Also early warning: these generals tend to be inhibited by a very persistent lolcow schizo who hates anything pro physicalism and will end up roping you into endless retarded argumentations where he'll never admit defeat and when he realizes how retarded he sounds, he'll just start calling you "mental patient" and similar terms
Some people call him Moldovan anon and other terms

>>18760688
There are things that are obviously not material, like the interpretation of something to derive information; though that doesn't mean it's an immaterial object sonce it would be a cathegory error

>>18760697
Even derived objects are physical ultimately. The concepts exist in our minds, which are physical

>>18760688

>Physicalism is the thesis that in some fundamental sense, everything in the universe is physical, even things that don’t appear at first glance to be physical, such as biological, psychological, or social phenomena.

Is the truth value of this claim physical?

>>18760688
Heads up this guy (the person who reuploads these threads) is extremely disingenuous/bad faith.
He isn't looking for honest discussion, he will samefag if it means to can help him, he has even admitted to pretending to know people so that he can appear more knowledgeable on whatever subject is mentioned and overall extremely disrespectful. He will probably try and cope and call me a schizoid or do something to discredit me but its whatever.

So if you are looking at an honest discussion don't waist your time, likewise if you want to kill time by all means.

>>18760688
at what point does quantity turn into quality, as in when does a first person experience is first produced and why is that the symmetry breaker

>>18760894
He's right you know

>>18760901
What the fuck is a symmetry breaker

I have it on good authority that this is a stealth pissbuttfag thread

>>18760849
>Even derived objects are physical ultimately. The concepts exist in our minds, which are physical
Physical doesn't mean anything if it applies to things which exists in our imagination.

>>18761230
Why not?

But physicalism is a logical contradiction in regard to the firsthand experience of consciousness.

The conscious stream you are firsthand experiencing, if an emergent and entirely physical property, would continue if all of your constituent bodily matter were moved in an instant from wherever you are now to Paris, France. You'd remain awake, and everything would continue as usual, the only thing which would change is which space your bodily material occupies therefore nothing is materially different about your body. If you are a physicalist, you must conclude that this is the case for nothing would be physically different about your physical form.

However, what if instead of transportation, it's duplication? The precise material composition of your body, and therefore its firsthand conscious experience (which you must conclude to exist before making any other evidenced observation), must, by the physicalist worldview, both remain in place as well as travel. It's the same exact material producing the same exact emergent material properties and chemical sequences. However, this is impossible; you cannot figure the result without changing something about the firsthand consciousness. It wouldn't be kaleidoscope or split-screen vision, for such necessitates a change to the emergent chemical reaction without any amendment to the material form. Physicalism/pure materialism fails here.

Through this exercise one realizes that the firsthand experience of consciousness is fundamentally singular while the underlying matter which produces it as a chemical reaction is not. This is the core of the logical contradiction inherent to physicalism.

The only valid explanation the physicalist can retreat to is denying the existence of firsthand conscious experience, which is preposterous given that it's what is depended upon to make any material observation; it's the definitive observational predicate and as such cannot be deemed invalid without denying validity of everything else.

>>18761570
What if we claim "it's physical too" and never elaborate?

>>18761576
I've gotten that answer before; I fear not only doesn't it suffice, but it signals that something other than an interest in the truth is motivating the physicalists who respond that way. One only has to point out that metaphysics in some form is the only valid resolution to the contradiction.

>>18761584
That's the only answer you'll ever get, enjoy it.

>>18760688
Physicalism mistakes dependent machinery for ultimate sourcehood. Fail

>>18760894
>Heads up this guy (the person who reuploads these threads) is extremely disingenuous/bad faith.
No he's a bot. Most posters on this board are bots.

>>18761570
>But physicalism is a logical contradiction
Bold claim, let's see how you substantiate it
>wot if you got teleported like in the sci-fi
Kek
But sure it would continue, what is the contradiction here?
>what if instead of transportation, it's duplication?
Ok...
>by the physicalist worldview, both remain in place as well as travel
Huh?
>It's the same exact material producing the same exact emergent material properties and chemical sequences.
Well technically speaking not the exact same material our cells constantly replace themselves, and also technically not the exact same consciousness, since we get interruptions in it already
>you cannot figure the result without changing something about the firsthand consciousness. It wouldn't be kaleidoscope or split-screen vision, for such necessitates a change to the emergent chemical reaction without any amendment to the material form. Physicalism/pure materialism fails here.
Words words words but what are you trying to say lmao? That cloning is impossible? No not really it very much is possible,if you go for the "muh cloning teleportation route" for a brief moment you'd have two people thinking they're the same person, yes
>the firsthand experience of consciousness is fundamentally singular while the underlying matter which produces it as a chemical reaction is not
This "exercise" doesn't show this whatsoever since you didn't manage to show any supposed contradiction in the first place

>>18760849
But the concepts are derived from activity wich isn't an object nor material; it extends even to aspects of physics; energy and potential aren't material object but relations between properties

>>18761875
This is just nitpicking imo, sure you can call these concepts not strictly physical because they don't "literally" exist but ultimately that's irrelevant in the grand scheme of things

>>18761911
It's not nitpicky if you have to agree not everything is physocal

>>18761932
"Not everything is physical if you're nitpicky about human concepts about derived physical properties" is not the own you think it is

>>18760688
I'll reject dualism if you can prove I'm not being deceived by a Cartesian demon

>>18761938
>pls prove my unfalsifiable negative
As soon as something like this comes you just know the person is retarded

>>18760688
Why does consciousness exist if there is only the physical? There is nothing about physics which says there must be an experiential viewpoint.

>>18761983
>I'm retarded
I could also be severely delusional.
Without a way to prove otherwise, one can not intellectually reject dualism or idealism. Unfalsifiable does not mean false, it simply means that the question can't be satisfactorily answered.
In fact, perhaps I even imagined OP, and if so I really should stop doing that.

>>18761994
>Without a way to prove otherwise, one can not intellectually reject dualism or idealism.
You easily can, there's thinks like reductionism, Occam's razor, preponderance of evidence and so on.
>Unfalsifiable does not mean false, it simply means that the question can't be satisfactorily answered.
No, it means the question is absolutely pointless since it can't be answered whatsoever.
Can you disprove we're not ruled by a magical unicorn? You can't, so you can't intellectually reject magical unicornism. (This is how retarded you sound)

>>18761845
Yes, our cells constantly replace themselves. By the physicalist worldview, how is teleportation in such a way different than continuing to be in the same place? You must conclude no difference according to physicalism since its the same material producing the same exact resultant reaction. Therefore both circumstances must produce the same exact reaction including the continuation of your firsthand, first-person conscious experience.

However, according to physicalism, such also applies in duplication, producing a contraction. Your firsthand conscious experience here and now much necessarily both travel and remain in place, for the same underlying material is perfectly duplicated and as such the resultant emergent physical reaction must therefore duplicate. This is a contradiction for your firsthand experience of consciousness is fundamentally and irrevocably singular.

Be careful not to perceive the conscious individuals in the third person; this is not the subject. This regards your firsthand conscious experience here and now which must exist, for you use it to observe, and must accept its existence before making any observations about what exists.

If cannot both be duplicated and remain in the same place; it's irrevocably singular.

>>18762021
The simple answer is, the conscious experience is simply not the same, so any "realistic" teleportation will never be real teleportation and just cloning with destruction of the original.
Person A never experiences a successful teleportation, they effectively die.
Person B experiences dying at location A (or falling asleep if you may), and waking up at location B, thus never experiencing the act of teleportation itself, because there never was one.
There is no dilemma here, no physicalist would pretend it's the same person. This isn't a new topic, it's been discussed by multiple people through the decades.

Where it DOES get interesting is if we look at mechanisms that are much more subtle, I.e. keeping the consciousness alive and transplanting the brain via bio-digital processes to the new location. So a ship of Theseus type of situation. But first you would have to propose such a mechanism in detail before we have a discussion about it.

>>18762028
Aha; but here is the contradiction. If you express that it wouldn't be the same stream of consciousness, you are expressing that the same exact material composition, identical in all ways both here and there, somehow produces a different emergent reaction despite no observed physical change. How is teleportation any different than existing in the same place in the hypothetical? It must not be any different according to physicalism, and expressing that there would be a difference; a "splitting", or a destruction of the old without any material explanation, introduces a metaphysical rule.

>>18762036
Physical sameness is not the same as identity. That's the fallacy you're committing here, you also wouldn't claim two molecules of the same composition in two different locations are the same molecule.
That's problem number one. Problem number two is you thinking the stream of consciousness is somehow nonphysical, yet there's not really a contradiction here either, I already told you the stream of consciousness is abruptly interrupted and destroyed, then recreated in the other entity. Physicalism includes relations, not just composition. Your brain state at one moment directly causes the next through continuous local processes in one spatial location.

>>18762061
I'm not claiming the molecules are identical, I'm claiming that according to physicalism the same molecules or matter in one place and another, granted to be identical, must produce the exact same chemical reaction. According to physicalism, the firsthand stream of consciousness is merely an emergent chemical reaction, and must both perfectly replicate and travel under such scenario, which is impossible, for our firsthand experience of consciousness is fundamentally singular.

If you disbelieve that the firsthand experience of consciousness can travel if replicated from one position to another without breakage, how is this different from the same exact material composition moving through time ordinarily in the physicalist model? If the same matter is assembled then the same firsthand conscious must be assembled as the exact same reaction without breakage; in the scenario the travel happens instantly.

>>18762138
To clarify the first sentence, I don't mean they are identical in terms of exact identity, but rather in terms of chemical composition. Under physicalismn the resulting reaction must be the same.

>>18762138
>the same molecules or matter in one place and another, granted to be identical, must produce the exact same chemical reaction
>in one place or another
Stop sneaking in assumptions, no it wouldn't produce the same reaction in different locations because the inputs from the external environment are different
If you say in the same location sure, but thankfully you can't have two brains in the exact same location, that would violate multiple physical laws
>If you disbelieve that the firsthand experience of consciousness can travel if replicated from one position to another without breakage
Yet another assumption or even false statement. Replication ≠ travel, I thought we clarified this.

>>18762138
NTA
I would argue that another identical subject would be created, as in, the first subjects consciousness doesnt travel at all. If the first subject was still alive at the same time as the second subject who is identical, both would experience themselves as a singular entity with a qualia that experiences things very similarly
To clarify a bit more, it would be two separate but structurally identical consciousness

>>18762193
The hypothetical of identical physicality implies the same physical inputs as well; consider this in the hypothetical. Both exist with the same internal composition and external inputs; as if both are suspended in space or in materially identical environments.

By the physicalist view, the same chemical composition unfolding through time is indeed a form of travel; travel happens through spacetime.

>>18762259
>The hypothetical of identical physicality implies the same physical inputs as well; consider this in the hypothetical. Both exist with the same internal composition and external inputs; as if both are suspended in space or in materially identical environments.
>thing where everything is identical, is identical
Yes under the physicalist worldview that's the case, what exactly is the gotcha here lmao? Are you trying to aim for the p zombie retardation or what's your point?
>By the physicalist view, the same chemical composition unfolding through time is indeed a form of travel; travel happens through spacetime.
Yes but in your teleportation example it's not the case. It's NOT the same chemical composition space wise, because it's in a different location, and didn't get there via "natural" biochemical and physical travel. It just got duplicated in that location.

>>18762283
Yes, but by the physicalist view how is this different than ordinary stationary travel through time? In both cases the physicality is identical in all regards; and if space makes them functionally chemically different you are attributing a metaphysical property of discernment to space alone. Space itself without associated matter is not observed to ordinary introduce physical material differences in the same underlying chemical reaction.

>>18762327
>In both cases the physicality is identical in all regards
It's not tho. Two freshly minted coins can match atom for atom and still be two coins. Physicalism has never held that qualitatively identical systems are numerically one system.
If the copy and the original both exist, they can't both be identical to the original person, because identity is transitive. They'd have to be identical to each other. Stab one and the other doesn't bleed. Kill one and the other keeps living. Two causally independent systems are two systems, however alike. Your view has to say one person is in two places with two non-communicating streams of experience.
Once again you fundamentally misunderstand how identity is constructed and transferred in physicalism. You're using dumb wordplay and misunderstanding true identity and substituting it with "structurally same, but can be duplicated and in different places"
>you are attributing a metaphysical property of discernment to space alone
No. Spatial separation is how physics counts objects. You're literally mislabelling basic physics lmao

>>18760688
In math there exists solutions to problems that nobody knows. They exist in the sense that they are the only answer to a problem and will ultimately be discovered, yet they do not yet exist physically in anybody's mind. You could do this right now, just solve an addition problem with idk two figures with 50 digits, theres a really good chance nothing has ever solved that exact problem yet the answer still exists. Since nobody has ever solved that problem it does not and has never had a physical existence, yet nonetheless exists.

>>18762344
In fiction, there are stories which will be written that nobody knows. They exist in the sense that they will ultimately be written, yet they do not exist physically in anybody's mind. You could do this right now, just make up a setting, some characters, a plot, and there's a really good chance that story has never been written, yet the story still exists. Since nobody has ever written that story, it does not and has never had a physical existence, yet nonetheless exists.

>>18762333
You are correct that two same coins replicated as such produce the same chemical reaction. Your firsthand consciousness which you are currently experiencing actively here and now (first person) doesn't obey this rule, however, because it is fundamentally singular, and the chemical reaction which produces it as it exists now if replicated introduces a paradox where your individual conscious experience here and now must both travel and duplicate because both physical constructs are identical, much like you yourself moving a few seconds further in time at the moment. Because traveling through space or time does not qualify for any chemical differences standalone, traveling through space by the physicalist worldview must be functionally identical to traveling through time, meaning that in the scenario both the body that remains in place and the duplicated body are necessarily indiscernible in terms of exact chemical reaction.

Your mistake is insisting that a distinction between these two firsthand experiences would be produced without any physical basis. If so, why can we continuously experience consciousness firsthand through time here and now, and how specifically is this materially different if our same composition is transported elsewhere in perfect, static condition? If space is the answer you have, you believe in a metaphysical quality of space to discern firsthand consciousnesses. You believe in a doctrine of metaphysics.

>>18760688
>my position cannot be proven without strawmen
wew what a stance to take

>>18762355
>Your mistake is insisting that a distinction between these two firsthand experiences would be produced without any physical basis
The physical basis is two separate brains. When will you stop pretending to be retarded?
>If so, why can we continuously experience consciousness firsthand through time here and now, and how specifically is this materially different if our same composition is transported elsewhere in perfect, static condition?
Because one brain keeps causing its own next state. The copy is caused by a scanner, not by you. That's the material difference you keep pretending isn't there like a retard
>If space is the answer you have, you believe in a metaphysical quality of space to discern firsthand consciousnesses. You believe in a doctrine of metaphysics.
Space is physics, and calling it metaphysics doesn't magically make it metaphysics lmao. The only metaphysical item here is your invisible "me-pointer" that has to pick a brain, because you super badly need to be a special little babby and have muh soul

>>18762472
I'm talking about the firsthand experience of consciousness, rather than the third person interpretation of a conscious mind. Your visualization doesn't work in this respect. How can your firsthand experience and witness to consciousness as you are experiencing from a first person perspective here and now exist in two places simultaneously?

>>18762485
Ok you dense motherfucker, do you understand that your firsthand experience ENDS in your little teleporter example the millisecond your brain gets destroyed? There is no continuity problem because there is no continuity.
As for the clone, their firsthand experience will be thinking it's you, but it doesn't make the clone you.
There's nothing more to determine from a physicalist perspective. This entire scenario has no dilemmas from a physicalist perspective.
No from a soultard perspective it gets interesting, I'm sure soultards have some convoluted way of thinking the soul gets magically transferred or some shit kek.

>>18762490
But if there's no material difference between our stream of consciousness from one second to another, on account of the material were made of not changing to being such effect, then why do you insist that such happens if the same travel occurs through the medium of space instead of time, with the same absence of physical material differences?

If the firsthand conscious continuity is only emergent from physicality, there is no reason it would end per the physicalist model, hence the contradiction. Your insistence on it breaking is an insistence that a specific alteration of the exact same chemical reaction would occur without any real observable physical difference in the underlying material involved in the chemical reaction. You think space imposes a metaphysical change on the subject producing a breakage without a physical causation.

>>18760688
Physicalism isn't real. Bodies in the universe only appear to be opaque.

>>18761602
Why don’t we just make bots illegal?

>>18762504
>Your insistence on it breaking
There's no insistence on anything breaking, you can just let person a live and then you'd have two consciousnesses at the same time
>There's no material difference between our stream of consciousness from one second to another.
Read that statement again retard
Really? No difference? So where's the cutoff, after how many seconds is there a difference?
>The exact same chemical reaction
You keep repeating this false statement it won't make it more true lmao. It's not the same chemical reaction because the brains are in two different environments with two different previous states

I fear you're missing out on understanding a profound observation. Your firsthand witness to consciousness - what you are using, here and now, to interpret the world; you insist that such is exclusively and only emergent from underlying material reactions. Okay; let's consider such granted in theory. This firsthand experience continues across time, given the specific way your body functions across time. If it is exclusively and only the material that constitutes your body which produces this reaction, it is therefore a perfectly duplicable reaction, able to be brought about in endless iterations if the same exact physical conditions are reproduced.

You resolve this by thinking in the third-person exclusively without addressing the point. You imagine a consciousness A and a consciousness B from a third-person perspective, like a camera recording a room with two people; two subjects observed from the outside.

What you have been ignoring is that this is not the subject matter. The subject I'm referring to is your present, conscious experience in the first person exclusively. Are you witness to a conscious existence? If you answer yes, good - that means it exists. So how does your firsthand conscious experience resolve given the teleportation and duplication dilemma? If your body continues naturally across spacetime as usual, and your firsthand conscious experience exists along it, then why would teleportation of your firsthand experience without breakage be theoretically impossible? In physicalism, the exact state of your firsthand experience must be replicable if it exists, for it's only a reaction contingent on replicable material. Therefore, travel across space and time in such a way must be valid according to the hard-set rules of physicalism. However, what if the original body remains, unedited?

Try not to visualize this in the third-person henceforth as you've repeatedly been doing; this contradiction happens in the first-person.

>>18761602
The only bot here is this retard >>18763363 posting his ai sloppa when attempting to argue with the physicalist

File: IMG_5533.jpg (120 KB, 1052x1525)

120 KB JPG

>>18763422 >>18763442

>>18763363
>how does your firsthand conscious experience resolve given the teleportation and duplication dilemma?
Simple illustration for philosophylets like you

>>18763376
>I'm not a bot because another person is also a bot
lmao, even, lol

>>18763403
But if the "you" is only material, then why would the transportation of the material necessitate the end of the "you" within the physicalist model? Such wouldn't have a material basis, it's all the same underlying material.

>>18763422
>But if the paper pdf scan is only material, then why would the data transportation of the paper scan necessitate the end of the burned paper within the physicalist model? Such wouldn't have a material basis, it's all the same underlying material.

>>18763430
The difference you're unable to conceptualize is that your firsthand conscious experience is irrevocably singular in form.

It travels across space and time normally. So, if you take yourself and simply pulse yourself one foot forward, instantly, carrying the same stable material composition as if it were only you walking, your firsthand conscious experience would continue as normal according to physicalism.

So what happens if the pulse results in duplication, rather than only transportation?

I understand that you might be using an LLM; but if I can milk an answer out of you it's worth it regardless. Your tokens.

>>18763434
>what happens if the pulse results in duplication, rather than only transportation?
A copy of you is created with a separate identity. Please consult the chart >>18763403

>>18763442
The chart involves the third person perspective of consciousness and is off-topic.

File: IMG_5535.jpg (93 KB, 1206x1715)

93 KB JPG

>>18763476

>>18763450
>the chart involves the third person perspective

>>18763461
>My firsthand conscious experience is only the result of material
>N-no! If you take my material and rebuild me exactly that'll heckin change the result and I can't exist again because reasons!

>>18763476
You really don't get it, do you?

>>18763483
>I am only material
>My qualia is meaningless space dust, wholesome chungus Neil Tyson says so
>If I walk on the short bus and move I keep chugging my coincidental conscious life
>No, if you took my material and put me somewhere exactly the same my qualia would end!
>Why? Once your dead your dead lol. Once your material ends it just can't be put back together again, that's like, schizophrenia, okay?
>Retard is such a powerful word for me

>>18762352
I don't see how that addresses my point. A fictional story does not exist until you create it, but a solution to a math problem exists before anybody actually solves it.

>>18763714
>A fictional story does not exist until you create it
Did you even read the post? It argues the opposite of that.

>>18763506
>and put me somewhere exactly the same
Not possible, that space is already occupied by you
>Once your dead your dead lol.
Yes because your stream of consciousness ended and your physical body got destroyed.
>it just can't be put back together again
If somebody rebuilds a replica of you, that doesn't make your destroyed consciousness jump over or some shit, because there's nothing to jump over, that is what everyone in the thread is trying to make you understand

>>18763841
>Everything is only made of material
>My qualia is material
>Destroy the qualia
>No you can't make my same qualia with material again just because

>>18763936
You can, but it won't be identical qualia because that's physically impossible, time wise and location wise. Brains take a bazillion inputs from the surrounding environment every single second, and that matters a lot.
There's nothing stopping science from creating a near identical clone of you, correct. But just like identical twins (except to a more extreme degree), that clone will go on to live their own life

>>18763939
>The qualia is only a reaction from constructed material
>Wtf no if a qualia is deconstructed you can't reconstruct it with material
>If that happens it'll end and is permanently gone
>See my physicalism has this metaphysical rule to it

>>18763775
The one replying to me? He's not arguing that, he's making a parody of my post and I'm arguing its a false analogy. I don't think we're on the same page.

>>18763952
Yes, the parody exemplifies how your point is a meaningless statement. You can literally claim about any human construct that it was "always there all along" and just waiting to be discovered
You can also say that about a story, why wouldn't a story already exist until you create it?
This is not even a new thought experiment:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Library_of_Babel

>>18763950
>The qualia is only a reaction from constructed material
Yes. A reaction is a process, an event happening in a specific brain at a specific time.
>Wtf no if a qualia is deconstructed you can't reconstruct it with material
You can reconstruct the same kind of experience. You can't reconstruct the same event, just like relighting identical wood gives you a new fire. Are you denying this? Simple question, this is basic enthropy
>If that happens it'll end and is permanently gone
"events end" must be some foundational revelation to you, kek
>See my physicalism has this metaphysical rule to it
>metaphysics is when le events can end and can't be identical due to their time and location-based nature

>>18760697
Claims and interpretations only exist in the mine conceiving of them. Were you to die, they would no longer be. Your experience of those things is still built from the chemistry of your brain. Hence why if I remove your brain, you, the imagination and interpretations are gone.

They are material, as all things are.

But the tempting nature of imagining our thoughts are separate from our body confuses people.

>>18764065
This

>>18764065
When I die, the material still stop existing.

>>18760688
Physicalism is unfalsifiable and silly in a lot of ways as any definition of the physical will ultimately be circular. Any object we suspect might not be "physical" can always be claimed to be made of matter we haven't yet encountered and to follow laws we do not yet understand.
Quantum mechanics follows concrete physical laws, yet there is a random aspect to it. Does this randomness correspond to some unknown law X we do not yet understand? All the proposed solutions seem just as fantastical to me as any religion, and the evidence is not any better. If there was a law or some sort of "reason" for this behavior, is it even comprehensable to the human mind? Does this question even make sense?

Speaking of which, is the human mind physical? Well my brain certainly is, but is my "internal world" physical? If so, what definition of the physical are we even working with?

>>18764065
>But the tempting nature of imagining our thoughts are separate from our body confuses people
No one's saying this, but you seem to believe that the thoughts themselves actually are made of (not with the help of) chemicals, which is silly and nonsensical.

>>18764730
>Any object we suspect might not be "physical" can always be claimed to be made of matter we haven't yet encountered and to follow laws we do not yet understand
That's not what unfalsifiable means but ok, physicalism postulates this then immediately goes on to try to find that matter or an explanation, so far this has worked out INCREDIBLY well so there's no reason to assume otherwise
>Quantum mechanics follows concrete physical laws, yet there is a random aspect to it. Does this randomness correspond to some unknown law X we do not yet understand?
We don't know yet. Maybe it IS truly random, maybe theres some mechanism behind the pseudo randomness or even behind the true randomness
>All the proposed solutions seem just as fantastical to me as any religion
Except some of them are falsifiable
Sure where science can't reach yet philosophy tends to make up random bullshit, especially if it's fundamental stuff like quantum mechanics
>is it even comprehensable to the human mind?
Why wouldn't it be? Our brains didn't explode from relativity theory and quantum mechanics themselves, and there sure were retards like you claiming they're le incomprehensible
>is the human mind physical?
Yes
>but is my "internal world" physical?
It's as physical as your running computer's internal world, except obviously several orders of magnitude more complex

What type of physicalist are you

>>18764835
>That's not what unfalsifiable means
Name an experimental result which would disprove physicalism.
>so far this has worked out INCREDIBLY well so there's no reason to assume otherwise
Do you think anyone's suggesting it hasn't? Or that there are no laws of nature? According to the ancients it was none other than Plato who first set out the problem of finding a model for planetary movements, even if the Greeks got a lot of it wrong.
>Maybe it IS truly random
We don't even have a good grasp of what true randomness actually is, we can talk about finite measures all day but this is still just a mathematical tool to work with the concept.
>Except some of them are falsifiable
Most aren't and the ones who are require experiments that humanity could never ever perform in reality, and at that point it might aswell be unfalsifiable.
>Why wouldn't it be
Why would it? There are humans who cannot and never will grasp what the color green "is", yet there are some who can and just "get it", it's not a matter of a scientific model at all.
>It's as physical as your running computer's internal world
Nonsense, the computer doesn't have an experience of the world, atleast not to my knowledge.

>>18764882
>Name an experimental result which would disprove physicalism.
Some from of parapsychology experiments could disprove a lot of versions of physicalism.

>>18764884
>Some from of parapsychology experiments
Examples?
>a lot of versions of physicalism
Well perhaps, but that again goes back to the question of what exactly is meant by "physical" in the first place.

>>18764882
>Name an experimental result which would disprove physicalism.
The nice thing about physics is that it is incredibly interlinked, so all you'd need is an event or phenomenon that would rebuke a shitton of our physical understanding
Several hypothetical examples: true telepathy, Experience-weighted outcomes like feefees influencing physical measurements, precognition, moral physics, and so on.
As the other anon said, there's been a bunch of parapsychology experiments already, some people are unironically so brainwashed they're trying to disprove physicalism kek. Well at least they're more based than anons ITT just playing sophistry while trying to cope with reality.
>Do you think anyone's suggesting it hasn't?
Non physicalists need to suggest it hasn't, otherwise there worldview has near zero legitimacy.
>Most aren't and the ones who are require experiments that humanity could never ever perform in reality
T. "Humans won't fly in a million years"
Once again the nonphysicalist is too close minded to even comprehend peeking beyond the horizon
>Nonsense, the computer doesn't have an experience of the world, atleast not to my knowledge.
define "experience of the world"
I could easily program it to have one, ingest a bunch of audiovisual inputs and spit out LLM slop. Now it's up to you to cope and redefine experience so it doesn't count for some reason

>>18764950
>true telepathy
How would you test wheter it was "truly" telepathic and not just a property of matter you didn't yet understand? This again goes back to what physicalism actually means. The ancients all thought there were laws that even the gods were subject to after all...
>Once again the nonphysicalist is too close minded to even comprehend peeking beyond the horizon
Name one experiment testing these theories that you think humanity could even in theory (That is without breaking the laws of physics as currently understood) perform.
>define "experience of the world"
Impossible , an experience is something you have first hand, it cannot be reduced to mere logic or words, it's like asking what the definition of the color red is.
>I could easily program it to have one, ingest a bunch of audiovisual inputs and spit out LLM slop
So you think AI as we have it is actually conscious? That there is some core to the whole thing that has a proper experience of something?

>>18765012
>How would you test wheter it was "truly" telepathic and not just a property of matter you didn't yet understand?
A property of matter you don't yet understand wouldn't blatantly violate bazillion physical principles like telepathy does
To put it into a babby analogy, physical discoveries have been always iteratively, there's never a full revamp of something once you've established a law. Newtons law didn't stop being false after Einstein as a super basic example
>Name one experiment testing these theories that you think humanity could even in theory (That is without breaking the laws of physics as currently understood) perform.
Collapse theories for example are easily testable, you basically need to manage to isolate a fuckass huge object in superposition, if you manage to do it then they're false, if you don't then they're true
There's no unfalsifiable mid range here
Actually this has already partially happened with some detection in Italy a few years ago
That's a super feasible one. There's the whole "increasingly bigger colliders" approach, and then there's also more out of the box approaches like building an incredibly powerful ai and locking it up in a quantum computer, see deutsch's thought experiment. Humans are innovative, and the field is incredibly recent in terms of human history. Treating it as a gotcha is kinda pathetic tbqh
>Impossible
Yet you impose it as a prerequisite on others. Curious
>So you think AI as we have it is actually conscious?
No, but since experience has no actual valid first person perspective definition as you've correctly identified, there's nothing preventing us from pretending it does, kek. Obviously there's a massive amount of gotchas right now making human experience a day and night type of thing. But with sufficiently advanced and robotic ai models it will be harder and harder to tell btw, that's where your copes will increase more and more.

>>18765046
>A property of matter you don't yet understand wouldn't blatantly violate bazillion physical principles like telepathy does
Do we even know enough about human cognition to make such a statement? Very, very, very mild perturbations in electrical signaling of the human brain might very well be caused in an as-yet unknown fashion by another mind while being caused by fully physical means.
>physical discoveries have been always iterative
Mostly yes... but only when we're talking about entire theories being expanded here... not on the results of individual experiments.
>Yet you impose it as a prerequisite on others
What? My whole point is that science is inadiquate to answer these sorts of questions regarding consciousness. Or were you talking about physicalism? Because that's not at all the same thing lmao.
>since experience has no actual valid first person perspective definition
Sure, but there is still a yes or answer to wether it does have an experience or not lol.
>there's nothing preventing us from pretending it does
What was the point of bringing up that example if you don't actually believe it is conscious?
>But with sufficiently advanced and robotic ai models it will be harder and harder to tell btw
Sure? But what makes you think it will ever be more than an advanced and self-updating trial-and-error search algorithm?

>>18765077
>Do we even know enough about human cognition to make such a statement?
Yes absolutely
>Very, very, very mild perturbations in electrical signaling of the human brain might very well be caused in an as-yet unknown fashion by another mind while being caused by fully physical means
No, not really, I think you genuinely don't comprehend how clunky the building blocks of the brain are in terms of physical scale and all the laws of physics that come with it. There's simply no way to do it without violating multiple dozen well established physical laws, and depending how magical you get with your telepathy we get into disrupting basic relativity, causality, and other core physical principles.
>not on the results of individual experiments.
Huh? Absolutely on the results of individual experiments, what the fuck are you talking about
>My whole point is that science is inadiquate to answer these sorts of questions regarding consciousness
You just presuppose this yet don't even bother to say why, that's a you problem anon
>What was the point of bringing up that example if you don't actually believe it is conscious?
To illustrate to you that special chosen one consciousness thinking is retarded
>Sure? But what makes you think it will ever be more than an advanced and self-updating trial-and-error search algorithm?
Anon, I...

>>18764950
>some people are unironically so brainwashed they're trying to disprove physicalism kek.
>Some people are unironically so brainwashed they're trying to challenge existing theory's of mind! :0
Unironically you are treating your physicalism like dogma

>>18765097
>There's simply no way to do it without violating multiple dozen well established physical laws
Do you know what differentiates you from thinking the word sequence "one plus one equals two" from "one plus one equals 5" biologically?
>Absolutely on the results of individual experiments
So there are no experiments where we get really radically different result by analysing it using a classical model vs a relativistic or QM model? Lol.
>You just presuppose this
You admitted this yourself.
>special chosen one consciousness thinking is retarded
So then it might very well have some sort of consciousness?
>Anon, I...
I mean, if you think that's all you are that must suck.

>>18765113
>anon can't cope with reality and resorts to ad hominems
Many such cases
>Do you know what differentiates you from thinking the word sequence "one plus one equals two" from "one plus one equals 5" biologically?
Yes, obviously not to the fullest extent, but we do
It's actually pretty fascinating stuff, I would recommend you read it (you of course won't because you need to cope and seethe about your brain being a little special babby and oh so unique)
Anyway here's some citations to look up the papers:
Niedeggen & Rösler (1999), "N400 Effects Reflect Activation Spread During Retrieval of Arithmetic Facts,"
Núñez-Peña & Honrubia-Serrano (2004), "P600 related to rule violation in an arithmetic task."
>You admitted this yourself.
>n-no y-you
You're getting desperate anon. I'm not the one pretending science will never ever explain consciousness, while I'm completely open to you showing me something that disproves physicalism, be it some magic trick or other thing. Falsifiability and experimentation to gain knowledge is one of the core pillars of physicalism, the only axiom is that thing x must be somehow explainable and observable and measurable with sufficient tools and knowledge
>So then it might very well have some sort of consciousness?
You? I highly doubt it

>>18765151
>Anyway here's some citations to look up the papers:
>Niedeggen & Rösler (1999), "N400 Effects Reflect Activation Spread During Retrieval of Arithmetic Facts,"
>Núñez-Peña & Honrubia-Serrano (2004), "P600 related to rule violation in an arithmetic task."

I'm willing to bet my life that you haven't read a single one

>>18765171
>doesn't even bother to argue back anymore, just seethes
I accept your concession.

>>18765865
I’m not that anon you was talking to, I just know you are full of shit

>>18765886
>uhhh wasn't me
Lmao

>>18766390
Yea i was this>>18765171
and this>>18765111

I wasn't the other guy you are talking too. And I will say it again, you are linking papers of which you have no fucking clue what's actually on there, you just got whatever llm you have on hand to shit out random papers to help you win a debate

>>18766411
>with no clue what's in there
Anon asked whether we know what differentiates you from thinking the word sequence "one plus one equals two" from "one plus one equals 5" biologically and we do, that's literally what the papers are about.
Maybe stop being retarded and chiming into discussions you don't even know the context of

>>18766419
It wouldn't matter if the subject was biology or history. You just sited paper to sound more creditable.

And I know this because it is such a fringe fucking subject and the chances that you have read on the exact same subject before, the subject you are debating on now, the chances are so fucking fringe. and to find the article of Niedeggen & Rösler you more or less need to be given accesses to see and or its hard to access, I would know this because I went to read it and there is a whole process you need to do to view it

Additionally with your previous track record I wouldn't put behind you lol

>>18766441
>you more or less need to be given accesses to see and or its hard to access
>doesn't know you can just sign in with your uni, use a sci hub esque site, or use a free account on jstor e.g. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40063424 if you're a pussy ass normie, or even just contact the author if you're that autistic
Lmao, accusing others of not reading papers while not knowing how to even access them

File: IMG_5971.png (631 KB, 1170x2532)

631 KB PNG

>>18766458
Even if I grant that (I still couldn’t access it) my other point in which you dodged like a pussy still stands lmao

>>18763957
If you had a puzzle for which nobody had thought or conceived of a solution, but said puzzle had a guaranteed solution, said solution would exist. This is common parlance, I feel as if you're just redefining existence to be anything physical which is just circular. If 2 + 2 at any given moment had nobody on Earth who was thinking of the solution and it was not written anywhere, would you take umbrage with somebody saying a solution exists? Like I said you're just redefining existence in a way in which nobody uses the term or conceives of it.

>>18766743
>If 2 + 2 at any given moment had nobody on Earth who was thinking of the solution and it was not written anywhere, would you take umbrage with somebody saying a solution exists?
You've misunderstood the argument once again. I'm not saying all constructs are equally useless, I'm saying that you're prescribing a magical inherent existence to mathematical constructs they simply don't have, because they're just that, constructs derived from reality.

>>18761570
>for the sake of argument, lets do something impossible
>but it's impossible!
>I am very smart

>>18766763
Well I'm not misunderstanding, I'm just making a semantic argument. I'm saying that most people's understanding of existence includes solutions to things which have not yet been thought of yet. This also applies to other things like science and engineering, for instance, if nuclear fusion is possible most would say there exists a process to fuse two atoms (with human technology). I just don't really see why this conception of existence is incorrect while yours is correct. It kind of seems to me that you've said "all that exists exists physically" and when most people's use of that word disagrees with that usage, you say "because its not physical it does not exist" which I think is circular. Like I said, this is semantic and I'm not especially invested one way or the other.

>>18764849
Op can you answer the question

>>18767879
>I just don't really see why this conception of existence is incorrect while yours is correct
Because it is derived existence
What sensible purpose does a solution to fusion have in the first place?
That's the problem of derived concepts, they're superfluous without the thing they reference
>most people's use of that word disagrees with that usage
Most people don't even know what physicalism is in general or the physicalism vs idealism vs dualism debate. Appealing to majority is not an argument here
Many people also think deities exist or magical beings exist
>which I think is circular
What exactly makes it circular? Can you distill it into a clear point?
>>18767885
Depends on what types of physicalists you consider there to be
Im asking because for me there's no "types" to physicalism, you either are one or aren't

>>18760688
give me an example of something that would falsify physicalism.

>>18767971
>give me an example of something that would falsify physicalism.
telepathy thats reproducible
other paranormal events
objects suddenly defying basic laws of physics
supernatural entities like gods and angels appearing
etc. etc.

>>18767964
no op there are different types of physicalisms.
There is
Reductive Physicalism
Non-Reductive Physicalism
Type Physicalism
Token Identity Theory
Illusionism

there is stuff like Priori Physicalism and Posteriori Physicalism
and stuff like Type-A/B/C Physicalism

Just saying
>its all the same bro
Is retarded and useless

So I will ask again; What type of physicalist are you

>>18767975
>supernatural entities like gods and angels appearing
God existing wouldn't necessarily disprove physicalism btw

>>18764946
>Examples?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228712565_Exploratory_study_The_random_number_generator_and_group_meditation

>>18768013
>Reductive Physicalism
yes
>Non-Reductive Physicalism
these people are not serious and not physicalists. "wot if we can have physicalism but also cop out into dualism to cope about muh soul with some super convoluted argumentation"
>Type Physicalism
mildly retarded physicalists who misunderstand physicalism, thinking everything is le same because it's called the same.
>Token Identity Theory
makes sense, but only if you don't fall into the trap of non reductive retards and embrace dualism. Token identity is neutral on dualism (because it is an answer to a sub problem in physicalism, not a type of physicalism), some dualists use this as some sort of retarded gotcha implying because it's mildly compatible it means you're a dualist now
>Illusionism
just an edgy way of saying reductive physicalism

hope this helped

>>18768016
>God existing wouldn't necessarily disprove physicalism btw
they absolutely would, what the fuck are you on about lmao
they only wouldn't if you define "god" as "sufficiently advanced alien civilization/entity that it seems like it's god to us"

>>18768035
ok second question
at what point does quantity turn into preserved quality, as in when does a first person experience become produced and why is this case

also could you define physical

>>18768039
>at what point does quantity turn into preserved quality, as in when does a first person experience become produced and why is this case
how the fuck should i know, this is a field of research and a question neuroscience has to solve
physicalism doesn't pretend to have all the answers of the universe in perpetuity, part of that is discovering and researching things
if you want my 5 cents based on what I've read up regarding current research:
the organization of brain activity matters, there is some threshold like transition from unconscious to conscious based on activity, some brain regions like posterior cortex and thalamocortical loops are super important for it and shiet.
>also could you define physical
Something is physical if it is the kind of thing described, at least approximately, by current or future physics, and it is not fundamentally mental.
last part is important to exclude solipsist retard gotchas like "aha but then physicalism can include muh retard idealism or dualist mental magic!!"

>>18768055
>are super important for it and shiet
Why do you type like this

>>18768069
newfag

>>18768079
>Get called out for roleplaying as a black man
>NEWFAG!!
lol

>>18761986
>consciousness
>>>/x/

>>18768093
are you actually going to address his point or just give a sly joke

>>18768098
you are asking for too much anon

>>18768098
did you give up arguing with me after your ad hominem newfag attempt? or are you another anon?

>>18768104
>are you actually going to address his poin
anyway regarding "his point"
>Why does consciousness exist if there is only the physical?
why not?
> There is nothing about physics which says there must be an experiential viewpoint.
not everything has an experiantial viewpoint, so there is no contradiction here

>>18768104
Wtf are you on about

>>18768055
>if it is the kind of thing described...by future physics
Good. The supernatural can be considered merely one that could be determined by future physics if we had infinite resources and time to invest into scientific research. We don't, so some aspects will forever be hidden from our gaze. Thus, we are free to believe regarding them.

>inb4 all religion is idealism
Kek, you reveal your ignorance.

>>18768108
>why not?
Just shifting the burden

>"why does something exist rather than nothing"
>"why not"
This is a useless response and does nothing

>>18768113
>The supernatural can be considered merely one that could be determined by future physics
then it is by definition not supernatural. when people talk about supernatural occurences, they talk about a spiritual world and other random bullshit we're not supposed to access no matter how much we try
> if we had infinite resources and time to invest into scientific research.
supernatural claims and godly claims go beyond that, so no, even this would be not sufficient according to a non-physicalist.
>Thus, we are free to believe regarding them.
see above retard
>inb4 all religion is idealism
pretty much, yeah. either idealist or dualist (with a heavy leaning towards the nonphysical side). physicalism is fundamentally incompatible with religion, this is not a contested view anon. what exactly is the ignorance?

>>18768119
>Just shifting the burden
there is no burden to shift because the original question has a hidden assumption, which you have first to prove for the question to be considered valid. this is presup retardation 101.
you treat no consciousness being the default, physicalism does not make a statement on whether a being is supposed or not supposed to have consciousness. so either reframe your question or get hit back with a "why not".

>>18768121
>either idealist or dualist
This is just a false dichotomy

>>18768121
>supernatural occurrences....we're not supposed to access
We access them through ritual, else religion is useless. It is not far-fetched then to think that we can access them through diligent science, if we had infinite resources

>supernatural claims go beyond that
There are many claims and many religions with many traditions of interpretation. Just because some have completely unscientific claims does not mean all are completely negated.

>all religion is idealism
Kek, did not do lit review and I'm not gonna do it for you. You've made the claim in >>18768055, justify it.

>>18768130
>We access them through ritual, else religion is useless
access something != full and complete understanding
>It is not far-fetched then to think that we can access them through diligent science, if we had infinite resources
>There are many claims and many religions with many traditions of interpretation.
can you name one religion which tells you it is possible to reach full understanding of the nonmaterial layer/world/whatever bullshit they have?
literally none comes to mind for me. certainly not the abrahamic ones

>>18768139
>can you name one religion which tells you it is possible to reach full understanding of the nonmaterial layer/world/whatever bullshit they have?
Buddhism
>literally none comes to mind for me. certainly not the abrahamic ones
Because you haven't researched much

>>18768125
why consciousness exists in a physicalist framework

>>18768139
>access something != full understanding
Yes, but still better than leaving it unanswered for eternity as science is unable to answer or access it due to lack of resources/time.

>name one religion which tells you it is possible to reach full understanding
A good many religions have this, anon. Catholicism has the beatific vision, Buddhism has nirvana, and so on. Those who have attained these spiritual heights know all, and also realize human language is a horrible tool to convey what they have experienced. Which makes sense, for if you go back to a Roman-era period and describe the physics of today to them, it is almost impossible to teach them about curved spacetime and black holes without invoking highly symbolic language, exactly what spiritually-attained people in different religions do.

>>18768141
>Buddhism
there's a reason why many people say buddhism isn't a religion
but fair enough, yes buddhism is one of those rare exceptions where they have a framework where you can attain le full spiritual enlightenment and become a quasi god
so teeeeechnically it is compatible with physicalism (if you ignore the historical classical buddhism which absolutely is not)
>>18768155
>why consciousness exists in a physicalist framework
evolutionary advantage
>>18768156
>Yes, but still better than leaving it unanswered for eternity as science is unable to answer or access it due to lack of resources/time.
that's why we should be physicalists and not dualists or idealists, correct.
>Catholicism has the beatific vision
lmao bringing up catholicism of all things. god is always beyond understanding, claiming otherwise is literal heresy.

>>18768174
>there's a reason why many people say buddhism isn't a religion
And they are wrong, saying Buddhism is not a religion is a colonialist and Eurocentric product and what you would be referring to is Buddhist modernism.

>>18768174
>evolutionary advantage
Which is? what 'distinct' feature('s) does consciousness provide that give the organism an evolutionary advantage

>>18768186
>colonialism
>Eurocentric product
are you a turdworlder?
people say buddhism is not a religion because
>no creator god
>no metaphysical commitments necessary in many buddhist directions
>"religion" itself is a western term and buddhists dont say its one, just a teaching (ironic for you)
basically: from a historical perspective, yes totally a religion
from an ideological nu perspective: buddhism barely qualifies as a religion, mostly not really
>>18768195
>Which is? what 'distinct' feature('s) does consciousness provide that give the organism an evolutionary advantage
1) unconscious perception can influence behavior but it seems inflexible, so evolution takes a shortcut and creates consciousness which allows you to adapt faster to environments, instead of just "hardcoding" a nonconscious killer machine. basically a complexity problem that's solved via heuristics
2) Some tasks seem to require awareness
3) Holding information across delays, multi-step reasoning, and following arbitrary instructions all appear to depend on it

I think the best simplification is this: think of life as a super complex problem with a shitton of variables, and you will arrive quickly at the problem of how to deal with it. There's two approaches, you brute force it (this is the nonconscious giga killer survival machine i meant), or you go the heuristics approach, so build up a machine that simulates, is aware, makes tradeoffs etc. that machine IS your consciousness.

>>18768205
>evolution takes a shortcut and creates consciousness
sounds teleological, be carful with your wording

>2) Some tasks seem to require awareness
What tasks require you to have a first person awareness, why couldn't you just postulate a world in where we appear as we have first person awareness but we just don't

>3) Holding information across delays, multi-step reasoning, and following arbitrary instructions all appear to depend on it
And why does all of this require consciousness

>>18768217
>sounds teleological
only if you're being a disingenuous retard and decide to misunderstand a simple statement
>where we appear as we have first person awareness but we just don't
there's no difference, stop bringing up your p zombie retardation
>And why does all of this require consciousness
I haven't pulled this out of my ass, there's research and experiments on this.
For example:
>People only learn to link a tone to a puff of air separated by a pause if they notice the connection
>Unseen numbers can trigger one simple calculation, but not multiple in a row
>Habits can be handled by the unconscious but it gets difficult to nearly impossible when it comes to new enviornments and instructions
once again, this is restricted to humans. nothing in physicalism or evolution says there can't exist a being without consciousness being able at this, but evolution is as you know multi branched, and heavily environment dependent. so not on this planet, not with these monkeys kek

Physicalism seems moreso to be a methodological aproach than anything else, any honest physicalist would have to admit we know very little of what reality is "actually like", we only know how it seems to behave to our senses, and that science will probably never answer such questions.
He seems moreso motivated by the wish to avoid metaphysical speculation than anything else, which is fair to a degree but I think a lot can be lost when you ignore the parts of existence that the world shows itself to you by direct observation and that intraspection can tell you about yourself and the world...

Religion and metaphysical speculation also exist for a reason, it's nor just people comming up with nonsense out of thin air, but is rather the result of people thinking deeply about the world and observing it directly to come up with explanations about why things are the way they are... and even if you think their explanations are wrong, atleast the problems they were grappling with can be very interesting.
Moreover this line of thinking easily makes the world bland and boring, disenchanted even, so what's the point of believing it when you admit yourself we don't really know the truth behind things?
Few of the greatest minds in history had this bland view of the world anyhow since it leads to Nihilism very easily if one isn't careful, and embracing skepticism would be far more honest than any dogmatic philosophy anyhow.

>>18768228
>only if you're being a disingenuous retard and decide to misunderstand a simple statement
Thats why I said be careful, fucking relax

>there's no difference, stop bringing up your p zombie retardation
No this is a serious question, idk why you are being so rude for?
why couldn't you just postulate a world in where we appear as we have first person awareness but we just don't

>I haven't pulled this out of my ass, there's research and experiments on this.
Well I hope not?

>People only learn to link a tone to a puff of air separated by a pause if they notice the connection
And why does this require a subjective first person awareness

>Unseen numbers can trigger one simple calculation, but not multiple in a row
What do you mean by unseen numbers, simple calculation and multiple in a row. what context are you using this

>Habits can be handled by the unconscious but it gets difficult to nearly impossible when it comes to new environments and instructions
and why is this the case and how. could you also provide some sources supporting this and all other other claims

>this is restricted to humans.
so only humans can do the stuff mentioned above or do you mean something else?

why you are being so disrespectful for, calm down

>>18768241
>why couldn't you just postulate a world in where we appear as we have first person awareness but we just don't
because you can't even define "appear" without presupposing some magical consciousness essence
that's why it's retardation

>>18768248
can you please actually answer my question('s) thank you, idk why you are being so rude for

>>18767975
How do you know those things can’t exist in a purely physical sense?
Like why do you use the current understanding of physics?
Would physicalism be disproven if physics had to be re-interpreted due some breakthrough in AI driven physics going beyond what humans can grasp?

>>18768249
i literally just did, I'm rude because you're either disingenuous or plain retarded
you deliberately skip my answers and ask the same questions again
>nd why does this require a subjective first person awareness
it doesn't it does in humans, see response before
>so only humans can do the stuff mentioned above or do you mean something else?
on earth? yeah? lmao what the fuck are these questions

>>18768038
Or just a being in the physical universe that is sufficiently beyond man.
Like for example, an AI might be closer to God than to man. But actual biblical God that is to say “traditional” “God” might be a real being which is apart of the physical world in ways we cannot grasp. Sort of like how AI has solved mathematical problems that professional mathematicians took decades to scratch the surface of.
There are beings beneath man. AI might be a being above man some day. Why couldn’t a being above man exist already?
God wouldn’t disprove physicalism especially not if physicalism has room for empirical interpretations of that which would previously have been called mysticism or magic.

The idea of a p-zombie can actually be atleast partly analysed using science, that is to say, can we construct a machine which we have very good reason to believe isn't actually conscious, but responds to physical stimuli as if it were... moreover we could also reasonably pose the question of whether evolution by natrual selection would be more likely to produce and maintain a p-zombie or a human being with true consciousness, you can't just apply heuristic reasoning and "assume" consciousness is an evolutionary advantage.

>>18768254
>How do you know those things can’t exist in a purely physical sense?
because they'd violate multiple existing physical laws which seem irrefutable
>Like why do you use the current understanding of physics?
because that's what we have?
>Would physicalism be disproven if physics had to be re-interpreted due some breakthrough in AI driven physics going beyond what humans can grasp?
define re-interpreted
all physics discarded and any understanding that we have? yeah
all theorems are kinda ish true, but we have a deeper foundational understanding or some exceptions? no

>>18768257
>i literally just did, I'm rude because you're either disingenuous or plain retarded
So asking clarifying questions is disingenuous? ffs

>it doesn't it does in humans, see response before
Yea but you never explained why thats the case, expand on what you are saying

>on earth? yeah? lmao what the fuck are these questions
I'm asking questions because your answers are vague. When you say "this is restricted to humans" meaning only humans have these quality's
>People only learn to link a tone to a puff of air separated by a pause if they notice the connection
>Unseen numbers can trigger one simple calculation, but not multiple in a row
>Habits can be handled by the unconscious but it gets difficult to nearly impossible when it comes to new enviornments and instructions
I want to know if that is what you actually mean

You also haven't answered, why couldn't you just postulate a world in where we appear as we have first person awareness but we just don't. and just resulted to insults
You also haven't answered, why is this the case and how. and you also haven't provided the sources supporting for the claims you made, of which you said there was.

Overall you are very rude and have been rude since I first started asking question>>18768155
I hope you find peace have a good day

>>18768279
>When you say "this is restricted to humans" meaning only humans have these quality's
see this is what i mean by disingenuous retard
literally me, a few posts ago:
>nothing in physicalism or evolution says there can't exist a being without consciousness being able at this, but evolution is as you know multi branched, and heavily environment dependent. so not on this planet, not with these monkeys kek

>>18768264
Sounds like an experimental design problem moreso than a philosophical problem. It would be interesting to see how someone would design an experiment to test this hypothesis. I mean, we literally have people designing experiments to try and detect particles that have no mass so it could probably be done but I sure as fuck aren't smart enough to do it.

>>18768282
ok you could of just prefaced that.
Because saying only humans have these quality's is different to saying only can humans have these quality's.

I just asked a clarifying question because I'm was not sure/confused; idk why you think everyone is out to get you and I'm being disingenuous.
get a grip and relax

>>18768264
>can we construct a machine which we have very good reason to believe isn't actually conscious, but responds to physical stimuli as if it were...
that's not what the p zombie problem postulates and that's where the retardation starts
the p zombie problem basically says
>imagine a living breathing hooman in every single way IDENTICAL TO YOU, down to every atom, hair and molecule
>ok but this hooman has no consciousness heh
>ok you did imagine it, hypothetically, right?
>this means physicalism cant explain consciousness, heh

>>18768299
I don't hold to the argument but this is just a shity strawman

P1. P-Zombies are perfectly conceivable. We can imagine a world physically identical to ours, but where no one has inner conscious experiences.
P2. If P-Zombies are conceivable, they are metaphysically possible. (There is no logical contradiction in their existence, unlike a "round square").
P3. If a world physically identical to ours could exist without consciousness, then consciousness is something extra. Therefore, physicalism is false, because physical facts alone do not automatically guarantee or explain conscious experience.
C1. Physicalism is false

>>18768302
>this is just a shity strawman
>posts the exact same argumentation except in slightly fancier wording and some P letters prepended

>>18768299
>>18768313
NTA, but at this point you’re just growling at everyone like a rat in a cage and it’s sad to see. You’re not convincing anybody of your enlightened euphoria. Give this thread up and touch grass.

>>18768313
You argument was missing followings and didn't explain why x leads to y.
You just strawmaned the fuck out of it

>>18768318
>imagine a living breathing hooman in every single way IDENTICAL TO YOU, down to every atom, hair and molecule
>ok but this hooman has no consciousness heh
P1
>ok you did imagine it, hypothetically, right?
P2
fine i missed p3
>Ok because you managed to imagine it, it means there's no contradiction heh, it could hypothetically exist and stuff
P3
>this means physicalism cant explain consciousness, heh
C1

>>18768317
what can you do :(
>>18768324
yea missing a premise isn't just an "opposei dazy" its completely changes how the argument functions.
Holy shit just admit it was a strawman is it really that hard.

Also I'm curious how would to respond to the argument

>>18768331
>its completely changes how the argument functions.
doesn't change shit, any person with more than 2 braincells realizes how retarded the whole thing is
>Also I'm curious how would to respond to the argument
P1. Life-zombies are perfectly conceivable. We can imagine a world physically identical to ours, but where no one is *actually* alive.
P2. If Life-zombies are conceivable, they are metaphysically possible. (There is no logical contradiction in their existence, unlike a "round square").
P3. If a world physically identical to ours could exist without being alive, then being alive is something extra. Therefore, biology is false, because biological facts alone do not automatically guarantee or explain being alive.

>>18768343
>doesn't change shit, any person with more than 2 braincells realizes how retarded the whole thing is
You don't even know what strawman means, grim.
Even if you do not agree with the argument or even if the argument is outright false you can still strawman the argument.
You really do not admit fault do you XD.

>p1
>p2
>p3
You could just say conceivability doesn't necessarily entail metaphysically possibility but ok.

>You could just say conceivability doesn't necessarily entail metaphysically possibility but ok.
some motherfuckers are so dense they need it spelled out
apparently an obvious statement like this is controversial to some

>>18768364
ok

>>18768357
>You really do not admit fault do you XD.
Anon he is dense what did you expect.

>>18768368
i will admit fault in that I'm incredibly smug. but it's hard not to be smug as a physicalist, because the other side just seems retarded
to put it in other terms, it's like if you were an enlightened christian trying to argue with some pagans who believe in vodoo magic and that it will cure their diseases if they sacrifice some virgins

>>18768382
XD you made me laugh

>they are all are so stupid and not at the same intelligence as me, I'm so much better than them! D<
lmao. you are insufferable. Go and publish your work. philosophy of mind needs your intelligence at work, you got it all figured out

I think there is some confusion about what OP even means by physicalism, what he seems to want is a phenomenon that completely breaks the laws of physics as currently understood, something which seems to be "unbound" by the mechanisms ruling the clockwork universe, something that cannot be explained by a slightly updated model, but rather completely breaks all previous ones apart and show them to have important exceptions in areas they're currently thought to govern.

Question though, can we reasonably break down all complex emergent phenomena into physics problems in this way and analyze whether or not they fit our current models, if they just need an updated model, or whether they break them at some fundamental level?
After all physics becomes quite difficult once you introduce more than a few variables and usually require computer models for this sort of thing... and if you have billions of parameters no computer will ever be able to deal with the problem without significantly simplifying it.
After all, so far we have only begun to scratch the surface of applying physics and mathematics to biology and this is exactly where the biggest area of dispute lies between the physicalist and the non-physicalist.

>>18768392
no need to publish anything, you can just read up on what Putnam wrote. all of this has been discussed
Putnam makes things extra interesting, because he realized everything pretty early on, then kept his later years coping with reality and trying to (unsuccessfully) attack it. Makes for an interesting read for sure. Afaik he found some middle ground before he died, but it was a bit of a cop out
If you want the more smug variant, just read through this thread, or if you want more word salad, read Dennett

>>18768418
very good comment anon, this is basically Hempel's dilemma. How can (human) physics, an imperfect human language, describe the incredibly complex universe?
What I would respond is this:
>can we reasonably break down all complex emergent phenomena into physics problems
current physics? probably no, or even obviously no. assuming physics will advancing.
>analyze whether or not they fit our current models
absolutely, this is what we've always been doing
and you put it correctly, my point is historically speaking throughout all of human history, physics and human discovery has always been iterative. we experiment, we build upon knowledge, we experiment a bit more.
in some way, this IS physicalism for me.
for it to be disproven, something incredibly radical would need to happen. I'm not talking about a violation in some physics gap, I'm talking about a such blatant violation that we basically discover a foundational truth that puts our entire existence into question.
This could be in meme terms finding out we live in a simulation because we find a glitch in some physical constant at the edge of the universe.
This could be god just straight up showing up and ascending us into heaven.
This could be some other random stuff.
But what it NOT could be is making a discovery that for example lets us teleport by bending spacetime, because all other physical laws and discoveries work just fine and will keep working just fine.

>>18768438
> we experiment, we build upon knowledge, we experiment a bit more.
in some way, this IS physicalism for me.
>conflates the scientific process of obtaining knowledge with a statement about reality
And I’m free to adopt methodological naturalism :)

>>18768514
one proceeds from the other
if you constantly make physicalist realizations and literally nothing else from your methodological naturalism, then what does that tell you?
"nah fuck all that, I'm gonna cope with religion instead"?

>>18768541
Doesn’t matter, methodological naturalism is still valid. One can say that I need to believe what I practice, and I do, but I’m also free to add more on top as long as it doesn’t contradict the practice. Icing on the cake still makes a cake, and a better one for me. If you prefer your cake without icing, you do you :)

>>18768546
>methodological naturalism is still valid
Never said it isn't
>but I’m also free to add more on top as long as it doesn’t contradict the practice
Be honest with yourself anon, it kinda does
Or very much does (assuming you follow a major religion)
I'll take it back if you say some based thing like you're a Spinoza god worshipper

>>18768555
I’m honest, and yes it can be so that it doesn’t contradict the practice. You can accuse all you want, but since you just mentioned Spinoza, it means that icing is still possible on the cake. Science often, if not always, ascribes no intrinsic meaning to physical processes, so I’m free to cook up my own meaning atop science as long as I don’t directly contradict science :)

>>18768565
Out of curiosity, what religion or worldview do you prescribe to?

>>18768570
I’m not going to answer that, as I know the intent is to merely start criticizing my worldview in whatever way you can, it’s in bad faith. Be honest :)

>>18768577
I don't really care about your worldview itself; I'm just curious why you think it would be compatible with methodological naturalism

>>18768585
There are many worldviews and some religious ones that would be entirely compatible with methodological naturalism. If you’re curious, read more instead of talking to anons on a 4chan thread :)