Idiots try to argue that the universe isn't deterministic and materialistic

>How do you resolve this?

with further research. every biologist will tell you there is a lot about the brain that isn't well understood.

but a biologist's answer to that is to say "well i wonder how this works / what this does / what will happen if i poke this".

not to say "wooo, it's just so deeeep, we will never understand it, better to just assume that something mystical is happening"

i can't wait til both of your high school classes start back up and i dont have to read such filth

To say something 'comes from' matter is not the same as saying it 'is' matter. For the universe to be entirely materialistic, you'd have to prove that the mind (and not the brain) is composed of matter.

>You're literally like a bunch of zombies.
how ironic, I'm sure there's plenty more atheists who would claim that consciousness is merely an illusion, and that we are 'lumbering robots' as Dawkins would have it

I'm talking about the mind, not the brain. try again.

How the fuck does the mind not come from the brain you fucking retard? Stuff doesn't just happen because it sounds better to you that way, there's logic and order in the universe shut the fuck up you massive blithering retard.

When they figure out why some people are determined to go "woooooo, so deep and mysterious!" Will they finally stop sperging out?

>when idiots try to argue that space and time aren't just a powerful illusion of consciousness

>I'm talking about the mind, not the brain. try again.

oh my dear lord. people like you actually exist

>How the fuck does the mind not come from the brain you fucking retard?
I said nothing of the sort. I merely said that they are two distinct things. try again.

>there's logic and order in the universe shut the fuck up you massive blithering retard.
there's logic, and there's order, and then there's ranting and raving until you feel like you've proved someone wrong. I think we can all guess which type you fall into.

historical materialism does not require the absurdity that is philosophical materialism

You mean cartesians? Yes, it is definitely absurd that there are people who have beliefs different to yours, surrounding one of the most persistent metaphysical problems of our age. And yet, here I am!

>everything is made of atoms
concepts and emotions-as-phenomena aren't made of atoms

damn, Im so a legs man.

>Optics are atoms

why are your atoms so angry? change them for chill atoms.

I can't believe I live in a world with religious people, it's something that I have never stopped being upset about for as long as I can remember. I wish that I was born in a society that wasn't based on people's own egoism and superstitions and "beliefs", but based on science and understanding. Yeah, no, there's you're sentence to deconstruct into some barf of a reply, that last one I just made, but if you wanna know the core of what makes me pissed off about the world, without your intrusion of some crack pot meta physical notions of spirituality and "energy", there you go. There's obviously something fundamentally wrong with your brain if you can't see where I'm coming from, and if you really think that putting in explanations of things that are too big for you to understand with fake answers is logic.

>everything is made of atoms
Light isn't made of atoms, lots of things aren't. But assuming you mean everything is made of matter, that us also not true. Everything you can detect with your senses is matter. How can you know something doesn't exist if you have no way of sensing it. Have you measured anything to prove determinism or to refute free will?

>LIGHT ISN'T MADE OF ATOMS, GOD EXISTS! BTFO ATHEISTS WAHAHAHAHA
I wish that I could just line you all up and smash your heads with a sledge hammer like a water melon.

Science and religion are not mutually exclusive, friend.

>without this thing which thinks

You're making the mistake of assuming the process of thinking is not just as materialistic as anything else. Ghost in the machine, by Gilbert Riley.

...

>I wish that I was born in a society that wasn't based on people's own egoism and superstitions and "beliefs", but based on science and understanding

You know the western world is largely secular, right? Most people of faith are cultural believers rather than dogmatic theists. You're trying to engender an antagonism between faith and science which doesn't really exist anymore. Many people believe that their faith is wholly compatible with scientific knowledge.

You know mutually exclusive means one in the same, to conflate science and religion. I was not conflating science and religion, nowhere in that entire post did I conflate science and religion at all.

Where the matter comes from?
did someone put it there? is a big simulation as some scientists say?

>You know mutually exclusive means one in the same
just stop posting

Well people who believe this are deluding themselves and merely accept science because it's in the realm of mainstream knowledge that everyone hears about, but so is religion. It's as though you give all those people credit for being knowledgeable, they're not. This is why the scientific community has so many atheists.

I think we've all been had by a convincing troll.

>all been had
>convincing troll.

the only way this makes sense as a post is if you're op just doing weird cuck damage control

go back to rebbit, summer

It's been seriously proposed that "stuff" has just always existed. Creating and destroying are largely human notions of re-arranging matter, and nobody has known matter to be created from nothing through any means.
Besides, if some supernatural force created the matter, then you're still stuck with the assumption that the supernatural force, rather than the matter, has just always existed

Yeah, and we call that supernatural force God.

On a two-dimensional plane, a 2-D observer, looking at a sphere passing through the plane in front of them, would see first a dot, then a steadily growing arc, then a shrinking arc after the circumference has passed through, a dot, then nothing.

Likewise, how do you think we, living in three supposed spatial dimensions, would perceive a four-dimensional body* that happened to pass through our world? Perhaps it would (like the photon) appear to be sometimes a wave and sometimes a particle, or both or neither?

Thereby potentially qualifying "religious" phenomena as logically explainable; science and religion must cohere for religion to make any sense, they don't necessarily have to contradict each other.

*which must be qualified by saying that if higher spatial dimensions than the 3rd exist, we logically must have them but be unable to perceive them, as (by analogy) there's no such thing as anything truly 2-D in this world, since we can perceive a 3rd dimension to it, no matter how small this dimension to it is --- like a line drawing of a square on a paper, with a microscope, would have tiny ink or graphite particles giving it depth besides just length and width.

I used to think like that. I studied physics in college and was a hardcore atheist materialist. This is the book that finally planted a seed of doubt in my mind. I resisted it, but it opened my eyes to a whole new way of looking at science and materialism. I'm not kidding, it's the most compelling book I've read. It's very short but incredibly dense and erudite. I havent really seen Barfield mentioned here but I think you guys would really be able to appreciate it.

I think you're missing the essential point I was trying to make. I wasn't claiming that mental states are separable from physical states, but rather in order to prove the existence of the material world, you have to acknowledge the existence of something - material or otherwise - that perceives and comprehends it. But perception in itself isn't 'material', only the network of neurons in the brain which gives rise to it. It always baffles me when scientists proclaim that consciousness is an 'illusion', but then fail to say what it is that is actually being deceived.

>athiests who argue yet havent read basic theology 101

Eeew

At the risk of sounding trite, then who created god?
You're still stuck with the assumption that god has existed forever, or sprang forth from nothing, which seems a harder position to argue than the same for matter, since matter is observable

The question is not only "when" the matter was created , the question is also why. Or if there is no why and we are here just for the lols (some amoral faggs love this answer).

There are some catholics and muslim philosophers taking on that kind of questions. Some are really good ideas.

>implying it matters that God should follow the "rules" of matter

That's the point of God. He's the ultimate, the omniscient, the omnipresent, no limitations, end of the line.

>which gives rise to it

Yeah. There's your mistake. The brain doesn't "create" consciousness, consciousness is just the way we describe the processes of the brain. Consciousness isn't an illusion, the illusion people have is that they treat it as something separate. Consciousness is just countless millions of connections firing constantly. It's the details we don't understand.

I can't explain it very well, I'm not an expert in this field. I would really recommend reading Gilbert Ryle.
s-f-walker.org.uk/pubsebooks/pdfs/Gilbert_Ryle_The_Concept_of_Mind.pdf

Reading the rest of this thread, it reeks of summer. I'm very disappointed in you, Veeky Forums

That looks very interesting, I am definitely going to read it. Thanks for sharing.

>merely accept science because it's in the realm of mainstream knowledge that everyone hears about, but so is religion

And why should the same not be applicable for you? Have you independently examined and assessed all of the available data for each and every scientific principle you believe in?

If you haven't, then you're almost definitely taking some of those 'facts' for granted. That isn't to say they aren't true, just that you're grounding your understanding of the world upon things which you haven't rationally concluded yourself - IE, you're taking them on the basis of faith alone.

This doesn't prove you argument at all, you, fucking, pseud. Kill yourself and take your religion with you.

>But perception in itself isn't 'material', only the network of neurons in the brain which gives rise to it
Not the user you're responding to, but im curious as to why you don't think this answers your own question. "Perception" doesn't refer to some extra process that is operating outside of all these other processes of sensation, it's emergent from the systems already at play. The extant systems interact, and the result is more than the sum of it's parts, that doesn't necessarily mean that there is an extra explainable part, just that all these systems are complicated enough to process inputs from the others, via hormones for example

i second Barfield, nice to see another fan on here :)

These are just crossposters who originated from these likely places:

>r9k
>v

>mind and brain are different things

they really should crank up the science programme in middle school.
i believe even booknerds have the right to know the truth about the universe and human beings and not live in some delusional muh metaphysics world

plato.stanford.edu/entries/two-dimensional-semantics/supplement.html

The split between compatibilists and deterministic between philosophers is pretty even.

It's almost like non materialistic views of the world are philosophically viable and thriving.

This is a general problem I've noticed with Veeky Forums (although it hardly stops at Veeky Forums). You reason yourself to a philosophical position and then act as if everyone is stupid who doesn't agree, but this is said in complete ignorance of what is actually happening in philosophy. Moral nihilism, determinism and materialism are all good philosophical positions to have, but they are not a) so obvious that everyone who doesn't see it is an idiot, and they are not b) without substantial opposition from a huge proportion of the philosophic community. As an example it seems that almost everyone here is some sort of moral nihilist. It's just assumed to be correct by a great many users here. But only about 1/4 of ethicists are moral nihilists, with 3/4 being moral realists. Either you think you are so smart you that your reasoning cuts through that 3/4, that those 3/4 are stupid or you are ignorant of the fact of and the arguments of the 3/4.

Gurdjieff's views can fit perfectly with OP's. You should check him out, or Ouspensky.

If your mind and brain are the same thing, think your heart into stop beating for a few seconds.

now this is shitposting

I don't really see anything amoral about not being able to answer the question of why. All life seeks to protect and carry itself on. It doesn't strike me as a difference between edgy and moral whether you love your family and friends as a higher spiritual thing, or as a herd instinct or protecting instinct because they make you happy for instance. People bring that up a lot as an argument for human selfishness and baseness pretty frequently, but I think it's a very romantic ideal to say "your happiness is my happiness ..." and so on. Sincerely not baiting, why are you so negative on the idea that purpose might not be assigned?

I'm not them, but you're a fucking idiot.

Tibetan Buddhist monks can do that.

I think it's because people treat philosophical ideas as ideologies. Which is really fucking stupid.

>hey mom
>i watched this video about Decartes on CrashCourse™ Philosophy

>The brain doesn't "create" consciousness, consciousness is just the way we describe the processes of the brain
I'm no neuroscientist, but 'consciousness' isn't the total sum of processes in the brain, right? The majority of what goes on in there are processes related to unconscious bodily functions - keeping our heart beating, causing the production of hormones, etc. - none of which have anything directly to do with the phenomenal experience of consciousness. I dunno, it just seems like a generalisation too far: it treats the mind as an object to be observed from the outside, but in the process excludes our most intimate understanding of the mind as subject.

Thanks for the rec though - its always a pleasure to find material which challenges your way of thinking.

I'm actually an atheist. You're just very easy to wind up.

Maybe it might serve you better to stop being so dogmatic and lighten up?

Just getting into philosophy, reading the Greeks. Can you tell me the difference? Im curious

>the result is more than the sum of it's parts
this is the problem for me, I think. I can readily accept that consciousness is an emergent property of the systems and structures present in the brain, but what I find hard to fathom is the leap from consciousness as a description of these processes, to how consciousness really is for me, that is to say, in the first person - I suppose you could call it a problem of induction.

>2016
>Kantians still exist

Mary the Color Scientist BTFOs materialism

There wasn't anything distinctively 'Kantian' about that post, friend.

Amen brother, you speak the Truth!

But is perception equivalent to knowledge?

Regardless of whether or not it is knowledge it is a distinct "thing" that is immaterial

Immediate, intuitive knowledge; not discursive, conceptual knowledge.

Science deprives the ''one'' it's Otherness. Beings and Things are deprived of their qualitative substance - they become matter or exemplar.

OP is a great example of the retardation this reduction and uniformication of all existance creates.

The ironic thing is that Zombies is the name for a huge problem in the phisicalist account of the mind.
Quick recommendation for all anons in the thread Philosophy of the Mind by Edward Feser is an excellent introduction to the subject.
There's far more to it than pure determinism vs cartesians, there are 30 or so major theories on the problems.
It also covers why the position that science will do x in y time is retarded, which is crucial for the OP

I encourage all fedoras on this board to read the Dialectic of Enlightement. Atleast have some self-awareness before preaching.

Only because I would say you're not "supposed" to sincerely believe in any one philosophical concept-they've all been critiqued to death. I study it more as an art than as a science, because I love the logic, the display of intelligence, figuring out the flaws of stuff myself and almost having conversations with geniuses that died centuries ago.

In ideologies, it's very illogical to sincerely believe in one, because they've all been critiqued to death too, but people believe in them anyway. Usually because they ignore the criticism. In ideology, I take less issue with that attitude because of the practical reasons we have ideologies-you can't have a society without them. When people have that dogmatic position in philosophy, though, all they're doing is closing themselves off from learning about the rest. That's all you're supposed to do. Learn, not believe.

>one of the most persistent metaphysical problems of our age

uh huh. and do you believe in ghosts, too?

>the universe is deterministic
>scientists still can't tell what the weather will be like 2 weeks from now

hearty kek

>le science
Bad bait.

Logical intuition / reason in humans strongly suggests, to me, that humans are aware of an immaterial aspect of reality.

The fact that material things exist suggest an aspect of reality which transcends even this (as existence is illogical).

In summary I believe there are at least three tiers of existence discernible from a human perspective: the material, the logical/mathematical/structural, and the tier from which these emanate. Since this statement already assumes at the outset an observer-observing-the-world structure, I am suspicious of its consistency. It also does not consider the possibility of a material universe in which material is in some sense eternal (and therefore its own cause).

For some reason the other day I suddenly had the thought:

"The soul yearns in a specific and immaterial direction. The body experiences bodily sensations. By directing the body in a certain way in the physical world, the soul moves in a certain way in the immaterial. Reason allows the mind to discern what the 'soul motions' corresponding to a series of bodily motions is. If the person elects to move the body towards bodily pleasure, even when the reason indicates that the soul will move in the opposite direction of its yearning, the soul experiences pain. A person is a body, a soul, a reason and a will. "

I'm not at all convinced that this is true but it was a very strange sort of spontaneous idea which has a certain amount of tidiness to it.

Yes they are, all relevant religions reject empiricism

Thanks for the cringe.
Surely with science you should be able to explain differing opinions, no? Not everyone chooses to sink into revenge and spite when they can't find something absolute to hold onto. You're angry because you don't have any hope, so you're choice is to tear down the hope of others. It's really just pathetic.

Science isn't empiricism.

This is what I was trying to put my finger on. Good post user.

If by Ghosts you mean Kafka's writing ghosts, in which case yes.

(not him)
They are not exactly equivalent, sure. Science refers to a collection of fields of human inquiry that share an academic and experimental methodology. The experimental methodology (the scientific method) which lies at its heart nonetheless relies on an assumption of (among other things) empiricism, which is a philosophical position on how one can obtain valid knowledge.

The task of science isn't to say what nature is, but to determine what we can say about nature.

Which means that science is not empiricism.

Haha

Modern science is empiricism.

Daily reminder that science is not a belief system and is only a method of investigation.

>have consciousness thread on Veeky Forums
>told to come to Veeky Forums
>you fuckers are actually more autistic
>mfw

It's not because not everything, in fact a lot of it doesn't lie on empiricism, it isn't tested and repeated in a lab.
A glorified false image is for some it seems.

Not realizing life is a mapping of loops, with agents having the ability to enter or leave different loops at any point in your perceived time with the inevitable reality that all loops will come to a close before repeating.

The Greatest Conceivable Being logically exists; what else would one define as God?

The foundation of your argument assumes the false dichotomies of determinism vs free will and science vs. religion, but I'm hoping that was just bait.

>you're made of atoms

correct.

>everything is made of atoms

wrong, non-baryonic matter exists.

>everything that exists as matter is governed by the laws of physics

correct but tautological

>the laws of physics are predictable

see above

>everything is determined by the laws of physics since the beginning of time

see above

blah blah blah you have one correct statement and a bunch of nonsequiturs and tautologies, what was your point.

science is a process, not a thing.
it does not have a "task".