Unironically being a materialist

What difference does it make? Its like hard determinism, people will still act as if they have free will regardless.

A lot. A fucking lot actually. If reality is inside your mind, it's not much different than a dream (in fact, it really isn't at all).

There are more choices than
>there is nothing above material
And
>nothing actually exists

>choices
Exactly. You can choose, and your experience will respond accordingly.
>nothing actually exists
Not really, everything you experience is 100% real. Including your dreams.

There's clearly still a divide between dreams and reality, even in your particular scheme.

Hmmm, not really. Other than being "different", but dreams are also different from other dreams too, and have different rules. What do you think is this divide?

Well for one, you don't die as a result of dreams. In fact, no lasting change in your being comes as a result of dreams except perhaps the formation of new ideas. The world outside of dreams also follows a strict causal logic that you don't see within dreams themselves.

Ah, I see what you mean now.
Regarding death, usually you move on to another dream if you die in one. If it happens here too, only you and I will eventually know :-) (seeing other people die doesn't count as evidence, people can die in dreams too, we're talking strictly direct experience here)
>The world outside of dreams also follows a strict causal logic that you don't see within dreams themselves.
I disagree, I've had dreams that were completely, exactly like reality. You can have a dream with "strict causal logic", it is completely possible. Experienced enough dreamers can create persistent realms that you can come back to anytime, with their own strict rules and logic. There really isn't any "limit" to dreams at all, other than self imposed one's.

>Experienced enough dreamers can create persistent realms that you can come back to anytime, with their own strict rules and logic.

The fact that they create it shows that there's a difference.

You could have created this world yourself as well.

The outcomes are effectively the same

"consciousness is just a controlled hallucination"

checked

There is absolutely no reason to think so.

>Dan Dennet
Laymen have a bias against dualism and idealism since the Enlightemnent associated it with religion and methodical naturalism produced so much tangible results so thinking that its philosophical counterpart must be good too is a very small leap of faith.

if one supports the scientifically verified theories of abiogenesis and evolution, it would be naive to not be a materialist

>matter in the primordial soup forms prebiotic self-replicating molecules and structures
>evolution and natural selection pressures the said molecular entities
>eventually we have probiotic life-forms and evolution takes over form there

I don't see how anything immaterial, or for that matter ((free will)), come into play

life is purely physical, consciousness is an illusion of the sheer computation power of your brain

>t. biochemist

>conflating science with the metaphysical theory of physicalism
wew!

>I don't see how anything immaterial, or for that matter ((free will)), come into play
1. what is matter?
2. why start with "matter"?
Consciousness is what we are most intimately aware of. Even if we really are in the matrix and everything you thought was made of matter was just an illusion you would still be conscious and would be aware of that fact. Consciousness is primary and I don't see any reason to add this "matter". It seems like the physicalist would just become a dualist to go further than consciousness.

>that which you use to perceive illusions in the first place is itself an illusion!
dude weed lmao

>conflating science with the metaphysical theory of physicalism
understanding the origin of life holds a lot of clues to what life is
>wew!
nice argument

>what is matter
it's actually quite simple, anything that exhibits property of mass
>why start with matter
you're made up of matter and so is your nervous system

>matrix
dude weed lmao

ian-wardell.blogspot.be/2015/01/science-afterlife-and-intelligentsia.html
Just don't take the sections after 7 too seriously, he doesn't give a reason WHY the mind being something non-physical not produced by the brain is more likely than the mind being something non-physical produced by the brain. (And the bit about a afterlife is pure speculation, it COULD exist but is it not less unlikely than in a physicalist model where you can't yet explain everything about the mind and consciouness)

But at least, it makes a good job at explaining why consciouness is almost certainly something that cannot be scientifically explained.

Now there are a lot of philosophical theories that are between pure physicalism and idealism : property dualism, panpsychism, neutral monism, microphychism, etc...

The main credible criticism against dualism and idealism is that you could say that they have double-standards :
Methological naturalism cannot ever testify some things like consciouness and can only speculate THEN non-emperical* metaphysics are somehow more credible despite being equally speculative.
(and technically even more unless you completely deny the validity of empiricism, which is fine from the viewpoint of many idealists but hardly fair in a neutral debate where physicalism is at least able to prove a lot of tangible things undeniably as long as you accept only a few physicalist axioms, unlike idealism that can never prove tangible things even when you accept all of their axioms)
Undermining your opponent is not making you more credible, especially if you critize him for something you are doing yourself.

*Straight dualists generally don't deny empiricism when only the physical universe is involved but functionally they are the same as idealists when they talk about minds.

Obviously science being limited is not the same thing as philosophical theories about a non-physical mind being automatically more valid, there a few other things that are pretty close to be proven as forever unknowable by science but that doesn't mean you can say God must be responsible for these, this is just a form of the "God of the gap".

All of this only means that theories about minds are simply theories, and most purely physicalist theories of the mind are generally considered bad while many not purely physicalist or even idealist theories of mind are seen as having merit.

You are obviously not forced to believe there is some separate mental reality or that the physical is dependent on it, there are a LOT of in-between theories but they have their own flaws (not a lot of them have the scope of explaining how minds are created) and dualism, even idealism are a lot less stupid than what most people think at first,

>understanding the origin of life holds a lot of clues to what life is
And? that has nothing to do with physicalism. Stop conflating science with physicalism.

>nice argument
My argument is you're conflating science with physicalism. Stop doing that. Do some actual philosophy.

>it's actually quite simple, anything that exhibits property of mass
So the objects you perceive in your dreams are actually made of matter? When I see fairies and dragons in my sleep that exhibit the property of mass they're actual physical objects? If yes you're done. If no then you're telling me there is indeed a distinction between that which exhibits the property of mass and that which is actually physical and thus you have not sufficiently answered the question as to what is matter.

>you're made up of matter and so is your nervous system
So far you haven't even properly defined matter. As I noted before, and you didn't even bother to respond to, we start with consciousness. We are made up of consciousness.

>matrix
That was a thought experiment. Do you even philosophy bro?

There is nothing wrong with less naive forms of physicalism.
Stop confusing "dude, consciouness is the brain, neurology actually know that" with modern forms of physicalism.

And don't bring quantum physics here, you certainly don't actually know about it if you somehow think quantum physics theories are an evidence for dualism or idealism.

Yes there are big problems with physicalism in general as they can't even define physical properly.
It's naïve to believe a lot of physicalists aren't "dude, consciouness is the brain, neurology actually know that". Physicalists will either eliminate consciousness, or play the game of reducible/irreducible. Either way they fail. If they reduce it they face the same issues of eliminativism and are plugging their ears in regards to the hard problem. If they do not reduce it they just face the exclusion problem and all the other mereological paradoxes that come with this new weird dualism that looks just like Descartes dualism but with an emergent twist.

>quantum physics
I didn't bring quantum physics into this. I merely cited a guy who happens to be the father of quantum physics and he believes consciousness to be fundamental. He even gave a philosophical argument for it in the pic I posted.

What's a better alternative really?

i literally only care about money and material things. I have 0 problems that money can't solve atm
how do i stop this

Idealism.

What's wrong with Functionalism?

Isn't that a bit too much to say that the whole physical world must be produced by our consciouness and is kind of a shared self-coherent illusion just because of the body-mind problem?
Theorically you could make a good self-coherent idealist model explaining consciouness but it would be very unlikely to be actually true.
On another note, I know it's mostly only a personal problem but idealism is generally to close to being some kind of spirituality / religion and I don't believe in that kind of things.

Because functionalists are still claiming there is a physical reality, of which they can't even define properly, and that the mind is just a process of or the function of the brain which runs right into the hard problem of consciousness.

>In more detail, the challenge arises because it does not seem that the qualitative and subjective aspects of conscious experience—how consciousness “feels” and the fact that it is directly “for me”—fit into a physicalist ontology, one consisting of just the basic elements of physics plus structural, dynamical, and functional combinations of those basic elements. It appears that even a complete specification of a creature in physical terms leaves unanswered the question of whether or not the creature is conscious. And it seems that we can easily conceive of creatures just like us physically and functionally that nonetheless lack consciousness. This indicates that a physical explanation of consciousness is fundamentally incomplete: it leaves out what it is like to be the subject, for the subject.

Source: iep.utm.edu/hard-con/

>produced by our consciouness
I wouldn't say that. It makes far more sense to think of a cosmic mind that grounds all of existence.

>just because of the body-mind problem?
Though this is an issue in philosophy of mind in particular, this touches a nerve that reaches all the way to the most fundamental nature of existence.

>very unlikely to be actually true.
Why?

>spirituality
Idealism is merely a metaphysical theory about the fundamental nature of existence. If true I believe it would imply a kind of theism though that doesn't mean you have to get all woo woo. This is simply a rational conclusion formed by a valid process of reason and evidence. Truth is truth no matter how weird it may seem.

I tried to think about it but I have nothing to say to be honest.
Where can I learn more about idealism? Sounds interresting.

This article by David Chalmers, particularly the section of Cosmic Idealism, gets at (but doesn't necessarily endorse) some of my main points I've been trying to make.
>Idealism and the Mind-Body Problem
consc.net/papers/idealism.pdf

>Where can I learn more about idealism? Sounds interresting.
/ig/ Idealism General

QUICK RUNDOWN
>Dr. Godehard Bruentrup: What Is Idealism?
youtube.com/watch?v=JDR5i6z4L8c

>In philosophy, idealism is the group of philosophies which assert that reality, or reality as we can know it, is fundamentally mental, mentally constructed, or otherwise immaterial.

ENCYCLOPEDIA ENTRIES
>Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
plato.stanford.edu/entries/idealism/
>Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy
rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/idealism/v-1

ACADEMIC ARTICLES
>Eliminating the Physical
philpapers.org/rec/ELLETP-2
>A New Epistemic Argument for Idealism
philpapers.org/rec/SMIANE-2
>How To Avoid Solipsism While Remaining An Idealist
philpapers.org/rec/HENHTA

BOOKS
>George Berkeley-Principles of Human Knowledge
gutenberg.org/files/4723/4723-h/4723-h.htm
>George Berkeley-Three Dialogues between Hylas and Philonous
gutenberg.org/files/4724/4724-h/4724-h.htm
>John Foster-A World For Us: The Case for Phenomenalistic Idealism
gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=0DB12BBA4A197862E272211B7A059880

YOUTUBE
>The Introspective Argument:
youtube.com/watch?v=4l1lQMCOguw
>Dr. David Chalmers explains why materialism is false:
youtube.com/watch?v=kdbs-HUAxC8
>Why substance dualism is false:
youtube.com/watch?v=iVbG90kr1B0

I'm just a kid

Oh cool I'm saving your post for later, thanks dude.

>There are things beyond matter, I can't prove it but there are.
LMAO

You're welcome. Thanks for the interesting dialogue.

>beyond matter
lol you're thinking of dualism.
Idealism sticks with experience. It's the materialist that is supposing there is this mystery stuff called "matter" that is beyond experience.

So, Idealists think that, if there was no human to experience it, there would be no Moon?

No. An idealist like myself holds that all concrete facts are grounded in facts about the mental states of (or the mentality associated with) a single cosmic entity. This view has strengths stemming from unity and comprehensibility of the fundamental properties, as well as a particularly straightforward story about causal interaction, which comes down to mental-mental interaction in the mind of a single subject and avoids the hard problem of consciousness as well as the problem of mental causation.