material!

this is all the materialists seem to have in their play book. Either they desperately try to shift the burden of proof because its too damn heavy or they just equivocate. Prove to me that objects are actually material...

see:

>how do you know if [thing] or if actually just [something else that's identical to thing but I'm pretending isn't]
whoa... so this... is the power... of philosophy

>shit I can't answer these hard questions... t-they must just be pretending that they don't think like me! i'm right about everything!
whoa man, you're so like enlightened dude. you've shown me the light, bill nye. now I fucking love science!

I know I exist ... i think i do anyway ...do I?

Look. Have you hurt yourself or not? I mean if your body doesn't exist then why do you object to stabbing yourself with a needle?

Once you do, I'll explain the other part of my argument and it will make sense to you.

>giving a shit about whether the life we experience is real or not
Like it matters

>Look

No, you look. Either give me a reasons to believe that material objects exist or just admit you don't have one already. Be intellectually honest.

>implying I said my body doesn't exist

I never once said my body doesn't exist. I just don't see any reasons to believe my body is physical or that anything is physical. You fail time and time again to prove that anything at all is physical... Just admit you believe in an entire reality for no reason, come on

>other part of my argument
>implying you even gave a part of argument at all

telling me to stab myself is not part of an argument, Plato

The adults are trying to have a conversation. Go watch some more rick and morty, kiddo

the world is either material or immaterial but completely indistinguishable from material, and there's no way to know. What do you gain from debating this other than smug satisfaction in your misplaced beliefs of intellectualism?

they effectively equate reality with matter.

beyond this, they believe everything their senses tell them about reality without really considering the real limitations of those senses.

I however can walk around not necessarily believing in floors or gravity, but merely supposing them to be real instead. After all, it is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.

>but completely indistinguishable from material
where is the proofs? I have been asking over and over and over and you fail every single time. What evidence is there that anything is material?

If you want to go off of experience then you should just assume its all experience. Why postulate this extra material stuff on the other side of experience? It seems completely unreasonable.

>there's no way to know.

So then it's completely unreasonable by your own admission. Why not just drop the assumption and just go off of experience? You do realize that Idealism is an alternative, right?

>what do you get from discussing philosophy?
>is on a board that discusses philosophy

are you just upset that I'm destroying your worldview?

I didn't say life is meaningless, I said whether or not our experiences are material is irrelevant to our lives.

>they effectively equate reality with matter.

By effectively you mean equivocate? You don't just get claims for free. If you want to claim that materialism is true then you need reasons for it.

>but merely supposing them to be real instead.

Again, I'm not saying what you're experiencing is illusory. Just that there's no reason to believe its "physical"

define material

You couldn't be more wrong.

Your ethics and your politics springs from your metaphysics. What you believe is real is what you believe to be valuable and what you will base your actions on. If you think we're reducible to a bunch of atoms you wind up in a pretty nihilist state and act as such. If you think we are creations of a divine mind aimed at the purpose of achieving deification well then your life will be quite different.

I suppose in a way I have already have given you the logic.

If the material world does not exist. Why have you refused to self harm?

Its not real and anything you do to yourself doesn't really matter? There is no material there.

But still... That is only half of argument. I still have a further point to make, but can't happen til you self inflict a minor amount of pain.

>By effectively you mean equivocate?
is English not your first language? They're literally saying, for all x if x is real then x is material.

>kys or your argument is invalid
wrong, try again

This would be more on the affirmative than the negative but from what I'm gathering in my own discussions with materialists, whenever they give an example of an object being material they're just describing qualities of experience. They'll knock on a table and note it's shape and how it’s solid, sturdy, persistent as if it's clear and obvious that the object is material. But really that's just a description of what the object feels like for them to experience the sensation of touching the object and what it is like to experience the object visually and auditorily and so forth. Subtract all the qualities of experience and you'll soon realize that what you're left with is indistinguishable from nothing. An object that looks like nothing, sounds like nothing, feels like nothing etc. is an object that is no different than an object that doesn't even exist at all. An object, let alone an entire reality, that is to be independent of experience is complete nonsense. What materialists are doing is little more than appealing to an ineffable transcendent mystery realm that is beyond what we can ever experience to explain what we do experience. If describing the experience of an object does not describe the actual object but only the experience of it then objects would in actuality be indescribable.

&humanities was a mistake

Relevant image.

You can waste the time you have questioning the very existence of everything around you and lock yourself into an existentialist bubble if you like. I've yet to see any single person who thinks along these lines as either not teenage or solipsist. Part of being an adult seems to be getting past all the cancer of nihilist angst and just dealing with the world as it is.

An observation I have on these kinds of conversation is that it's an exaggerated type of "higher level" discussion in that its attempting to describe the very highest abstractions you can possible. However if you lack any low level detail, you're just pure abstraction with no substance, it's why I won't directly engage with these conversations as it's a "no you prove it" back and forth forever.

tl;dr for the entire thread: Middle class teenager has babbies first existential angst.

Jesus Christ. Slapping yourself across the face or stabbing yourself with a needle is not killing yourself.

If you refuse a little self harm, then why get uppity about it when someone challenges you to do something that proves that material world does not matter.

>If the material world does not exist. Why have you refused to self harm?

Because experience still exists and I don't like experiencing pain. I don't know how many times i have to describe this to you: I'm not saying objects do not exist, I'm just not seeing any reasons to believe they are "physical". I experience all sorts of stuff and I don't see what's wrong with sticking with experience instead of this abstract philosophy of physicalism.

>I still have a further point to make, but can't happen til you self inflict a minor amount of pain.

so do you actually believe I've never felt pain in my entire existence or something? are you retarded?

your body is a three dimensional projection through space-time

>They're literally saying, for all x if x is real then x is material.

yeah exactly they're just equivocating. They're talking about the physical world as if its just a synonym for the real world. Physicalism is just another philosophy among many. You don't get your philosophy for free, you have to give arguments...

how many instances of self harm would it take to convince you, and of what severity?

This is my point. Whether its all chemicals, illusion, or real. It does not matter. If you know the rules of the material world than you can manipulate it.

What I was trying to prove, is that someone can use the material world to affect another person's experience which makes the question "Prove to me that the material world exists" a pointless endeavor.

If someone took a 10 inch dildo and shoved it up your ass, they just proved that they have control over the material world and all your statements of whether its real or not is pointless because they were the one with the power over reality.

A deity has nothing to do with the question at hand, though.

then what is an object if not the sum of ways you can experience it?

The idealists are Mickey Mouse and the materialists are Donald Duck.

tl;dr y-you can't discuss metaphysics and ask the big questions! only children and middle class youth are allowed to think critically about reality and stuff!

What is your damage, son? Use your mind for something other than video games and porn. Use your mind, don't waste it.

also this:

>God has nothing to do with metaphysics!

lol

Nothing to do with whether the world we experience is materially real or not. Are you here to contribute or just to shoehorn christcuck propaganda into the discussion?

1. even if we didn't know the answer to this question that in no way implies that the objects we experience are in fact material objects.
2. why not just assume they are as we perceive them to be: perceptions. we could just be idealists and accept experience as fundamental.

Well that is my explanation... It's irrelevant whether its real or not if you have power to control the material world because pain is serious business and you are purposefully trying to avoid it. If it was irrelevant, then you just stab a fork in your eye and call it a day.

I think you are missing the point of materialism.

Materialism isn't that things are made up of atoms, but that what we experience is in a certain category called matter behave in a certain way and can be controlled.

People who know how matter and interacts can control their experience (say pain and joy) and therefore manipulate.

You can argue all day that its not really matter, but the truth is that the label for this experience seems to respect a certain set of rules and that by knowing these rules you can gain more power over your own experience and the experience of others.

So no. Your argument is invalid because it doens't matter. I will drink this material alcohol and I will enjoy its affects. Doesn't matter if its really matter as you envision.

(Honestly, I think as language as labels. What we are labeling with crappy philosophy doesn't change based on the label. This alcohol still behaves as alcohol if I call it water or milk and I still get drunk even if I don't believe it will get me drunk).

That is my point. If you can't see that, then well I don't really care as I know how to manipulate the material world in a way that benefits me but was an interesting exercise to debate.

Yes it does. If Idealism is true then theism would seem to be the most fitting option. This world would be the creation of a mind, a dream of sorts that we all inhabit.

>theists aren't allowed to contribute!

you don't know much about the history of philosophy do you?

>Dude, what if the sky isn't really blue? Like, if my blue looks like your red. Even if they're the same wavelength and all. Like, what is even real? Metaphysics, bro. My parents are too stupid to sit around and contemplate deeply like you and I do, Beavis. 420 blaze it.

>implying you gave an explanation at all

telling me to stab myself is not an explanation. You can't logic...

>material world

what reasons do you have to believe the world you're experiencing is material?? you're just saying you're right with 0 reasons to believe you're right... Go ahead and believe the world is there but why hold on to this irrational belief of materialism? Just let this belief go, you clearly have no reason to believe in it...

>I think you are missing the point of materialism.

No, you are. Materialism is an ontological doctrine that everything that exists is made of matter. What reasons do we have to believe this ontology though? Absolutely none...

People who know how to use experience to their advantage I think are those you are referring to. You don't have to be a materialist to be pragmatic and clever. Materialism is merely one philosophical doctrine among many. It's not a mystical magical philosophy that is somehow immune from the burden of proof just cuz you feel like it, that's not how philosophy works. That's not how logic works, you have to connect conclusions with premises my dude.

>think critically about the biggest questions of existence? fuck that. I'm just going to drop out of school and play vidya all day. im so red pilled bro.

Actually. I did not say that the world is material itself. It's just that we label it material because it appears (as far as we know) to behave by a certain set of rules.

And by manipulation of those rules we can affect our experience which makes debate over whether its really real not irrevalent.

I was showing you an empirical example (which is logical) by testing the theory yourself.

Logic without reproducible results is empty (or at least curious but not something that you can manipulate materials effectively with).

That is my argument. That the materialist rules hold therfore the question whether or not its not really real is pointless.

Ergo. I can show you that the rules of materialism apply simply by getting you to refuse to do something as you know the outcome of your actions will result in a correlated unpleasant event.

Can you show me where the rules do not apply?

Say... I say a certain set of word and a succubus jumps out of portal to have magic sex with me?

Science and technology has made philosophy and mental masturbation with words like "ontology" obsolte.

I don't need to prove to you anything really. I'm just saying your point is irreverent because the material rules reliably affect my experience and if its not real, then you probably don't exist either.

>I did not say that the world is material itself

Then why are you here? From the get-go this thread is mocking those who believe material objects exist. If you don't believe in the existence of material objects then this thread doesn't apply to you.

The whole reason you think its irrelevant is because you seem to actually be a materialist: you just accept that experience automatically means material, for absolutely no reason at that. I don't know why you're advocating for holding on to an ontology for absolutely no reason but oooookay.

>I was showing you an empirical example (which is logical) by testing the theory yourself.

All you're referring to is experience, I explained this already. An Idealist doesn't deny that pain exists, they accept the reality of experience. They just don't add this extra "material" or "physical" ontology on top of that like you're doing. Why do they not do this? Because it irrational to hold a belief for no reason. "muh pragmatism" doesn't make you less irrational... just drop the belief already. Again, as I've already explained, the Idealist can be just as pragmatic, if not more pragmatic, than you.

You are mentally masturbating with language.

I'm not arguing the materialism are really right, but for all intents and purposes their system works while your system hasn't produced anything of real value other than mental masturbation.

Can you logic your way through cancer treatments, antibiotics, creating the internet, and putting people on the moon?

You could argue that none of it is really material, but again... The rule system works. I'm fairly satisfied with it other than the prison of biology and mortality which given enough time materialism will resolve.

I mean its is possible a philosophy PHD with a major in biology might find out how to reverse DNA damage, but if I was a gambling man, I'd say it would be highly unlikely.

from a practical standpoint they absolutely exist because I need them to live my life
none of your theories about the nature of existence change the fact that the practicality of objects is one of the primary functions of existence (whether it be a simulation, long fever dream, schizophrenia, or actual reality). Any rebuttal of this is meaningless foray in a useless philosophy and you should kill yourself

>so-called skeptics and their blind faith in material objects
>so-called skeptics
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
You have a mental illness.
Its called stupidity.
Also, the burden of proof would be on you anyway, because sensory data suggests that objects do in fact exist.

>You're just assuming that because you're experiencing something that means its physical.
And thats how evidence works.
Now the "burden of proof" that you keep mentioning falls on you. Retard.

>applying logic to the big questions means you're just mentally masturbating

well gee I guess I should just follow your wisdom of masturbating to anime all day instead. so wise

>I'm not arguing the materialism are really right

Do you believe that material objects exist, yes or no? If yes, what is your reason for believing that they actually exist? If you don't have one, you're irrational...

>muh pragmatism

why the fuck do you have to subscribe to the abstract ontology of physicalism just to be pragmatic? that's a complete non-sequitur. The idealist can be just as pragmatic. They go off of experience, which is what science is all about. The materialist is the one going beyond experience and postulating this extra "material" stuff they cannot justify at all. We don't have to believe in your fairy tale materialist just to do science and drive a car. come on...

>Can you logic your way through cancer treatments, antibiotics, creating the internet, and putting people on the moon?

I'm not seeing the philosophy of materialism do that at all. I'm seeing a bunch of high IQ individuals who know how to use experience to their advantage accomplish a lot but you're not making any logical connection at all to that and whether or not material objects actually exist. fail.

Actually from a pragmatic stand point it doesn't matter whether they exist at all. Pragmatism≠ontology

An Idealist goes off of experience just like the materialist would, except the idealist doesn't postulate this extra "physical" world. The idealist has no problem driving a car, typing on a keyboard, working at a job, doing science, all the while lacking belief that objects are actually material. A little bit of thinking on your part and you would have seen how silly your objection is...

>sensory data suggests that objects do in fact exist.

Absolute fail. I never denied that objects exist. I merely see no reason to believe that material objects exist. Why believe that objects are physical? You claim that objects are physical? Prove it...

The bottom part of this was meant for you: >I just get to assume whatever I want without any reasons and that means YOU have the burden of proof somehow. Check mate

You have got to be the biggest retard in this whole thread. If you want to claim x then the burden of proof is on you to prove x. I lack belief in x, hence I have 0 burden of proof since I'm not even making a claim. I'm not saying material objects don't exist, I'm merely asking for a reason that they actually do exist... funny how you guys still have yet to give me a single argument or a shed of evidence. just pure equivocation and desperately shifting of the burden of proof

see:

No, I'm saying from a pragmatic stand point they do exist because they dominate the very nature of existence itself.
The very definition of "physical" relates to the sensory data. The sensory data proves they exist and proves that they're "physical" because if they weren't physical, I wouldn't sense them. The burden of proof that you keep clamoring for is still on you.

misclick, see:

Actually, your use of "ontology" is about as useful as masturbating to Anime except maybe the person paid for something economically for that anime (say internet connection and computer) and contributed to the betterment of technological progress.

But by real materialists... I mean scientists and engineers. They provide me with not feeling pain. (Yes there are a lot of lower end people but their economic activity supports the upper materialists endeavors).

If you want to not feel pain you have to agree that the materialists and system are indeed very very useful to that goal. The materialist system to me is logical, but it doesn't have to be logical to you to actually work. It's science. You don't have to explain shit to people who don't understand logic. It still works. So believing in it or not or proving that its real through logic does not matter. It works no matter what.

To your second question... I'm in the camp that reality could very well be a simulation which at first glance would make the materialist look bad, except the fact that if it were a simulation that it abides by materialistic rules so therefore the best route is to go with the materialist and their view. Now if I found a way to break the laws of physics I would be open for that.

Which that that (and you are using a trolling technique that I use by trying to force a yes or no answer) is that "I don't know. And I don't care. But I want you to know you are wasting your time trying to debate it."

And your last point... Its not the philosophy itself but people that believe in that philosophy that the world is material and lives by a set of rules you can understand that can manipulate it in a such a way to reduce overall suffering.

I'm sure there are people that sit around after developing some technological breakthrough smoking a join and go "Shit. Is this all real?"

But they aren't going to write a goddamn scientific paper on logic on if its actually real.

You're still contesting the validity of materialism, which itself is a stance. You can't blame me for "shifting the burden of proof" when you're the one who put forth the whole argument to begin with. Since your supposedly some rhetoric expert you must surely be aware that simply mentioning the burden of proof is the sign of a poor argument.
Either way though, for all purposes of materialism simply experiencing material objects satisfies all the objectives of materialist thought, thats all the "proof" a materialist needs because it fits within the definition of materialist. Skepticism and materialism aren't mutually exclusive ideas.

No they don't, experience does.

Just think about it for more than a second: whenever you give an example of an object being material you're just describing qualities of experience. You'll knock on a table and note it's shape and how it’s solid, sturdy, persistent as if it's clear and obvious that the object is material. But really that's just a description of what the object feels like for them to experience the sensation of touching the object and what it is like to experience the object visually and auditorily and so forth. Subtract all the qualities of experience and you'll soon realize that what you're left with is indistinguishable from nothing... An object that looks like nothing, sounds like nothing, feels like nothing etc. is an object that is no different than an object that doesn't even exist at all. An object, let alone an entire reality, that is to be independent of experience is complete nonsense. What materialists are doing is little more than appealing to an ineffable transcendent mystery realm that is beyond what we can ever experience to explain what we do experience. If describing the experience of an object does not describe the actual object but only the experience of it then objects would in actuality be indescribable.

>The very definition of "physical" relates to the sensory data.

They try to go there but they add "independent of experience" which is not a positive description but a negative. So really its just a description of what it is not, rather than what it is. It seems materialists can't actually describe what matter really is. They can talk about experience and that's it, but apparently matter is beyond experience and completely independent of it...

>The burden of proof that you keep clamoring for is still on you.

can you not fucking read? Let's try again:

f you want to claim x then the burden of proof is on you to prove x. I lack belief in x, hence I have 0 burden of proof since I'm not even making a claim.

Also.

Your question is like saying "Prove to me logically that you experience real consciousnesses"

You can't and it doesn't matter. I could be a meat zombie, but the world treats me as consciousness.

>It's one of those tread where OP want to feel smarter than everyone.

>you're just describing qualities of experience.
Thats materialism
>Subtract all the qualities of experience and you'll soon realize that what you're left with is indistinguishable from nothing
absolute nonsense
sensing the object is proof enough to a materialist that it exists. The assumption that it exists when it isn't observed is a perfectly rational one that is well within the parameters of skepticism.

You're LITERALLY making the claim that materialism is not compatible with skepticism YOU FUCKING MORON.

>reality is not useful!

hahahahahaha

oh yeah you have no use for such silly concepts as "reality" and "truth" lol they just get in the way of your fantasies

>But by real materialists... I mean scientists and engineers.

See what I mean, folks? All they have is either equivocation or a desperate shift of the burden of proof. From the very beginning I've been talking about materialism as an ontology, meaning those who believe material objects actually exist. Do you believe material objects exist? If yes, what is your reason? If you don't have one then you're being unreasonable...

You don't need to hold on to a particular ontology to be pragmatic: that's the beauty of pragmatism. It's about what you do not what you believe. An Idealist can be a scientist or an engineer just like a materialist, except the idealist doesn't hold the irrational belief that material objects exist.

>except the fact that if it were a simulation that it abides by materialistic rules so therefore the best route is to go with the materialist and their view.

That's just an infinite regress. The computer would be based on physics like the very simulation you're referring to which means those who simulate you are simulated and they are too simulated by those who are simulated by simulation ad infinitum. Idealism makes more sense as we stop as mind being fundamental instead of regressing to a further explanation.

What did you use to make this post?

He was at least smart enough to not slap himself in the face. That's something

In other words, you're asking a materialist to reconcile his/her views with skepticism and I'm saying the burden of proof is on you to prove that the views aren't compatible. You ARE in fact positing a belief.

>The computer would be based on physics like the very simulation you're referring to which means those who simulate you are simulated and they are too simulated by those who are simulated by simulation ad infinitum.
Thats making a lot of assumptions about the nature of said simulation. You're really moving goalposts.

Asking for evidence is not a stance. Questions can neither be true or false. It makes no sense when I ask "what is your evidence for x?" and you say "you're wrong!"

that's simply incoherent. If you don't have evidence just admit it already... Asking questions is not an argument, asking what reasons you have for your beliefs is not contesting, you're just upset because you've experiencing a lot of cognitive dissonance right now. You could settle it by either having actual evidence or letting go of materialism. Your choice.

>for all purposes of materialism simply experiencing material objects satisfies all the objectives of materialist thought

Nope, sorry champ. You don't just get to define yourself into truth. You experience objects, yes. But what reasons do you have to believe they are material?? Give me an argument. Show me evidence. If you don't have one, then be a true skeptic and let go of your unreasonable belief in material objects.