What are the best arguments against materialism?

Its boring

>all things can be reduced to physical components and explained by those physical elements.

imagine thinking this

>What are the best arguments against materialism?
That it's a meaningless proposition. Might as well say everything is spirit or everything is mind

Attached: Carl Gustav Hempel.jpg (287x390, 46K)

mind and itself as self-awareness

There aren't any.

All of the arguments boil down to:
>It makes me feel uncomfortable, therefore it's incorrect

a basic overview of the schools of epistemology

Stab a materialist in the leg and then pour acid on the wound. When they howl out in pain, tell them "Relax bro, it's just ions going across a lipid membrane. What's the big deal bro? Why you crying?"

Attached: Tzar Honka.jpg (1024x690, 103K)

you fail to satisfactorily account for intentionality

Here's one, for a brainlet retard like you:

why can't I use Newtonian laws to predict the actions of human agents on a normal day?

>all things can be reduced to physical components and explained by those physical elements.
prove it fag

insufficient computational power

Modern people often say they believe that there are no universally binding moral obligations, that we must all follow our own private conscience. But that very admission is enough of a premise to prove the existence of God. Isn’t it remarkable that no one, even the most consistent subjectivist, believes that it is ever good for anyone to deliberately and knowingly disobey his or her own conscience? Even if different people’s consciences tell them to do or avoid totally different things, there remains one moral absolute for everyone: never disobey your own conscience. Now where did conscience get such an absolute authority—an authority admitted even by the moral subjectivist and relativist? There are only four possibilities: (1) from something less than me (nature); (2) from me (individual); (3) from others equal to me (society); or (4) from something above me (God).

Let’s consider each of these possibilities in order.

1. How can I be absolutely obligated by something less than me—for example, by animal instinct or practical need for material survival?
2. How can I obligate myself absolutely? Am I absolute? Do I have the right to demand absolute obedience from anyone, even myself? And if I am the one who locked myself in this prison of obligation, I can also let myself out, thus destroying the absoluteness of the obligation which we admitted as our premise.
3. How can society obligate me? What right do my equals have to impose their values on me? Does quantity make quality? Do a million human beings make a relative into an absolute? Is “society” God?
4. The only source of absolute moral obligation left is something superior to me. This binds my will morally, with rightful demands for complete obedience.

Thus God, or something like God, is the only adequate source and ground for the absolute moral obligation we all feel to obey our conscience. Conscience is thus explainable only as the voice of God in the soul.

why is that?

Aristotle made the best argument against both materialism and dualism, and has yet to BTFO. If an ordered whole is not equal to its unoganized parts, then pure materialism cannot exist. A whole live human being has traits which a unorganized lump composed of the same material does not. Therefore, in an organized whole, there must be something neither material not wholy abstract that is the order in of itself. This is the reason why AI research believes in the multiple-realizability of the mind. The mind is equivalent to the order, not the material.

Well aparently there is this thing called mind and thought, which, even if they are produced by material means, have a distinct qualia which cannot be apprehended by the senses

Godel

Attached: peterson godel.jpg (594x307, 33K)

Did he really write that? What an idiot.

You can't refute it! You are material! Deal with it!

You're not allowed to cite tweets to reinforce your argument jackass

There are no arguments

Attached: MundaneMatt.jpg (300x300, 20K)

>my position is axiomatic

then whence the contradiction? how does mind emerge out of matter?

and people actually look up to this complete brainlet

I was just shitposting but. It doesn't matter how it does, it matter's what it does, for the sake of an ontological proof.

>what it does
*that it does.

In other words, we know for a fact the mind does emerge out of a matter. People who lose chunks of their brains in accidents lose chunks of their mind for example

>insufficient computational power
>the only thing preventing us from predicting human behavior on a physical level
imagine thinking this.
Nigga we can't even analytically solve the quantumphysical mathematical equations describing a single atom more complicated than the most basic one, hydrogen.
Computers let you approximate models of even more difficult molecules reasonably well. But quantum physics is a pain in the arse, from a computational point of view. You're deluded if you think we will ever be able to simulate the physical processes (necessarily including quantum shitchanics, otherwise incomplete) occuring in even one neuron of the human brain

Attached: 1474229208180.jpg (210x266, 5K)

Matter is ill-defined.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hempel's_dilemma

Attached: omg.png (739x905, 26K)

cant take it with you

based Hempleanon

because I don't want to? because it would bring me no closer to what I want in life? how can you not comprehend the sheer retardation of what you're suggesting, regardless of worldview?

>subjectivity is a direct epihenomenon of material causes
Is the epiphenomenon material?

The Foundation for Exploration

Emergent social behaviour (Marx).

the impossibility of something from nothing

the fact that it's philosophy, and philosophy is ultimately just a bunch of retarded brainlets trying to cope. Things are what they are.

>tractable human behavior simulation
I don't think materialists are in favor of violating second law of thermodynamics. We godless heathens are very gung ho at using physics to describe the world as opposed to theories less grounded in reality, remember?

>Physicalism
Lol. All that real stuff. Okay
>On the one hand, we may define the physical as whatever is currently explained by our best physical theories, e.g., quantum mechanics, general relativity. Though many would find this definition unsatisfactory, some would accept that we have at least a general understanding of the physical based on these theories, and can use them to assess what is physical and what is not. And therein lies the rub, as a worked-out explanation of mentality currently lies outside the scope of such theories.
>Mentality
HAHAHA. Ooo, we’re just now discovering that we have imaginations?? The power of 20th. Century philosophy.
>Dilemma
So because physicists aren’t done poking about, Hempel thinks there’s room for god or just “metaphysics” to sneak in as relevant?
This hardly dispels materialism at all.

What is subjectivity and how does it emerge from matter?

Life isn’t a competition. We don’t exist to ‘prove’ or ‘disprove’ things. We further don’t even exist to fight against others.

Butterfly, we exist to live harmoniously :3. Metaphysics teaches us that unity of purpose, of mind, of everything is what moves the world, not division.

From human perspective? Your personal perspective, encoded in bag of flesh, like all pseud bullshit.
Particle of matter/energy perspective? Reference frame in general relativity.

because there’s a lot of particles
cringe. you don’t need to find the exact energy levels of a helium atom to do biophysics. didn’t read the rest of your low-IQ whining

That I exist, which is the most unfortunate thing for the material to have happened. I WILL be it's undoing. Materialists WILL burn to keep me warm in my metaphysical Cabin of Justice

This. I wrote my undergraduate thesis on aristotles third form of understanding and how it’s been more or less lost to time. We live ina world of pre-Socratic vs Platonist boogeymen. Aristotles thought has been lost and it btfos materialists and idealists so hard it’s not even funny

What a non-answer. You might as well have shit on your computer screen you absolute midwit faggot

What is it like to be a bat?

>you don’t need to find the exact energy levels of a helium atom to do biophysics
Actually, that's pretty much how most of protein-protein molecular dynamics are computed. Quantum n-body problem with hundreds of billions of vertices per organelle. Do any less, and the pathway won't run at all.

Language is subjective. Observations of the funky nature of matter gives rise to it. Meh?

First and second paragraph contradict. Obvious mush.

It was a question, dipstick

Itchy?

Critical idealism, for instance, explains the possibility of objective knowledge. There are philosophical systems with cogent epistemologies, they just aren't materialist.

Before I post something else about inflating your ego and cause you to stop posting for hours, Butterfly, WHAT. WHAT contradicted? Thanks :3

"how is number 5 material?". You can present abstract symbols as strawman against materialism all you want, but in the end, abstract idea is just that - something that doesn't exist in the real as such, but is used to describe relations of real things. Only real thing about abstract concept is neurons firing. You have 5 fingers and those are real, and so are bats. But number 5 is abstract, and so is your wish to be a bat.

I always knew you were a retard, buttershit.
>HAHAHA.
What the fuck are you laughing at, you braindead cunt?
>we’re just now discovering that we have imaginations??
The literal fuck are you talking about. You sound schizophrenic.
>So because physicists aren’t done poking about, Hempel thinks there’s room for god or just “metaphysics” to sneak in as relevant?
It's honestly pretty sad that you have such a hard time understanding the dilemma. It's really simple: Either you define material in terms of the mentioned theories, which are known to be incomplete, or in terms of completeness, which is circular and epistemically ill-defined.

This is pretty basic stuff. Here you can hear Witten talking about the subject: youtube.com/watch?v=hUW7n_h7MvQ

Attached: 0eb1e9bf52b2eff10f1056cd82ab73b5.jpg (500x417, 46K)

He's talking about qualia, not abstraction per se.

A perceived perspective is still abstract, as it explicitly describes feeling/opinion about something, as opposed to what something actually is.

The word "qualia" is meant to indicate the subjective limit of language, the subjective basis, the groundwork of every experience and all knowledge that can't be expressed objectively because it is the very condition of the objective. It isn't that kind of "perspective."

Yes, a perspective. Shorthand for "subjective opinion".

Again, it does nothing the OP asked for. It means little.
I’m not a philosophy sort, this minutiae will continue to get smaller and smaller as physicists discover more and more and it will all o unnoticed by the masses. Sorry for laughing

Perhaps you're trying to say that whatever materialists deem as objective, empirical, calculable, etc, is ultimately subjective too, given how our cognition works.

This is source of base axiom paradoxes both in math and philosophy, and one has to apply common sense on the ground level to get anywhere - by not absurdly reducing blatantly objective things.

Bats objectively exist because there's overwhelming sensory evidence and consensus. Reducing this "everyone thinks bats exits, but thats just abstract thought, so we dont actually know for sure" is plain intellectually dishonesty as you erased rank difference between objective/subjective with pseud gymnastics.

The fact that all material in existence is only observable subjectively inside your own mind.

Qualia is the least abstract aspect of the subject that there is, the empty part that can't be interrogated because it is doing the interrogating. It is the dimensionless dimension of the thing that has perspectives, not identifiable with the perspectives as they exist to that thing through the medium of propositions or statements. The knowing subject can't be an object of knowledge because it forms the basis for all knowledge.

Yes, it's an awful pseud way to say "subjective perspective", isn't it? Honestly, Dennett is one of the worst pseuds when it comes to dualist philosophies of cognition.

In what way have you transcended dualism if you still acknowledge the subject/object distinction? I've never even read Dennet.

Determinism is so cringe.
I don't think these people even acknowledge the MASSIVE leap in logic it takes to believe that every thought and every decision made is a result of one atom bumping into another.

>heart transplants can totally change people's personalities
It's incredibly ironic that you're using a subjective anecdote to argue in favor of materialism. This invalidates your entire argument.

Materialism is technically only objective. Even your personal experience is objective in so far as encoding in your brain. However the statement to describe it (i feel fluffy like bat) would fall in limbo materially, while more fluffy brands of philosophy would invent fancy names and pseuding for what amounts to a simple piece of abstract grammar describing a (hypothetical/arbitrary/etc) relation to a real object.

>it does nothing the OP asked for
It does exactly what OP asks for. It is an argument against materialism because it argues that "material" is ill-defined (a point evinced by the huge debates surrounding the ontology of QM and QFT, and even GR concerning manifold substantivalism). You can argue against X-ism by arguing that X is ill-defined. I don't see what's hard to understand about this.

Like a kid saying the “missing link” disproves all of evolution. Really really weak stuff.

So your mind really is a short circuit. What is it that knows its personal experience is only "encoding in its brain"? A brain? Show me the neurons that are theory, then show me the neurons that are that theory of how theory is only neurons, and so on.

Your strawmanning is getting really tiresome. Seriously, what do you get out of it? What exactly do you think it is I'm using to disprove what?

There's a reason why psychology is a soft science and not a hard science. The human conscious and subconscious can not be objectively mapped. I would love for you materialistic, deterministic brainlets to argue otherwise.
This user admits that he has absolutely no evidence for his belief, yet he seems so confident in his answer. This is exactly like asking a Christian why they are so sure that God exists.

Oh, so I have to become a Kantian, or at the very least an informed post-Kantian, to get anywhere?

Well I've got the Critique of Pure Reason lying around. I was hoping I could avoid it for a little longer but I guess I better sink my teeth into it.

I don't see the resemblance at all. In fact, your comment seems very far out of left field and kind of hasty/desperate, to be honest. Can you explain how exactly you think this is in any way analogous?

How could it possibly invalidate it?

It is proving that the "who" of who you think you are is entirely contingent on material elements. While subjectivity itself may not be a physical event, its root is physical and it dies with the physical.

Very little.

No, I think I’ve said enough for you to get where I’m coming from.

Backing away now

>where I’m coming from
From a knee-jerk pattern-matching reaction lacking critical thinking and charitable reading, it seems.

metaphysics doesn't disprove materialism. Maybe its God, maybe its a simulation, maybe our universe is inside a blackhole, it doesn't change anything for us within.

No explanations answer your question, so all axioms are flawed you could say. But materialism has a lot more evidence to show for its claims than any other imagined explanations

>What is it that knows its personal experience is only "encoding in its brain"? A brain? Show me the neurons that are theory, then show me the neurons that are that theory of how theory is only neurons, and so on.
Materialists don't care whatever is in the brain. Contrary to popular belief, brain can't objectively assess itself very accurately. It just ping pongs thought from thought in a train. If you want to see the process objectively in action, use fMRI, not shoddy philosophy.

Butterfly, please. WE were created by God. Can't you see this?!?!

SHES STARTING TO SEE IT :3

I said "show me," you absolute mongoloid. You can't even dodge questions properly.

Never seen fMRI video? Yes, indeed, certain thoughts are certain firing clusters, so are memories and even whole experiences. Brain doesn't self reflect on this level, but it objectively works that way.

A disk drive doesn't need a detailed blueprint of itself stored on itself for it to work properly.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/1299456
Out of 47 heart transplants studied, only 6% reported an unexplained change in personality which could easily be explained by placebo or bad memory/perception. People are often poor historians and subjective accounts always have room for inaccuracy (ie. The Mandela Effect). If they changed as per placebo, then that is a non-physical force that changed them.

Show me the firing cluster that is the thought "certain thoughts are certain firing clusters," then show me the firing cluster that is the thought of "the thought that certain thoughts have firing clusters," and so on. When you come to the end of this infinite chain, you will have proved your position adequately.

surely you don’t need a closed form analytical solution to that n-body problem

There is no paradox. Materialism means implicitly zombie brains. But if you insist, a neurosurgeon will have regions in his brain storing model of how brain works - in general, not any particular brain. A plumber doesn't care. Whether you know something or not has absolutely zero bearing on whether you're conscious (ie have capacity to model self and external world via whatever are your existing convictions).

Protein-protein interactions are far more complex computationally than mere folding. A lot of heuristics is used indeed to keep the n-body partitioned to separate domains, but even then it takes enormous amount of time to simulate one cell cycle with the path-ways so so running. Even then 99% of time what runs in the computer won't live, or vice versa. Read up on JCVI-syn for more detail.

The scientific consensus is that materialism is false.

Attached: 39489B45-EEE1-446A-BC57-AB34319D76BB.jpg (850x400, 65K)

There "is no paradox" because you have missed the point completely. Anyone interested in philosophy has to care. Go fiddle with your pipes and fittings.

>materialism

Ironically, it's dualism more suspectible to backhanded paradox arguments. If consciousness needs to observe itself, it needs to observe itself observing ....

Materialism, on the other hand, insists on observing the process externally. Observer has no relation to the observed.

>even then it takes enormous amount of time to simulate one cell cycle with the path-ways so so running
yeah I believe you on that. thanks for the rec, I’ll take a look

>one guy
>consensus
Wigner was a great physicist but his interpretation of QM is retarded

Have you comprehended a single one of my posts? Again, the knowing subject can't know itself as an object. That's the basis of this sound epistemology, I have repeated this at least three times already as a conceivable account of qualia, which you have likewise flippantly disregarded with insufficient appeals to the accidental contemporary state of our scientific knowledge. I presented the problem of your theory of an object without a subject, and you just say "a plumber doesn't care," the tired refrain of every other well-trained utilitarian optimist. What is observing the process if there is no observer? To what is the observation external if there is no internal, if the internal is just a subset of the external? If the internal is merely a subset of the external, as you allege, then there is only external, nothing properly internal, and consequently there cannot be any external because the external only has significance in relation to the internal. "Everything is external" to what?

Unfortunately all the physicists like Wigner have died and today all the editorial boards and relevant chairs are occupied by soulless pajeets, pakis, chinks and the occasional Fedora white professor (e.g Lawrence Krauss, Brian Greene). Physicists have lost all sense of "consensus" and engage in ever more specific drivel about their particular brand of deriving eigenvalues by numerical torture of a functional they don't even know if it has any physical meaning. Whatever, the 15th decimal place agrees with experiment, so shut up and calculate!

I came to the field inspired by the likes of Schroedinger, Heisenberg and Dirac, but instead got a lot of headache learning Python, C CUDA and physics-less linear algebra. And all the professors I've ever met up to the nobel laureates were fucking materialists. I guess all I wanted to say was, to , that physicists (unlike claimed here) are not going to make this problem smaller to the point of irrelevance anytime soon at all. We're not working towards that and even no longer have the tools to analyze results at a philosophical level (i.e contemporary physicists, to a great extent, do not have a grasp on the epistemology of their own endeavors). As Ellul said, we're all technicians looking for technical solutions to technical problems, that will create further refined technical problems. So in short, if materialism seems like a settled question from the point of view of the empirical sciences that's only because modern scientists lack the very language they would require to speak of it, not because they can actually address why they are materialists (e.g look at all the answers here claiming an emergent effect X surging from complex system Y has anything to do with materialism at all).

>Lawrence Krauss, Brian Greene
>white
hold your horses there buddy

I don't consider the nose to be an ethnic trait but hey, if (((they))) do it themselves, just put the ((())) around the names and go with it, the message will remain the same

Attached: 40B57B74-F0AC-44B4-A8B2-7DF9C8C872AF.jpg (850x400, 72K)

Yeah but look on the bright side; you've Biologists like Sheldrake out campaigning for scientific inquiries into PSI and how cosmologists need to take into account the fact that the sun is conscious, so, there's that!

>copenfagen
almost as bad as Wigner’s

Attached: A1B3D1EA-B492-499A-9948-FF444F4F599B.jpg (1200x630, 80K)

have you read tom campbell?

nice bait

"Argument"? "Against"?

There are four signs of God. Physical evidence of a creator, if one interprets the data properly.
However, one must delve deep into abductive reasoning as there are many plausible hypotheses for said "signs."
1) Fine-tuning of the Universe
2) Soul as source of awareness
3) Abiogenesis
4) Human evolution

Scientific skepticism, which lies at the heart of materialism, is an appeal to rationality. However, at the root of empirical philosophy we naturally have an inductive argument in the supposed consistency of the laws of nature. Clearly, the human being is still making determinations about reality and the strength of the reason overall is what should guide it.
Abductive reasoning when it is fully delineated, produces a menagerie of inductive rationalities and there inter-relationship. Occam's razor is included, but it is taken for what it is worth... Which is nothing more than a clarification of the inductive reasoning element behind all beliefs and the justification of the sufficiency of reason itself.

Not the same user but do you realize that intentionally choosing the largest words possible doesn't make your argument more valid, doesn't make you any more intelligent and certainly doesn't make the semtence flow smoothly? I cringed hard at the first sentence of this post, saw every vocabulary word you tried to stuff into that paragraph and didn't bother reading it.

Based

>Fine-tuning of the Universe
ohnononono: m.youtube.com/watch?v=zR79HDEf9k8

>the rest of the list
all easily explainable within Naturalistic and Materialistic models

Society

When you DIE, you bring nothing from your materialist shit in your grave...

Absolutely based

I've been seeing you for years on here, shitting up every single thread you're in. The day you cringe-inducing, retarded pseudointellectual die will be cherished by all the sane people of Yea Forums and will be turned into a most cherished holiday.

I don't think you bring anything non materialistic either, user. Kek

>grug no like da big word. da big word make grug un com for ta ble

I thought you were banned. fuck you mods, ban this bitch

How is pointing out that there is no evidence for dualism 'meaningless'? That's also false equivalency; dualism is built into the notion of 'spirit' and claiming everything is mind has many logical hurdles (lack of omniscience for starters).

And what is 'mind'? What is 'awareness'? What makes you sure they aren't objects themselves?

Agreed. The obvious comfort-seeking of non-physicalists should make any critical thinker skeptical. There some good philosophical arguments against physicalism, but the best they can do is a stalemate of technical uncertainty on both sides of the issue, where physicalism still has all the predictive power (and so is more probable).

Pretty stupid. It's not just that, it's also an indication of bodily harm that is to be avoided. Furthermore, you actually can improve your pain tolerance by reminding yourself that the pain itself is nociception. Heil Honkler, but try not to be such a pseud.

Silly strawman. There's much we still don't know about the brain and no one would dispute that What we do know points to physical processes and there's been no evidence of anything but that. If we do figure out those processes, the amount of variables in such a computation will be tremendous and it will likely remain a hard problem.

This doesn't take into acount interactions of the 'unorganized parts' It's not just the parts, but the processes which transform them (which are also physical). Chemistry, wave interference... The equivalence between product and parts is found if you include the processes (but perhaps parts should be considered processes themselves). I think we can forgive Aristotle for having an antiquated perspective on physics. Also, the 'mind' (whatever that actually is) may only be possible in certain substrates -- you don't know what you're talking about.

Emergent properties are a strong argument FOR physicalism.

Seems like an unavoidable consequence of not being omniscient, no matter what you're 'made of'. You're not being clever, all we do know about our awareness points to physical processes. What's your alternative model?

My alternative model is not one that purports to explain consciousness by appealing to its substrate, which is obvious to anyone. Why should physical processes be accompanied by experience?

What does 'should' have to do with anything? Experience happens, we have evidence of physical processes in all we do understand abount the universe (including our brains). Connect the probable dots. You can't even define consciousness, so how would it be explained? If you do provide a definition and we attempt to explain it, you don't think the properties of the matter it 'emerges' from will be relevant? You think scientists consider substrate to be non-critical? What is obvious is your general ignorance on this topic.

That, and then the World as Will and Idea. Schopenhauer isn't perfect but he's pretty fucking close

I define consciousness as the phenomenal "side" of physical processes, without getting too technical this definition should suffice: how could a description of the subjective quality of red-ness ever require a physical explanation?

What does this even mean? All physical processes are purely phenomenal, or at least are only intelligible as phenomena

different guy btw

You're all over the place. The phenomenal is the physical, "side" is an assumption of dualism. What is the requirement for any explanation? What is the evidence that qualia aren't a kind of quanta themselves?

i'm glad i'm white so i don't have an n-body problem

>and here we have the rare actually funny race-bait post

At least someone knows how to do it right

Only the experience of red qualifies as knowledge of red. There is no sense in speaking of just "the physical" if it accomodates qualia, might as well say "matter" as the is an epiphenomenon of consciousness

If you take someone who is colourblind such that they don't experience red, what will be the difference between them and those that do? How do you explain the color that people who do see and identify as 'red' correlating to the same localization of light wavelengths?

>If an ordered whole is not equal to its unoganized parts, then pure materialism cannot exist.
There is no possibility of "unorganized parts". Just different forms of organization, each with its own traits
>A whole live human being has traits which a unorganized lump composed of the same material does not.
And a lump of organic material has traits that a human does not, like being easily carried through sewer pipes or whatever. You and Aristotle assume some forms are better than others depending on how advanced in the order/chaos scale the form is. Buth that scale does not exist, the universe is a mix of various types of order, none of which is objectively better than any other. The sum of parts is not greater than the components.

I still require experiential knowledge of red, even if that redness, or whatever the colorblind guy is seeing, is erroneous data

this is the only good answer
None of you faggots are actually intelligent.
Just read/believe whatever makes you happy or intrigues you.

Immaterialism is just more interesting and critical. It's also contrary today which makes it more appealing to the incels.

What the fuck do incels have to do with this?

Do you? What would prohibit a red-blind scientist from determining the traits of the light and perceptual phenomena that result in what other people call 'red'?

No, I was just pointing out that it looks like you're using a thesaurus for every single word you write, and spent no effort on making a good argument.
You have to be retarded to argue that "Have you comprehended a single one of my posts?" is more intelligent or flows better than "Have you understood a single one of my posts?" There's no way you're over 80 IQ since you're arguing that "comprehend" or any of the other high school level vocabulary words used are large.
>That's the basis of this sound epistemology, I have repeated this at least three times already as a conceivable account of qualia, which you have likewise flippantly disregarded with insufficient appeals to the accidental contemporary state of our scientific knowledge
You somehow manage to look both psuedointellectual and blatantly retarded in the same sentence. You aren't making cohesive thoughts or sentences. Your sentences are so choppy and you seem to have trouble using those words correctly so I'm having trouble imagining any other scenario than you flipping through a thesaurus for 30 minutes.

If you want to argue details over the fine-tuning, in which the atheist rhetoric is rather dubious by the way, then there is the roughly-tuned argument, that still makes life highly improbable.

As for easily explained, that is hardly the case at all. Sure they can give you an answer, but not one that doesn't provoke even more questions.

Perhaps life is highly improbable relative to universe formation (we don't know, since we don't have access to information preceding our universe). Given enough time and/or universes however, many improbable things would become very likely to occur. Also, there is much dispute about how well 'tuned' for life things are (most of the observable universe is quite inhospitable).

>funky
What a stupid slang word.

You can’t take it with you.

DMT

Best argument against the proposition that thought is not a substance or best argument against the proposition that only material substance can determine something?

The fish can't see fish bowl. Therefore, the fishbowl doesn't exist.

"Because my neurons bombard my brain with pain signals, you retard!"

Pain signals are also just ions going across a lipid membrane, why does that bother you so much? Does it bother you when you put salt and oil in water as well?

>The mind is equivalent to the order, not the material.
Is this not materialism still? As you only need to put matter in the proper order to get the mind.

>But quantum physics is a pain in the arse, from a computational point of view.
It's still only a matter of insufficient computational power. Quantum physics is calculable to the desirable degree of precision on a classical (Turing) computer. That it's not realistic to do such calculations is besides the point, since philosophically, you can use a suitable computer to predict a human's behaviour.

Dude, painted papers lmao.

direct theories of reference such as Saul Kripke’s e.g., “pain” =/= “C-fiber stimulation” conceptually speaking. Best rebutalls would be something along the lines of late Wittgenstenianism, which is itself shaky and hardly a defense of materialism, the best outcome (best in the sense of largest) would be something like Cartesian dualism. Putnam and Nagel has relevant work on this.

It doesn't have to exist, but this also suggests to me that that explanations of anything are not made of matter.

But also let me just say we’ve been having this thread a lot lately and it really goes to show how little independent reading people are willing to do on the subject (not to mention all the literal subhumans equating “materialism” with being “materialistic,” like wtf how did you ever find the gumption to weigh in on a philosophy post). For example, Immanual Kant, a major thinker of the Enlightenment tradition and the apocryphal fulfillment of the dualist/materialist divide offered up an account of German Idealism that argues that all knowledge relies on the two a priori forms of intuition as well as phenomenal content only received via experience i.e., nonmaterial stuff shapes up material stuff, and theyre interconnected though the former is transcendentally verifiable. Like you could just read the wiki and know it’s not as simple as dualism v. materialism, albeit I know how some undergrad professors/contemporary articles make it seem so.

Aristotle recognized processes that material goes through, as second actualities as substances in their own right. But, the point is that the way that formally organized material comes about brings with it further functions that their lesser material do not have. This is idea, even divorced from Aristotle's elemental matter, is not negated by our current conception of physics. This allows for accidental processes as well, brought about by non-organized parts. No equivalence is included when considering processes. And, at least according to the functionalists, so long as the new function can be abstracted away from the organization and action of material, it doesn't really matter what is producing it. It requires a substratum for a medium, but a very wide range of substratums could work.

Because of the bio programming, dummie.

Still seems like a very weak argument. There's no evidence in sophisticated organizations of matter that any new matter/energy is spontaneously created, rather we see conversions of matter/energy due to the processes involved. The functions possible are a direct consequence of the arrangement and reactivity of the matter/energy in question. Emergence happens because more complex configurations of matter and energy result in more complex interactions between the constituents; it is not as if some entirely new potential just pops into existence. The laws of physics always allowed for these possibilities. Obviously then, I don't agree that functions can simply be abstracted away from organization and material as they appear to be a direct result of both. If you can point to any evidence that this is not the case, please do so.

>accusing others of non-arguments while whinging about word choice
How about you attack the argument instead? You've spent all this time condemning the post without even reading it. If my IQ is 80, yours should be about 55.

Embrace dialetheism like Fichte did when he noticed this problem.

there are none.

read pic related. it will help you a lot

Attached: 510fjSrzevL._SX327_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (329x499, 33K)

Based. Which is more fundamental: mind or matter? For me, it far easier to question the essential truth behind the reality of matter than it is to question that behind the reality of muh mind.

I can be skeptical of atoms and laws of physics, but I cannot deny fear, love, hate, anger, and joy as true aspects of the universe.

Dialectical:
Spirit and Energy are the same thing described by different vocabulary.
The best argument for Supernature is Nature itself.
There really are material invisible forces that strongly influence and thus animate solid matter

This is why Physicist Jeremy England went full orthodox after discovering Dissipation-driven Adaptation.

See his lectures on YouTube.

God is Radiation, bioelectric field is soul.

If material is defined as that which has mass (the most minimal definition) it is obviously untrue that everything is made out of material because the mind has no mass, no extension in space and so on. However that doesn't disprove that matter isn't objectively real or an ontological primary. It simply shows that not everything is matter. And it doesn't prove that mind can exist without matter.

Photons (particles of light) are massless too, but they are still considered physical entities.

Read Consciousness And The Social Brain by Graziano.

Consider how the virtual things like ai exist on a computer literally as 1s and 0s in complex electron patterns.
That's an example of how something can seem non-material while being totally material.
It's the same for awareness, attention modeling itself and using sense-data memory.
That this is not magic doesn't make it less astonishing/wonderful or powerful.

materialism in the dark