Thread 16806902

Seriously, how low your IQ and how rotten your brain needs to be believe in this kind of shit?
>'all things are exclusively physical including your mind'
>easily refuted by pointing out that the proposition itself expresses linguistic meaning, which itself is not derived from physical properties
The fact that today most of the scientists advocate for this 'doctrine' really explains why there is an ongoing stagnation in science for decades

You know how 4chan used to be full of people pretending to be idiots for fun, which down the line invited actual idiots to the place?
Similar story here. Physicalism was a tool wielded against the persectution from the Church, not a serious philosophy.
But now that we're long past the time when you can be killed for blasphem, many people didn't get the memo and actually believe this gobbedygook for real.
Bonus is that physicalism pretends not to be metaphysics (it is) and pretends to be responsible for scientific advancements (it isn't).

>>16806902 (OP)
>>easily refuted by by pointing out that the proposition-
OP, i mean how exactly this is a correct refutation? how semantics is even involved in this???

this thread is a fucking analytic idealism propaganda

>>16806902 (OP)
>the proposition itself expresses linguistic meaning, which itself is not derived from physical properties
That's a claim. Prove it or kys.

>>16806902 (OP)
I think you meant atheistic materialism, like Baron D'holbach.

Linguistics is caused by our ability to create names and associate them with physical elements that we can sense. This ability is all due to our brain structure, but that's a very complex subject that I have no expertise.

With your second proposition, are you considering the linguistics a paranormal thing?

>>16807006
NTA but physicalism is literally rebranded materialism, because 100-ish years ago they could no longer claim that "everything is matter" and be taken seriously.

>>16806974
>>how is this a correct refutation?
how is it not? the proposition itself carries linguistic meaning, which is a non-physical entity. simple as that
>>b-but semantics..
what are you even talking about? whats wrong with it? it's just logical to think that the proposition carrying self-referential inconherence is just nonsensical. For example someone stating 'there is no such thing as a language' is considered absurd, since stating this requires the one to use the language. Same goes for the aforementioned statement.

>>16807020
>could no longer claim that "everything is matter" and be taken seriously.

You say that because Einstein's equation or what? Would it be Matter x Energy?

>>16807006
>>linguistics is caused by out ability to create names and associate them with physical elements what we can sense
no proof whatsoever. also linguistics is not essentially associated with sensing physical elements. It's highly abstract and mental, not physical

>>16806995
Where's your proof, OP? Running away?

>>16807042
>>linguistics is caused by out ability to create names and associate them with physical elements what we can sense
>no proof
destroy the brain and the person will stop speaking (and living)

>>16807049
Whoops

>>16807050
yeah, some pic proves something. maybe give a more objective and reliable source?

>>16806995
linguistics being physical is just absurd. how can something immaterial, intentional, that can not be localized physically in the brain be considered as a material thing or sth derived from matter?

>>16807054
>that can not be localized physically in the brain
how so? that we can't right now do it doesn't prove that it isn't possible

>>16807049
by that logic, destroying the brain would shut down the consciousness. does that mean that consciousness is identical with the brain?

>>16807054
Argument from personal incredulity. Try again.

>>16807057
>destroying the brain would shut down the consciousness. does that mean that consciousness is identical with the brain?
are you implying afterlife, anon? consciousness and the brain have a relationship, brain causes consciousness, simple as that. no brain = no consciousness. although i think we can replicate it (AGI)

>>16807056
nor does it prove that linguistics is caused and derived from matter.
also how can something immaterial and mental be derived from matter? those 2 are entirely distinct entities

>>16807062
Anyone who tells you the current AI boom is even on the right track towards AGI is lying to sell you something.

>>16807066
no humans = no linguistics, if we don't consider animals to have linguistics too
>how can something immaterial and mental be derived from matter?
??? what exactly are you speaking about, anon? how our brains works? i'm not a neuroscientist nor a cognitive scientist

>>16807062
>>are you implying afterlife,anon?
no
>>brain causes consciousness
and how? how are those 2 interconnected? the qualia is not just neuronal impulses. With so much technology we are not able to localize that very experience itself. read knowledge argument

>>16807050
>>16807052
found the article myself

Feuillet L, Dufour H, Pelletier J. Brain of a white-collar worker. Lancet. 2007 Jul 21;370(9583):262. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61127-1. PMID: 17658396.

well awesome case, but he still has his brain(s). not destroyed (almost)

>>16807042
>no proof whatsoever
Why the other animals don't speak? Why children don't speak? Why, after a certain age, if we don't learn how to speak we lose that ability (see the "feral children"). All that points out that language is derived by brain, and that's a particularity of human's intellect.

Language is only possible with physical elements involved, as light (for writing) and sound (for speaking). It's not paranormal.

>>16806902 (OP)
How much chromosomes do you have? 3? 4?

>>16807050
He still has 10%. This is just a exception. Lose yourself 90% brain and you'll never have a normal life again.

With neuroscience, we can learn about his case. With paranormal false knowledge, we can't learn absolutely nothing.

i like how this thread is not outright /b/-trolling

but this >>16807079 fucking bastard...

>>16807074
Brain causes consciousness, since without a brain no thought is possible, and you have no memory before brain was developed.

>>16807082
This thread is retarded.
Explain to me how your mind can exist without your brain? Oh, it can't! So yes, your mind needs physical hardware (brain) to function.

>>16807074
>how are those 2 interconnected?
neural correlation of consciousness??? though this topic is still an ongoing research

>>16807087
>before brain was developed
*** before your brain was developed

>muh consciousness is not in the brain
These retards need to be shot in the head, since they say their consciousness isn't there anyway.

>>16807078
>>Why the animals dont speak?
They have linguistic apparatus, just not being able to speak doesnt mean they are linguistically incapable.
>>All that points to the language being derived from brain
Then why is it so problematic and hard for us to localize it in the brain with so many technological advancements?

Also animals do not have consciousness despite having the brain. If brain causes consciousness why dont they have it? Also if they are really conscious how would we arrive at the conclusion that they are in fact conscious?

>can you show me the process of consciousness?
>No
>can you show me which memory is stored where?
>No
>what CAN you show me?
>uh, this approximate area lights up when the patient experiences something
>oh, and it's consistent?
>Welllll....
Neuroscience solved religion, guys.

>>16807107
What a stupid post. You should feel ashamed.

>>16807087
>>You have no memory before brain was developed
Do you remember being in your mother's womb?

>>16807107
>1500 AC
>can you show me earth orbiting the sun?
>no
heliocentrism solved, guys. oh wait, it is really solved with our telescopes, physics, and astronomy!

>>16807105
Our "technological advancements" are not as good as you think they are. The brain is the most complicated thing we know of. We are barelly scratching the surface when we talk about how the brain works.
Don't act like humans are so advanced that we should know everything. There are lots of things we will not be able to explain in the next 500 years.

>>16807107
If I zap your pMFC you'll refuse God and love niggers, it's reproducible.

>>16807116
Yeah, people really tend to overestimate medical science. We're still mostly taking guesses for the digestive tract, and the brain is even worse. I'm not saying it's not worth continuing, but TODAY a claim that "science proves that consciousness is physical" is as much of unsubstantiated hocus pocus as every other belief.
>but we can extrapolate from...
...from exactly nothing. These people are not extrapolating and are not using the scientific method. They picked a side and want it to be correct, like literally everyone else.

>>16807105
You didn't spoke about infant's inability of speaking, which is important because it shows how brain development is necessary to create language.

About animal's consciousness: we should define consciousness before proceeding, but that's tricky. I'll do a shortcut by considering consciousness intrinsically relatable to language and that it requires the idea of "I", "you", "we" and "they", the notion of time (past, present and future) and the idea of an action. Since animal's brain isn't as developed as ours, they can't develop neither two. Their "linguistic apparatus" isn't complex to say that they have a consciousness (maybe dolphins, killer whales, crows, parrots, octupus and some highly intelligent animals have a rudimentary consciousness).

It's as simple as that.

>>16807111
Of course not. That's what I was saying.

>>16807125
the most sane answer in this thread, nice one, anon

>>16807125
>from exactly nothing
You're just refuting without a cause. Tell us what is you're big theory about the origin of the mind, since it's not with the birth of the brain. Elaborate to us your revolutionary idea.

>>16807125
One thing we know for sure: no physical brain = no mind.
And please don't start some voodoo claims that the mind can exist without a physical body.

The brain is the hardware, the mind is the software. Hardware can exist without software but software can't exist without hardware.

>>16807144
I don't know and I won't pretend I do. And refuting? There would first need to be a sufficiently substantiated claim to refute.

>>16807105
>Then why is it so problematic and hard for us to localize it in the brain with so many technological advancements?

Perhaps the language is caused by different parts of the brain, making it harder to find a specific area? It's know that the brain can "tranpose" fucntions to different areas, I think this is called !plasticity" of the brain.

Maybe what is slowing the discoveries is the bioethics involved with research. We can't do whatever we want with subjects.

>>16807149
>>the brain is the hardware, the mind is the software
You are just using analogies retarded faggot, provide an actual explanation.

>Op: physicalism is false!
>fails to give proof
This retarded thread has already ended.

>>16807154
>retarded faggot
You run out of arguments so you switch to personal attacks?

>>16807152
If you have no theory, why do you go to the most absurd idea as paranormal origin of the mind, instead of accepting the simple one, which has no flaw? All flaws you pointed got refuted and you just ignored them.

>>16807161
Because paranormal of today could be a science of tomorrow, and your current understanding may one day be considered primitive.
Thunder used to be divine or "paranormal" in the past. Alchemy used to be respected. Diseases used to be thought of as curses.
Believing your still budding framework of today is "the answer" is simply arrogant and closed-minded.

Troll thread

>>16806902 (OP)
>easily refuted by pointing out that the proposition itself expresses linguistic meaning, which itself is not derived from physical properties
You're not supposed to examine this part. They will tell you that if you try to study the telescope or even acknowledge the existence of telescopes for their astronomy science, its anti-science and racist.

>>16806902 (OP)
>which itself is not derived from physical properties
proof?

>>16807054
>how can something immaterial
Linguistics are memories stored between synapses. Prove first that linguistics can exist outside of the human brain.
>intentional
Meaningless.
>that can not be localized physically in the brain
... yet.

>>16806902 (OP)
You refute that all things are exclusively physical including your mind? Alright then, take away the entire nervous system and see if there still exists a mind seperate from this.
I dare you to prove it. A reply to this, or a post which could easily be traced to the same person who posted this would indicate that you are a pussy. A lack thereof would either mean that you tried to prove idealism by removing your nervous system, or that you're also a pussy, but too afraid to admit it. Either way, it's a pretty good way to shut you the fuck up

>>16807606
Ohohoho fookin' rikt

>>16807598
>>16807593
>>16807606
>>linguistics are memories stored between synapses
and how is the memory of language different from the different kinds of other memories such as memory of something visual, fundamentallyl?
>>prove first that linguistics can exist outside brain
>>muh see.. just remove entire brain bro
Saying to remove the physical part of brain would damage someone's mental capacities is a weak argument. For example,by just removing some physical portion of brain, regardless of any localization, would cause some kind of disorder. But how is that sufficient enough to explain the origin of something mental?
Take the example of numbers. when you think of the number '37', it's correlated in some part of your brain right? but if someone asked you to prove if numbers exists in reality, and you pointed on the neural firings corresponding of it, would made your argument circular. It's just saying 'you see something because there are some processes going on in your retina'

>>16807593
>>>16807156
I dont understand, since when it has become necessary for philosophical doctrine to provide some experimental proof. Science is descriptive, whereas philosophy is normative. Physicalism assumes everything in the universe including your mind can be reduced to physical laws and matter. How can science prove wrong this when its essential nature is literally descriptive, which depends on empirical laws and experience?

>>16807629
>and how is the memory of language different from the different kinds of other memories such as memory of something visual, fundamentallyl?
It isn't.
>Take the example of numbers. when you think of the number '37', it's correlated in some part of your brain right?
When I generate a number in a computer program, that program needs to represent that number somehow using memory. So the number "37" does not exist until the program stores it.
Our brain is functionally identical.

>>16807643
>>Our brain is functionally identical to the computer
Are you assuming that the brain is a kind of algorithm like a computer?

>>16807645
A computer has functionally similar qualities that do away with the unneeded complexities to understand objects.

>>16807643
>>Numbers are identical with physical properties of brain
Philosophically incompatible. Where do the numbers in reality, physically as an entity exist? You cant point out number 5 on anything in a physical world. It just does not exist, it's a part of mental world not of physical. If the physical world were to disappear, the number would still exist

>>16807643
>>Brain is functionally identical with computer
There are some issues going on here. First, computer is a thing which functions algorithmically. When we for example ask computer to speak in english, it won't go on and think in english. It firstly go on algorithmically step-by-step to find in its storage the compartment associated semantically with 'english language' and try to derive the words. For the computer the words dont pose any significance, its just symbols and semantics.
Whereas the brain is morphogenetically changeable object. It is not programmed to function in a step-by-step manner, algorithmically deriving meanings just from manipulating meaningless semantics.

>>16807661
>Where do the numbers in reality, physically as an entity exist?
They don't. Your brain's way of comprehending something does not make it exist outside of your brain.
>If the physical world were to disappear, the number would still exist
According to who?

>>16807674
>>According to who?
Numbers exist mentally and not physically which can be proved by a simple experiment(as i emphasised above)
>>Your brain's way of comprehending something
So everything existent in outside world is just a projection of the brain? How do we then make distinction between what is real and what is not? It's epistemologically incoherent.

>>16807691
>Numbers exist mentally and not physically
Linguistic knot, mental and physical are not mutually exclusive in this context. 'Number' is the sum of synapses associated with that concept.
>So everything existent in outside world is just a projection of the brain?
That's outside the scope of the conversation. What's being talked about is whether concepts exist in the absence of thought.

If no thoughts remained, numbers would cease to exist.
Declaring that things are still countable in the absence of an observer that may count is paradoxical.

>Actually, the brain is a computer!
Oh for fuck's sake, this line might be the absolute peak of Dunning-Kruger effect. It shows a profound lack of knowledge on both logic circuits and neuroscience.
Be a physicalist, that's fine, but when you waltz in with the computer brain line, you just announce that your education comes from r/atheism soience rather than any real source.

>>16806902 (OP)
>Seriously, how low your IQ and how rotten your brain needs to be believe in this kind of shit?
When I came to this board, over ten years ago, no one on this board even knew what idealism was and I was called "schizo" for at least 5 years before even one person understood it, even after I had spoonfed it to the people here for that entire 5 years. After 7 years 3 or 4 people finally started to understand and only now, nearly ten years later are more than a handful of people starting to understand it. People arent going to be able to adhere to an idea with no knowledge of what that idea even is so saying it is "low IQ" is a bit hyperbolic. Ignorant perhaps but smart believe stupid shit all the time, especially if they know nothing of the alternative modes of thought on the topics they believe stupid shit about. If you are presented all the proofs and arguments and simply cant grasp it, then yah, you can go ahead and call them low IQ

>>16807710
Physicalism as a belief system has been slowly waning since the 2022 Nobel prize in physics.

>>16807697
>>Mental and physical are not mutually exclusive in this context
How so? Ontologically speaking how can number be derived from matter? It cannot be both at the same time
>>Numbers are just neuronal synapses
As i said earlier, explaining the sight by emphasizing how some molecules moving in your retina cause it to do so is just an elaboration of the same issue but in a different domain(circular argument). Likewise the explanation of how the numbers exist by some neural impulses provides no plausible explanation

>>16807714
Kek as i see it more and more people start to advocate for physicalism

>>16807699
By the way, a myriad of neuroscientists regard brain as some kind of program, algorithmically designed object which seems so bizarre to me

>>16807697
>>If no thoughts remained, numbers would cease to exist
Of course. I didnt even assume the contrary. I said the numbers are not physically localizable objects. You cant point to number 5 or 6, or associate it with some physical object since it exists outside of physical realm. Essentially i ask: how can something outside of physical realm can just be 'sum of neuronal synapses, just a memory' when the object itself(the number) is so different from the originating thing(the brain)?

>>16807735
>How so? Ontologically speaking how can number be derived from matter?
Concepts (like numbers) are mental constructs. Mental constructs are physically represented as synapses.
>As i said earlier, explaining the sight by emphasizing how some molecules moving in your retina cause it to do so is just an elaboration of the same issue but in a different domain(circular argument).
I think you're trying to appeal to the hard problem of consciousness?
Invoking it directly is a better vector of attack against physicalism than talking about mental concepts vs. physical concepts.

>>16807752
>how can something outside of physical realm can just be 'sum of neuronal synapses, just a memory' when the object itself(the number) is so different from the originating thing(the brain)?
Computers use 0s and 1s to represent all kinds of objects, so I don't understand the question.

>>16807801
What you are saying makes absolutely no sense. I can not believe it took so long for anyone to point this out, but I will. You keep talking about how numbers can be pointed out to our neural circuits/synapses; that is like saying, inherently, the thing which causes something is that something, which is a fallacy. So is our synapse a number? of course it isn't -- our neurons simply communicate through synaptic connections, but that does not make the synapse the number. And how do you know that the same synapse can not just be multifunctional? Would it also be a toaster, a number and a dog? When I imagine a dog, is there a dog living inside my brain? No, because that literally makes no sense. Also your point and affirmative stance that "no brain = no mind" is also false. Just because the body and brain seize to function when you die, does not mean the mind has not manifested itself in another form of dependency. Explain to me how you can even disprove that? If you claim that by neuroimaging they can see which areas light up, meaning a dependency, that would not disprove what I am saying at all; it would actually further solidify my argument. Physicalism/materialism is a psyop, and you fell for it. The position of absurdity is yours, not ours.

>>16807953
>So is our synapse a number?
More or less.
>our neurons simply communicate through synaptic connections,
The arrangement of synaptic connections make for information.
An arrangement of bits on a computer can similarly make a car. It's an abstraction for an identity.
>And how do you know that the same synapse can not just be multifunctional?
The exact way your brain works is irrelevant to the argument.
The crux of the matter is that information can be reduced to a physical property.
The physical property of "number" is a neural network of intuition that tells you how numbers operate. The concept of "numbers" does not exist outside of that framework, even if it feels like counting the number of stars in the universe not contingent on subjectivity.
>Just because the body and brain seize to function when you die, does not mean the mind has not manifested itself in another form of dependency.
You could be walking into quack-territory with that string of words, so be careful. Everything we know about the mind shows a strong causal relationship between the physical state of your brain and consciousness.

>>16807953
>Explain to me how you can even disprove that?
That fact that you think it can't be disproved should tell you how empty of content your claim is. This is why no one takes you seriously.

>>16807977
1. Our synapse are synapses, not a number, so that is objectively false. You say computers using bits and pieces present a car, but that is no where near the same thing at all. When a computer presents a car it is using physical light due to electrical impulses, prompts and commands (which are all electrical in essence) to present something real and tangible, but it is not actually showing a car, but rather a representation. Our brain does not do that, nor does it have a 3d projection to the world what I am imagining; it is subjective to me, and that is fundamental to my personalized conscious experience, which is by definition not my brain but my mind 3: You keep making the fallacy that the cause is the effect, a process of a neuron is not the number itself; why is that so hard to understand? 4: A strong correlation for mind and brain is irrelevant, the argument is not about that; the argument is subjective exists and how your mind is not your brain. So I do not know why you keep constantly repeating the same incoherent things?

>>16806902 (OP)
>The fact that today most of the scientists advocate for this 'doctrine' really explains why there is an ongoing stagnation in science for decades


real

>>16808178
>When a computer presents a car it is using physical light due to electrical impulses, prompts and commands (which are all electrical in essence) to present something real and tangible, but it is not actually showing a car, but rather a representation. Our brain does not do that, nor does it have a 3d projection to the world what I am imagining

Says who?

Now you mind over matter guys know exactly how the brain functions do you, when your main cope for claiming that the mind isn't physical is that we don't know exactly how the brain produces the mind?

Not OP but the problem I see with the "oh without a physical brain there are no thoughts" argument is that it doesn't suppose for emergent, non-physical behavior to occur - granted, you could just call this semantics and reclassify that as physicalist too, but that's where I'd disagree

>>16806902 (OP)
this follows trivially from the evolution of the human brain.

>>16810056
Explain non-physical behaviour, what do you mean with that?

>>16810066
I suppose in one sense you could say it's begging the question but the framework of emergence allows for stuff like a soul to exist, while simultaneously allowing for it to not exist when a body is destroyed

>>16807740
yeah and they thought the universe worked like a giant clock too when clocks were the best technology object you could find laying around

>>16810076
>begging the question
into the trash it goes!

>>16807661
>it's a part of mental world not of physical. If the physical world were to disappear, the number would still exist
I learned somewhat recently other animals have portions of their brains dedicated to numerical literacy.

This is just a proxied existence versus essence argument, though.

>>16810079
I mean the entire argument is a semantics game if you want to reduce it down to that level, the physicalist "argument" has similar holes

>>16810109
>>other animals have portions of their brains dedicated to numerical literacy
how was that proved? in 18th century, there was this horse named 'clever hans' who could answer basically numerical questions like 'what equals two plus two' based not on his numerical literacy but on observer's body language

>>16809915
it's actually physicalists cope. when they are cornered into answering basic questions like 'how do mind originated from brain, how and where is qualia physically located' they just go and answer that science is not advanced enough to discover it. it's just a nice, entirely delusional cover-up to promote this utterly religious bullshit. historically we know functionalism, behaviorism and like which were just subsets of materialism proved to be wrong due to its abnormally reductionist view. Right now the same is occuring but instead brain is perceived as some sort of computer

how important is it exactly if qualia is physical or nonphysical? basically everyone whom i heard claim latter went on to make random claims about the consciousness residing in the aether and the like.

>>16806902 (OP)
Who cares, why instead of attempting to ridicule (strawmen of) atheists ideas you don't just for once for all MAKE YOUR MAGICAL ETHEREOUS GHOST ****APPEAR**** IN THE REAL WORLD, PHYSICALLY AND INCONTESTABLY.

People have the right to ask for this since, if it is TRUE that the ghost aboves FORCEFULLY AND INFALLIBILY EXISTS then it should be VERY EASY to produce it.

>>16810505
It's metaphysics chud. That means I don't have to do anything and I can just say anything and you'll have to agree because my axioms state that I am right a priori and you will burn in hell for disagreeing with me and following the religion of scientism.

>>16810502
if qualia is physical then the hard problem of consciousness disappears.

>>16810572
yes, that would be it. it's an definitely interesting problem because qualia is quite intriguing, but i don't think the fact it remains and might always be unsolved means we should talk about unicorns and magic or act like studying the brain is pointless.

>>16810505
Brain broken retard trapped in the bowels of physicalism. Sad!

>>16810598
tell us about the empirical proof of the soul, anon, and where it is located

>>16810629
Truly entombed in physicalism you are if you think an immaterial substance can have a location. Sad!

>>16810637
what's that, no empirical proof? tough. whenever you post empirical proof I'll think about engaging, until then, I sleep

>>16810629
>>16810646
>the e-word
you committed le heckin scientism! back to philosophy jail with you!

>>16810646
Plenty of literature on veridical NDEs involving objective observations of the external world from the unconscious, not gonna spoonfeed you though you'll find out when you die

>>16810646
>>16810629
>can you show me the proof showing how brain causes consciousness and how both are identical with each other
>eh...uh.. actually science still is not advanced enough...to prove it..
>then why do you require exclusively for non-physical entity to be physically localized in the brain ?
>....
physicalists are so fvcking ridiculous it's over

Science will never explain this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pam_Reynolds_case

>>16811036
>roaster makes stuff up for attention

>>16811036
>Critics say that the amount of time during which Reynolds was "flatlined" is generally misrepresented and suggest that her NDE occurred under general anaesthesia when the brain was still active, hours before Reynolds underwent hypothermic cardiac arrest.
Literally in the article you linked genius

>>16806902 (OP)
>linguistic meaning, which itself is not derived from physical properties
as far as im concerned what you call language is just a formation of neurons and electrical activity that is then transmitted via the mouth's vibrations in the air to other people's sense data and then interacting with their brain
the fact that the abstract concepts can be mapped to brain areas and neurons just means your thoughts are physical activities that deal with memory, thinking and visualization of physical things that already exist (concepts like betrayal, martyrdom etc)
nothing metaphysical about any of that

>>16811081
dualists and idealists are religious schizos
one level more retarded than quantum quacks