/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #13944789

44KiB, 400x400, 977a54aca620233a48125566e2de5099_400x400.jpg

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 00:50:29 2021 No.13944789 View Reply Original Report

Consciousness doesn't exist. Deal with it.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1638945595092.jpg, 114KiB, 605x605

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 00:52:01 No.13944796 Report

Quoted By: >>13944804 >>13945223

Then how come am currently experiencing events subjectively?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 00:52:50 No.13944802 Report

Quoted By:

>>13944789
>Consciousness doesn't exist
I don't understand what this statement means. It is a sentence that is grammatical but nonsense, like Chomsky's "colorless green ideas sleep furiously".

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 00:54:10 No.13944804 Report

Quoted By: >>13944825 >>13944840 >>13944855 >>13944896 >>13944904 >>13944952 >>13945038 >>13945265 >>13945379

>>13944796
You aren't. Your brain is literally, unironically tricking you into thinking you're having a subjective experience.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 01:00:14 No.13944825 Report

Quoted By: >>13944835 >>13945017

>>13944804
Evidence for reincarnation exists. Explain that.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 01:02:24 No.13944835 Report

Quoted By: >>13944893 >>13945017

>>13944825
Your brain or biological shape mimics that of someone who did or didn't live.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 01:03:21 No.13944840 Report

Quoted By: >>13944843 >>13944851

>>13944804
How can something be tricked if it doesn't exist?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 01:04:22 No.13944843 Report

Quoted By: >>13944874 >>13945265 >>13945267 >>13945956

>>13944840
The same way a stage magician tricks you into thinking something's there when it isn't.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 4346345.png, 87KiB, 487x589

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 01:05:34 No.13944850 Report

Quoted By:

>>13944789
>Consciousness doesn't exist. Deal with it
Your human rights don't exist, and neither does any moral consideration for your life. You're an object.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 01:05:37 No.13944851 Report

Quoted By: >>13944874 >>13945617

>>13944840
Your memories are emotional, and this emotional imprint changes the context of a memory. If you think you have control over your behaviors,your actions will be motivated to reflect that.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 01:06:52 No.13944855 Report

Quoted By:

>>13944804
>Your brain is literally, unironically tricking you into thinking you're having a subjective experience.
How would a self-admitted nonhuman piece of meat know anything about human brains and human experiences? It's funny that you can't see how the mere expression of your position automatically ejects you from any rational conversation.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 01:11:43 No.13944874 Report

Quoted By: >>13944891

>>13944843
That's not a very compelling argument.
How can the taste of an apple be a trick?
>>13944851
That doesn't have anything to do with the claim that somehow the brain tricks itself into thinking that it's thinking. The statement is absurd, it's semantically meaningless.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 01:16:25 No.13944891 Report

Quoted By: >>13944902

>>13944874
It tricks itself using emotions as a language. It thinks its thinking because that gives the illusion of self importance and self preservation by extension, despite it being made up of a non-conscious network.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 01:16:41 No.13944893 Report

Quoted By: >>13944916

>>13944835
That's bollocks.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 01:17:00 No.13944896 Report

Quoted By: >>13944900

>>13944804
>unironically tricking you
so I am conscious?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 01:17:50 No.13944900 Report

Quoted By: >>13944945

>>13944896
Nope.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 01:18:38 No.13944902 Report

Quoted By: >>13944916 >>13944922

>>13944891
>It thinks its thinking
So it's thinking.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 01:19:17 No.13944904 Report

Quoted By:

>>13944804
tricking who? think

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 01:22:19 No.13944914 Report

Quoted By: >>13944931 >>13944972

I don't understand what people actually mean when they say this.
A girl takes a bite of an apple and tastes the flavor of the apple. Where is the illution or trick or whatever? There's just a girl eating the apple. The apple has a flavor. The girl tastes the flavor. There is no "illusion" here I don't understand what is even meant by this.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 01:22:26 No.13944916 Report

Quoted By: >>13944937 >>13945135

>>13944902
The language corresponds to what we perceive as thought. You aren't generating thoughts based on will alone, there are processes that influence your thoughts.
>>13944893
Genes can be combined in a finite number of ways. Is it ridiculous to suggest that you could take on the memories of someone who never existed?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 01:23:10 No.13944919 Report

Quoted By:

When "scientists" make comments regarding their faith or beliefs or meta-physical understanding, this is just a scientist talking about himself and who he is and what his experiences are. It's a story. It's a life story. It's worthy of /lit/ and you should go read Siddhartha by Hermann Hesse.
A scientist is being a bully.
Bullying is a terrible problem in academia. It's very racist and sexist. There are many white male victims of academic bullying.
OP, you're not on-topic because you're quoting a "scientist" being a bully about his meta-physical understanding.
You know what that means?
Usually it means that person doesn't understand very much.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 01:23:40 No.13944922 Report

Quoted By: >>13945131

>>13944902
A better way of putting it is "it thinks it's conscious." The actual thinking processes are unconscious. Just brute computation.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 01:24:42 No.13944929 Report

Quoted By:

this is a /lit/ + /x/ thread and your curiosity about these non-scientific topics raised by scientists who enjoy their fame can be substantially grown over at those boards

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 01:26:06 No.13944931 Report

Quoted By: >>13944938 >>13946017 >>13948337

>>13944914
Not to get too jargon-y here, but the girl's experience in the brain is just a representational hologram that the unconscious spits out to make her think she's having an experience. There is no actual qualia behind eating an apple.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 01:26:33 No.13944933 Report

Quoted By:

Based Dennett btfoing the philosofags

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 01:27:58 No.13944937 Report

Quoted By: >>13944960

>>13944916
well reaserchers have followed up on a number of reincarnation cases and found that their testimony matches closely to the person they claim to have been in a previous life.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 01:28:22 No.13944938 Report

Quoted By: >>13944946

>>13944931
This is literally a bunch of nonsense semantically meaningless words dude. You're not actually saying anything that challenges the existence of a subjective experience.
The brain can't "trick someone" into having a subjective experience, if the brain is generating something that is an experience it is not a trick nor an illusion. It's the experience.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 01:30:57 No.13944945 Report

Quoted By:

>>13944900
then how was I tricked?

a computer can trick another computer, nobody equates that to consciousness. I'll attest that our conscious selves dont even need to exist, Id be here but everything could feel like what it did before I was born, thatd be a lot simpler than being this strange entity that is persistently bound to experiencing reality

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 01:31:38 No.13944946 Report

Quoted By: >>13944955 >>13944958

>>13944938
How about an exercise. Imagine a pirate. Spend a few seconds imagining it, from top to bottom.

Done? Okay. What shape was the pirate's belt buckle? How many buttons did the pirate have? What color was the pirate's shoes?

You don't remember because you didn't actually imagine a pirate. You brain literally tricked you into thinking you had imagined it, but you hadn't. There was no experience there, only an illusion of an experience.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 01:33:08 No.13944952 Report

Quoted By:

>>13944804
can I think jews out of existence then?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 01:34:35 No.13944955 Report

Quoted By: >>13944964 >>13945055

>>13944946
Lol what. He had a square belt buckle and was wearing a blue coat with 5 buttons and had a funny hat with a feather.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 01:35:46 No.13944958 Report

Quoted By: >>13944968 >>13945055

>>13944946
>What shape was the pirate's belt buckle?
Square.

>How many buttons did the pirate have?
7.

>What color was the pirate's shoes?
Black.

Figures the p-zombie would be aphantasic and absolutely baffled by the concept of imagination. Dennett and his fans are not the same species as actual humans. They lack normal human perceptions and normal neural correlates of consciousness, and think it puts them in a position to explain consciousness to their conscious counteparts. Cringe out of this world.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 01:36:08 No.13944960 Report

Quoted By: >>13944978

>>13944937
Out of the investigations so far, were there any flukes?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 01:37:15 No.13944964 Report

Quoted By: >>13944968 >>13944969 >>13944983 >>13944990

>>13944955
Assuming you actually think you saw those things, this is obvious confabulation. If you had seen the follow-up questions a few seconds later, or with a little caffeine, or while in a slightly different posture or whatever, you would have confabulated completely different details. We know this from piles of studies. People systematically confabulate what they 'experience'.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 01:38:17 No.13944968 Report

Quoted By: >>13944973

>>13944958
Pure confabulation. See: >>13944964

You absolutely did not visualize the number of buttons or the shape of the belt buckle or whatever, and everyone knows it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 01:38:28 No.13944969 Report

Quoted By:

>>13944964
I can guarantee that if we did a brain scan on anyone genuinely expressing your opinions, we would find little to no activity in all areas related to self-processing. Get scanned. You'll see that you aren't human.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 01:39:20 No.13944972 Report

Quoted By: >>13944993 >>13945025

>>13944914
Well, what determines the phenomenon of flavor? Is there an objective reality which states that apples have a specific flavor and that all subjective realities will react more or less the same when tasting the apple, or is it all just a contrivance of the mind and in true reality there is no such thing as "flavor"?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 01:39:47 No.13944973 Report

Quoted By:

>>13944968
>n-n-nooo! let me tell you what you did or didn't visualize
LOL. I shart on you. For your sake, I hope this is bait. It's better to be dead than to live the kind of impoverished existence you describe.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 01:40:28 No.13944978 Report

Quoted By: >>13944984

>>13944960
What do you mean by flukes?
if individuals were found to be able details of another person's life that neither they nor those they know should have any idea about then something must be storing these memories and transferring them between the two people.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 3523432.jpg, 29KiB, 500x565

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 01:40:48 No.13944981 Report

Quoted By: >>13945581

>Is there an objective reality which states that apples have a specific flavor

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 01:41:15 No.13944983 Report

Quoted By:

>>13944964
But what does this have to do with an experience?
Say you ask how many buttons a pirate had, but the pirate imagined was shirtless. Then the question has no relevance, but not do to a lack of detail.
I don't understand what you're saying

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 01:42:43 No.13944984 Report

Quoted By: >>13944992 >>13944995

>>13944978
I mean were there any cases where the someone had memories but they couldn't find evidence of the person existing.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 01:43:45 No.13944987 Report

Quoted By: >>13944998

OP is repeating the garbage trash talking of an academic bully.
Sad.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 01:43:53 No.13944988 Report

Quoted By: >>13944996

Do ideas exist?

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 342344.jpg, 76KiB, 1200x1200

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 01:44:50 No.13944990 Report

Quoted By: >>13945203

>>13944964
>this is obvious confabulation.
>We know this from piles of studies. People systematically confabulate what they 'experience'.
Imagine living in a society where people like this are a majority, and get a say on public matters...

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 01:45:09 No.13944992 Report

Quoted By:

>>13944984
I don't know about that.
If you're interested then read Ian Stevenson and James Tucker's research for yourself.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 01:45:15 No.13944993 Report

Quoted By: >>13945077

>>13944972
The former

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 01:46:13 No.13944995 Report

Quoted By: >>13945005

>>13944984
Don't you think this is more of a CINEMATIC topic than a SCIENTIFIC one?
Have you seen this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceBW3RbrL0E

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 01:46:17 No.13944996 Report

Quoted By: >>13945164 >>13945171

>>13944988
Yes but not in the way we imagine. I think its more like a configuration of processes correspond and influence what we interpret as an idea.The physical component exists, the simulation of the perception does not yet.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 01:46:32 No.13944998 Report

Quoted By:

>>13944987
He's been called a retard at least three times.
It seems like mental masturbation to me

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 01:50:07 No.13945005 Report

Quoted By:

>>13944995
Not really, I think the biology and processes that form a human are fixed enough that it could happen. Its like a matter of combination assuming its not set to a fixed range by underlying mechanisms.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 01:51:31 No.13945009 Report

Quoted By:

https://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Galton/imagery.htm

Seems like something about spending too much time in a government-funded institution turns you into a drone.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 01:55:11 No.13945017 Report

Quoted By: >>13945037

>>13944825
>>13944835
That's actually a great argument against consciousness, we're all basically just fucking turing machines inside a bigger turing machine and we've tricked ourselves to believe we're conscious.
I had a thought experiment that if I was conscious and I was around a bunch of machines that weren't but designed to convince they were conscious, then I suspect they themselves would have to be tricked of it too.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 01:59:59 No.13945025 Report

Quoted By:

>>13944972
>Well, what determines the phenomenon of flavor?
Wouldn't that be encoded in our genome? Maybe not directly in the order of real nucleic acids but a description of the phenomenon written in more abstract, genetic meta language way.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 02:04:40 No.13945037 Report

Quoted By:

>>13945017
That sounds like a really clever way to boost ones potential paths when you put it that way. One system interacting with a larger system in order to exponentially increase the scale of potential outcomes. Even though it has its limits, know consciousness is about potential is reassuring.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 02:05:40 No.13945038 Report

Quoted By: >>13945054 >>13945203

>>13944804
>unironically tricking you
Who's "you" ?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 02:12:28 No.13945054 Report

Quoted By:

>>13945038
Your memory and the systems that regulate it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 02:12:48 No.13945055 Report

Quoted By:

>>13944958
>>13944955

>square belt and 5-7 buttons
I thought the exact same, with other variations not too far off.

I'm wonderig if pirate anon is right and our answers are based not on out imagination in the moment but how we've all learned what a pirate looks like since being a kid and possibly from the same universal sources. Shouldn't this aspect be taken into consideration?

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO +_14fc221dbadbc04fe9c1bad4832e3741.jpg, 17KiB, 284x326

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 02:18:47 No.13945067 Report

Quoted By:

I'm working on a story set in the near future; it's my understanding that the prefrontal cortex controls decision making, and damage to that region (i.e. lobotomies) could potentially make a person more pliable. But since 50s lobotomies pretty much destroyed random brain matter half the time, it's difficult to ascertain how effective this would be as a crude form of mind control. How feasible would it be to create a brain implant to replace the damaged matter and suppress a person's free will even further? We barely understand how the brain works so I expect that it'd be decades before we have that kind of technology, but is there a slim chance for something like this to exist before 2030?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 02:20:00 No.13945071 Report

Quoted By:

>read one of his books
>he goes on to "prove" how realistic hallucinations aren't actually possible and so must be made up
Lol. Have never read anything by that hack since.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO Screen Shot 2021-12-09 at 9.18.0 (...).png, 1MiB, 1190x1144

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 02:20:42 No.13945074 Report

Quoted By: >>13945076 >>13945203

>>13944789
Bold take. He really doesn't Maybe he doesn't have a soul. It's insane

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RO7fro4frKk&t=2220

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 02:21:54 No.13945076 Report

Quoted By: >>13945082 >>13945126

>>13945074
What is the soul? How do you quantify it?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 02:22:18 No.13945077 Report

Quoted By:

>>13944993
Therein lies OPs argument, what constitutes flavor, what constitutes objective reality when all we know is our own subjective experience? Because all accounts of flavor come from subjective realities, objectivity can't be fully determined, we all just agree that flavor exists objectively.

El Arcón

El Arcón Fri 10 Dec 2021 02:23:50 No.13945080 Report

Quoted By:

>>13944789
Israel is Satan. Not knowing that has nothing to do with the fact that any reasonable person should have known that the secular state called Israel is a piece of shit who is in the wrong on every issue.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO f6b8b99a3fd932329962accedfa3f9c6.jpg, 10KiB, 236x221

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 02:24:09 No.13945082 Report

Quoted By: >>13945093 >>13945097 >>13945203

>>13945076
>if you can't measure it with a ruler it does not exist, my mentor professor Goldstein said so. You are an automaton.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 02:25:31 No.13945087 Report

Quoted By: >>13945203

>>13944789
This is a deeply mystic position.

Exist comes from the Latin exist?, to stand forth out of, etc. Consciousness does not exist, consciousness merely IS, as it cannot stand out from itself if it encompasses all that is.

It is also the same view held on metaphysical grounds. Because all things that exist are objects of sorts differentiated from the ground of being itself, which as said simply "is". The ground itself is nothingness, no substance, no attribute.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 02:29:36 No.13945093 Report

Quoted By: >>13945098 >>13945153

>>13945082
No its imperative that you're able to define it. If you can't define it, its little more than language. One guy claimed to have measured the soul, yet no one can clearly define what the soul is. Its the same issue with God. If you defined God as the creator, God would be equatable to the origin of everything, but if you say God is the most high, that isn't very helpful.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 02:33:08 No.13945097 Report

Quoted By: >>13945106

>>13945082
Rulers are a great way to mindfuck people who have not exposed themselves to mind altering drugs... 15 inches is objective, the actual qualitative nature of 15 inches which is most anything not in some math equation, is entirely subjective.

Simply stick a ruler on an object. Smoke some drugs. Watch the object change size and stretch to twice the width. But oh no! What's that you stupid fuck? Your ruler was ALSO just a visual object so it has stretched too. Now your 15 inches looks like a sober 30 inches yet the ruler functions as normal and measures the objects precisely the same... So what IS the real 15 inches? The stretched out one, or the sober one? How do you know?

At some point a person has to realize an undisputable fact. A certainty. That no matter what true reality may or may not have a tangible actuality outside of a subject/object relation, no person ever could interface with it. Everything we can ever know or experience is known through senses, thought, emotion. And as such we only ever interact with a dream. Literally. Everything you know and have ever known is a dream irrespective of whether you believe there is or is not some kind of tangible reality made of non-abstract objects.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 02:33:20 No.13945098 Report

Quoted By: >>13945102

>>13945093
Define yourself. If you can't do it, you literally do not exist and are worth less than a worm. You have 15 seconds.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 02:34:45 No.13945102 Report

Quoted By: >>13945121

>>13945098
I am a human, constructed from microbia, constructed from atoms, constructed from quanta/quarks.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 02:35:28 No.13945104 Report

Quoted By:

The funniest part is logic is what doesn't exist and when it comes down to it your just making propositions about experiences even just a subtle feeling of liking the sound of a word.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 02:36:18 No.13945106 Report

Quoted By: >>13945119

>>13945097
An important detail that distinguishes reality from a dream is your point of reference or the beginning of your sense of continuity.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 02:40:55 No.13945119 Report

Quoted By: >>13945128

>>13945106
What if someone was a hyperrealistic dreamer? Every dream they had, they fall asleep here and wake up in bed "there". They fall asleep in bed "there" after a day in dream land, then wake up here. Their dreams having the same level of rigidity and continuity as what we know to be waking life.

How can they know which if either is real?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 02:41:16 No.13945121 Report

Quoted By: >>13945128 >>13945203

>>13945102
is there a hard problem of consciousness?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 02:43:27 No.13945126 Report

Quoted By: >>13945132

>>13945076
What is truth? How do you quantify it?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 02:44:01 No.13945128 Report

Quoted By: >>13945136

>>13945119
If their dreams have the same level of rigidity and continuity, does that mean their physical body would register marks on the body the same? Like if they got the tattoo in real life, would it appear in the dream?
>>13945121
What do you mean by hard problem?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 02:44:44 No.13945130 Report

Quoted By: >>13945203

>>13944789
Nothing can both think it exists and not exist

>>>/gobacktolitwithyourweirdtheories/

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 02:44:46 No.13945131 Report

Quoted By: >>13945203

>>13944922
So I'm conscious.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 02:45:02 No.13945132 Report

Quoted By: >>13945139 >>13945140 >>13945141 >>13945151

>>13945126
What is collectively agreed to have happened materially. If the physical pieces agree with our theory, it is considered truth.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 02:45:46 No.13945135 Report

Quoted By:

>>13944916
>what we perceive as thought
>we perceive
So we're conscious.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 02:45:56 No.13945136 Report

Quoted By: >>13945145

>>13945128
Nah, their waking tatts stay in their waking world, their dream tatts stay in their dream world.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 02:47:14 No.13945139 Report

Quoted By: >>13945161

>>13945132
You've failed.
>What is collectively agreed
By whom?
You've also failed to quantify it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 02:47:22 No.13945140 Report

Quoted By: >>13945161

>>13945132
Why? Has a physical piece ever given ya a smooch or tucked you in?

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO hempels dilemma.jpg, 105KiB, 1024x768

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 02:48:15 No.13945141 Report

Quoted By: >>13945161 >>13945552

>>13945132
>materially
Define "materially".
>the physical pieces
Define "physical".

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 02:49:19 No.13945145 Report

Quoted By:

>>13945136
Then I think the limits of one's own knowledge would help you tell the difference. You dreams utilize the senses and phenomena you've physically experienced, if you encounter something completely foreign, or that is a sense you've never felt in any way, it would be a marker of the dream

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 75282.jpg, 37KiB, 398x376

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 02:49:32 No.13945147 Report

Quoted By: >>13945191

>>13944789
>atheists have to do such insane mental gymnastics that they deny their own existence
KEK

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 02:50:25 No.13945151 Report

Quoted By: >>13945170

>>13945132
But that's not necessarily truth, is it. It doesn't have the same certainty as "I am", which is an absolute truth. The fact of existence is an absolute truth.

A bunch of people in a Matrix sim, none of that is real. But their "I am" if they have one, is real and certain. The fact they are within existence in at least some way, even if inanimate and unsentient, is certain... Start with certainty... Existence exists...

Now does each material object come with its own little packet of existence? Or is every material object from a particle to a planet within existence as a totality? What is the commonality between you, planets, particles? It's sheer existence. What IS existence. What is it all made of?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 02:50:50 No.13945153 Report

Quoted By: >>13945161

>>13945093
Define "defining".

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 02:52:05 No.13945161 Report

Quoted By: >>13945175 >>13945194

>>13945139
By your fellow humans.
>>13945140
Yes
>>13945141
Materially:Belonging to the system which our senses engage with in limited scope.
Physically: What we observe/interact with that we have a limited range of influence over.
>>13945153
You can't define a word with itself.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 02:52:32 No.13945164 Report

Quoted By: >>13945206

>>13944996
>configuration of processes
Define "configuration of processes".
>physical
Define "physical".
>interpret
Define "interpret".
>simulation
Define "simulation".
>perception
Define "perception".

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 02:53:33 No.13945170 Report

Quoted By: >>13945182 >>13945184

>>13945151
Existence as far as I can define it is the state or quality of being acknowledged by an external body within a defined system.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 02:53:33 No.13945171 Report

Quoted By: >>13945176

>>13944996
>imagine
Define "imagine".

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 02:54:33 No.13945175 Report

Quoted By:

>>13945161
>By your fellow humans.
What, the majority? A plurality? Where? North America? The world? The dead? The living? And are you saying it's impossible for them to be wrong? And define "fellow humans".
>Materially:Belonging to the system which our senses engage with in limited scope.
So by "materially" you really mean literally anything?
>Physically: What we observe/interact with that we have a limited range of influence over.
Same as above.
>You can't define a word with itself.
Looks like you fail.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 02:54:34 No.13945176 Report

Quoted By: >>13945188

>>13945171
To simulate/create/mimic in a restricted boundary.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO quote-to-be-is-to-be-perceived-g (...).jpg, 37KiB, 850x400

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 02:55:55 No.13945182 Report

Quoted By:

>>13945170
>Existence as far as I can define it is the state or quality of being acknowledged
So you're actually a subjective idealist.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 02:56:01 No.13945184 Report

Quoted By:

>>13945170
When you say "I exist", who is it that knows "I exist" to be a fact? Is it an external body?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 02:56:56 No.13945188 Report

Quoted By: >>13945206

>>13945176
Define "simulate".
Define "create".
Define "mimic".
Define "restricted".
Define "boundary".

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 02:57:40 No.13945191 Report

Quoted By: >>13945196 >>13945199

>>13945147
I gotta say religious mental gymnastics is worse

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 02:58:39 No.13945194 Report

Quoted By: >>13945216

>>13945161
>Materially:Belonging to the system which our senses engage with in limited scope.
So what lies outside my light cone is not material?
>Physically: What we observe/interact with that we have a limited range of influence over.
So what lies outside my future light cone is not physical?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 02:59:19 No.13945196 Report

Quoted By:

>>13945191
AKA using dumb indoctrinated Christians as whipping boys for brownie points in the Atheist club.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 008427.jpg, 161KiB, 800x800

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 02:59:40 No.13945199 Report

Quoted By: >>13945213 >>13945274

>>13945191
Evidently not KEK

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 03:01:13 No.13945203 Report

Quoted By: >>13945207 >>13945219

>>13944990
>>13945038
>>13945074
>>13945082
>>13945087
>>13945121
>>13945130
>>13945131

Let me try to simplify this argument as much as possible. Consider the feeling that you have of being conscious. You *feel* you are having a series of experiences. Now let's isolate the feeling from the supposed experiences. Consider that *feeling* in itself. Well, that feeling is all there is. Literally. It's an artifact created by your mind to solve a certain class of problems in the world. There are no experiences outside that feeling.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 03:01:55 No.13945206 Report

Quoted By: >>13945214

>>13945164
>>13945188
>configuration of processes: More than one process
>process: algorithm or set of successive motions
>physical: sensory interactions with an involuntary limit
>interpret: To receive/translate/understand/register a sensory interaction
>simulation/simulate: to mimic what's physically being observed in a restricted boundary
>mimic: to physically reproduce what's observed
>restricted: what you can't influence
>boundary: the restricted limit of what you can influence
>create: to influence/produce
>produce:to craft using components of a system

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 03:02:08 No.13945207 Report

Quoted By: >>13945212

>>13945203
So consciousness exists.
>There are no experiences outside that feeling.
There are experiences inside it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 03:03:13 No.13945212 Report

Quoted By: >>13945220 >>13945234 >>13945531

>>13945207
That's the strange thing, though. There aren't. When we try to reconstruct the experiences, we invariably confabulate them. The feeling of having experiences really does appear to be all there is.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 03:03:22 No.13945213 Report

Quoted By: >>13945225 >>13945240

>>13945199
Nothingness will always be the limitless nature of reality itself. Object never knows object, subject knows object. Objects are things. Things/objects will always be appearances to the subject. No thing can ever be the subject. But there it is... Without both elements, there would not be this.

Those implications are very large.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 03:03:54 No.13945214 Report

Quoted By: >>13945232 >>13945251

>>13945206
Define "process".
Define "algorithm".
Define "motions".
Define "sensory".
Define "interactions".
Define "involuntary".
Define "limit".
Define "receive".
Define "translate".
Define "understand".
Define "register".
Define "physically".
Define "observed".
Define "reproduce".
Define "influence".
Define "craft".
Define "components".
Define "system".

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 03:04:10 No.13945216 Report

Quoted By: >>13945229

>>13945194
>So what lies outside my light cone is not material?
No. It must acknowledged by your senses in some capacity, be it through tools or directly to be material.
>So what lies outside my future light cone is not physical
Yes that is correct. If you can't detect it by any means within the system, it effectively does not exist.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 03:04:46 No.13945219 Report

Quoted By:

>>13945203
A feeling is an object. What knows the object?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 03:04:55 No.13945220 Report

Quoted By:

>>13945212
>There aren't.
There are.
>When we try to reconstruct the experiences
Red herring.
>The feeling of ... really does appear to be all there is.
So the feeling exists.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 03:05:50 No.13945223 Report

Quoted By:

>>13944796
>events subjectively
Can you prove its not objevtive?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 03:05:59 No.13945225 Report

Quoted By: >>13945233 >>13945266

>>13945213
Define "nothingness".
Define "limitless".
Define "nature".
Define "reality".
Define "object".
Define "subject".
Define "things".
Define "appearances".
Define "elements".
Define "implications".
Define "large".

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 03:07:14 No.13945229 Report

Quoted By:

>>13945216
Our cones have some mutually disjoint regions. So what lies in those regions both is and is not material?
>If you can't detect it by any means within the system, it effectively does not exist.
What do you mean by "effectively"? Does it "non-effectively" exist? And what is "you"?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 03:07:52 No.13945232 Report

Quoted By: >>13945266

>>13945214
Define "want", I always liked that one.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 03:08:21 No.13945233 Report

Quoted By:

>>13945225
The answer to every question is homosexuality.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 03:08:57 No.13945234 Report

Quoted By: >>13945305

>>13945212
Lol what a bullshit reply

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 03:10:10 No.13945239 Report

Quoted By:

Define definition.
It literally requires a being capable of meaning to imbue it with definition.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO unnamed.jpg, 45KiB, 512x307

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 03:10:12 No.13945240 Report

Quoted By: >>13945246 >>13945252 >>13945256

>>13945213
You are little babby. Read Stirner and Wittgenstein.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 03:12:50 No.13945246 Report

Quoted By: >>13945256

>>13945240
I counter the ego and its own with the heart and its own

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 03:15:20 No.13945251 Report

Quoted By: >>13945262

>>13945214
>process:a single or multiple algorithms
>algorithm: successive motions
>motions: Movement
>sensory: Detected by your feels
>interactions: influence movement
>involuntary: you want a different motion
>voluntary: motion you want
>limit: decreasing influence or movement/restricted
>receive: voluntary movement
>translate: external influence you register
>understand: to accept
>register: to detect
>physically: involuntary restrictions on influence
>observed:registered/detected physically
>reproduce: repeated movement
>craft:voluntary movement breaking down or putting together components
>components:physical bodies
>system: a body in which voluntary movements and influence are restricted

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 03:15:22 No.13945252 Report

Quoted By:

>>13945240
Really, everyone can explore this topic better than 100000 books, because it's all a translation of a deep exploration of the self. Most of us don't have the neurological makeup to get anything out of bullshit practices like meditation, so just acquire and smoke toad venom. That will show you all that needs to be known.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1539804745810.jpg, 418KiB, 806x926

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 03:17:17 No.13945255 Report

Quoted By: >>13945259 >>13945449

anyone know a solution to the duplication problem? If consciousness is physical and I'm able to philosophically duplicate myself. What then

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 03:17:44 No.13945256 Report

Quoted By: >>13945261

>>13945240
>>13945246
>I on my part start from a presupposition in presupposing myself; but my presupposition does not struggle for its perfection like “Man struggling for his perfection,” but only serves me to enjoy it and consume it. I consume my presupposition, and nothing else, and exist only in consuming it. But that presupposition is therefore not a presupposition at all: for, as I am the Unique, I know nothing of the duality of a presupposing and a presupposed ego (an “incomplete” and a “complete” ego or man); but this, that I consume my self, means only that I am. I do not presuppose my self, because I am every moment just positing or creating my self, and am I only by being not presupposed but posited, and, again, posited only in the moment when I posit myself; that is, I am creator and creature in one.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 03:18:11 No.13945259 Report

Quoted By:

>>13945255
Then you realize they are full of shit and move on. Consciousness is obviously fundamental and anyone honest knows this.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 03:19:12 No.13945261 Report

Quoted By:

>>13945256
>your mind on logic worship

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 03:19:24 No.13945262 Report

Quoted By: >>13945296

>>13945251
Define "movement".
Define "detected".
Define "feels".
Define "influence".
Define "want".
Define "decreasing".
Define "restricted".
Define "voluntary".
Define "external".
Define "register".
Define "accept".
Define "detect".
Define "restrictions".
Define "breaking down".
Define "putting together".
Define "bodies".

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 03:21:47 No.13945265 Report

Quoted By:

>>13944804
>tricking
>>13944843
>tricks
Anon...

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 03:22:14 No.13945266 Report

Quoted By: >>13945272

>>13945225
>>13945232
>want: movement i aim at
>nothingness: system of involuntary movement and influence
>limitless: no restrictions, all voluntary
>nature: occurring without influence
>reality: system of restricted voluntary influence
>object:body that can be influenced or can receive movement
>subject:what is being focused on voluntarily
>thing:what is not being focused on voluntarily
>appearances: sensory influence received
>elements: components
>implications:influence understood
>large: body with greater movement or influence

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 03:22:31 No.13945267 Report

Quoted By:

>>13944843
Who's the magician performing to? You fuck!

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 03:24:12 No.13945272 Report

Quoted By: >>13945296

>>13945266
Define "movement".
Define "aim".
Define "voluntary".
Define "occurring".
Define "body".
Define "focused on".
Define "received".
Define "understood".
Define "greater".

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 03:24:33 No.13945274 Report

Quoted By: >>13945277 >>13945280 >>13945283 >>13945286

>>13945199
I’m not sure if I’m atheist or religious

First of all this image is a Hyde straw man
You can’t make points on your own either

So basically there was nothing but a man for some reason which is completely random and specific and he was also a white man because le pure race and he clicked his fingers and things just existed in a great theory that justifies flat earth and earth being the center of the universe obviously and also people see it and write a book with cursed babies and ghosts having sex and shit and then apparently that man in the sky but also not in the sky will come back and save us all because he created everything even though everything he created isn’t everything

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1638927522309.jpg, 338KiB, 1002x1308

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 03:25:56 No.13945277 Report

Quoted By: >>13945284 >>13945285 >>13945288 >>13945310

>>13945274
>straw man
Nope.
Also hypocritical (suggesting you lack self-awareness).

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 03:27:08 No.13945280 Report

Quoted By: >>13945285

>>13945274
Also the image is retarded

Physical processes don’t need reasons to be affected by the laws of physics

The universes age is incomprehensible, and enough time for it to create matter that reacts to certain conditions that can complexity with natural selection

There wasn’t nothing at the start, as the theory goes, it was incredibly dense

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 03:28:00 No.13945283 Report

Quoted By: >>13945289

>>13945274
Material is the God of Atheism. A sentient manlike being is the God of Abraham. Both lead to infinite regress.

Do you see that if you remove witnessed things, what's left is nothing? That is what the witnessing thing is. It's no substance. Nothing. You see that?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 03:28:09 No.13945284 Report

Quoted By: >>13945292

>>13945277
I was mocking and showing that u can copy your point and basically refute it with the same format

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 03:28:52 No.13945285 Report

Quoted By: >>13945297

>>13945280
>Also the image is retarded
I agree, atheism is retarded.
>Physical processes don’t need reasons to be affected by the laws of physics
Define "physical" and "affected by".
>The universes age is incomprehensible
13.8 billion year in cosmic time.
>There wasn’t nothing at the start, as the theory goes, it was incredibly dense
See >>13945277.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 03:29:00 No.13945286 Report

Quoted By:

>>13945274
>when the humans started figuring out your religion was bullshit so they started looking into shit and they made alchemy but that was a problem because the smart bastards actually figured it all out so you burned their books killed them burned them at the stake then hijacked their movement turned it into chemistry and made it completely focused on exoteric concepts so as to sap the spiritual power out of the movement and prolong the torment of the souls trapped in your kenomic slave world

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 03:29:44 No.13945288 Report

Quoted By: >>13945295

>>13945277
There’s a reason physicists say shit like ‘black hole’s center is infinitely dense’ just to make it easier for a normie to understand

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 03:30:07 No.13945289 Report

Quoted By: >>13945315 >>13945325

>>13945283
The funny thing is "material" is not even well-defined. What people considered "material", the basic ontology of stuff, has changed dramatically over time. Hell, there are popscilets on this very forum who don't know particles aren't real.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 03:31:09 No.13945292 Report

Quoted By: >>13945301

>>13945284
You failed.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO cope.jpg, 3MiB, 1648x2507

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 03:32:19 No.13945295 Report

Quoted By: >>13945310

>>13945288
Mhm

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 03:32:49 No.13945296 Report

Quoted By: >>13945303

>>13945262
>>13945272
>movement: limited aim at
>aim: voluntary shift to
>detected:received
>feels:sensory influence
>want:movement i am at
>influence:limitless aim at
>decreasing:not greater or equal
>restricted: voluntary and involuntary
>external: involuntary body
>register:to detect
>accept: voluntary aim at
>detect: involuntary not aim at
>restrictions: involuntary influence
>breaking down: to lessen
>putting together: to greater
>bodies: restricted systems
>voluntary: to aim at
>occurring:
>body:restricted system
>focused on: limited voluntary to aim at
>received:involuntary influence
>understood:voluntary aim at influence
>greater: not lesser or equal
>equal: not greater or lesser

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 03:32:52 No.13945297 Report

Quoted By: >>13945302

>>13945285
>I agree atheism is retarded
Nope, I was saying the image’s failiure are refuting atheism is retarded, sorry for your lack of understanding
>define physical and affected by
I could have done better wording than affected by such as obey the laws of physics but you might get too caught up in the details for that one also
>13.8 billion years
Incomprehensible means you can’t really comprehend how big that is, like you can’t imagine how large a stadium with 13.8 billion seats is with your mind and intuition

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 03:33:53 No.13945301 Report

Quoted By: >>13945306

>>13945292
>provided no reasoning
>refused to elaborate
Nice job

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 03:34:13 No.13945302 Report

Quoted By: >>13945304

>>13945297
>the image’s failiure are refuting atheism is retarded
How so?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 03:34:14 No.13945303 Report

Quoted By:

>>13945296
>aim: shift to
>shift: to focus
>focus: restricted influence

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 03:35:18 No.13945304 Report

Quoted By: >>13945310

>>13945302
It is strawmanning and doesn’t show the other side of the story

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 03:35:34 No.13945305 Report

Quoted By: >>13945309 >>13945314 >>13945531

>>13945234
Nope. I can implant "memories" in your brain through suggestion. Are those experiences real? No. You never had them. You were tricked. Well, you're tricked every second of the day.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 03:35:43 No.13945306 Report

Quoted By: >>13945313

>>13945301
>pot calling the kettle black

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 03:36:23 No.13945309 Report

Quoted By:

>>13945305
So you just believe every memory is fake? How lame.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 03:36:43 No.13945310 Report

Quoted By: >>13945319 >>13945324

>>13945304
>It is strawmanning
It isn't. See >>13945277 and >>13945295.
>the other side of the story
Which is?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 03:37:32 No.13945313 Report

Quoted By: >>13945318

>>13945306
Deja vu fren
Sorry you forgot to read my messages

Fallacy of appeal to ridicule is a good one you demonstrate fren

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 03:37:44 No.13945314 Report

Quoted By:

>>13945305
Is the experience of being tricked real or not?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 03:37:49 No.13945315 Report

Quoted By: >>13945326

>>13945289
If you obsess over it enough, you'll eventually see that material isn't real. It cannot possibly be real. It's there no doubt in the sense of some sort of abstraction. But it's just not anything, not made of anything, just appearing as something... That's the real illusion.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 03:38:45 No.13945318 Report

Quoted By: >>13945327

>>13945313
You are a hypocrite.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 03:38:51 No.13945319 Report

Quoted By: >>13945340

>>13945310
It is strawmanning
Paraphrasing a complicated theory into an incomplete sentence to make it look silly
It includes inaccuracies and exaggeration

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 03:39:53 No.13945324 Report

Quoted By: >>13945329

>>13945310
The other side of the story is the religious creation stories

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 03:40:07 No.13945325 Report

Quoted By: >>13945331

>>13945289
Is any matter real?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 03:40:27 No.13945326 Report

Quoted By: >>13945348 >>13945351

>>13945315
material: physical body with restricted influence
physical: body with restricted influence

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 03:40:54 No.13945327 Report

Quoted By:

>>13945318
I am a mirror

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 03:41:13 No.13945329 Report

Quoted By: >>13945337 >>13945343

>>13945324
Thosw stories are more honest and there is one right answer no it is not the Bible.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 03:41:32 No.13945331 Report

Quoted By:

>>13945325
There are hard limits on interactions with it. You can't directly interact with energy though, but is detectable by any means?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 03:43:42 No.13945337 Report

Quoted By: >>13945345

>>13945329
The problem is that the stories in most big religions are not scientifically replicable, or backed by any real evidence. Nobody put gods theory through a physical model and showed a clear correlation with reality. It is just speculation, but if you choose to follow it then I respect your choice as I respect almost any other

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 03:44:03 No.13945339 Report

Quoted By:

>>13944789
I wish it didn't

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 03:44:13 No.13945340 Report

Quoted By: >>13945353

>>13945319
>inaccuracies and exaggeration
Such as?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 03:45:13 No.13945343 Report

Quoted By: >>13945352

>>13945329
>no it is not the Bible.
Yes it is.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 03:45:38 No.13945345 Report

Quoted By: >>13945356

>>13945337
Science is a very limited tool. But despite being limited it produces miracles. There is no real reason to think science is knowledge. Science explains patterns and inductive reasoning. Those things are all well and good as long as white swans keep coming down the river but once you meet a black swan it won't matter anymore.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 03:46:14 No.13945348 Report

Quoted By: >>13945354

>>13945326
What do you mean by "restricted influence"?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 03:46:35 No.13945351 Report

Quoted By:

>>13945326
These things could potentially exist in a dream. It's about what material IS. Not how it acts, not what it represents. What IS it.

When you see a blue car, the most uninformed will think what they see is what is literally out there independently... If you are a little educated, you know your mind is adding blue from the raw input and thus the qualitative blueness you're seeing is indeed nothing but a product of your mind... How deep does this go? Keep going and you will see it's nothing, fundamentally.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 03:46:40 No.13945352 Report

Quoted By: >>13945389

>>13945343
YHWH is evil. Sorry.

Greek gods were more honest.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 03:47:02 No.13945353 Report

Quoted By: >>13945364 >>13945396

>>13945340
>started with nothing
>no reason
The Big Bang theory isn’t all of atheism, and even if the bing bang were refuted it wouldn’t refute atheism

That’s just off the top of my head I’m arguing with too many people to be bothered to scroll back up right now

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 03:47:41 No.13945354 Report

Quoted By:

>>13945348
A system in which you can voluntarily and involuntarily aim at

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 03:48:17 No.13945356 Report

Quoted By: >>13945373

>>13945345
Probably the best counterargument so far. Very based

Anyway, I would say that religion is even more limited for reasons already stated

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 03:51:47 No.13945364 Report

Quoted By: >>13945404

>>13945353
Also
>magically rearranged
It’s a lot more random than that, and the reason it could rearrange into self replicating life is because it was provided with an incomprehensible time scale of entropy and randomness to play around with

Note that words such as provided and play around with were used to save time, not saying the universe has a mind

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 03:54:00 No.13945373 Report

Quoted By: >>13945377 >>13945400

>>13945356
It's a much shorter step from Atheism to "enlightenment", than from religion.

Jesus

Jesus Fri 10 Dec 2021 03:54:21 No.13945375 Report

Quoted By:

>>13944789
viruses don't exist. deal with it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 03:55:30 No.13945377 Report

Quoted By: >>13945392

>>13945373
Not sure what you mean by that can you ELIR

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 03:55:46 No.13945379 Report

Quoted By: >>13945383 >>13945387

>>13944789
>>13944804
You won't mind if I torture you then? I mean, your body would open its mouth and beg not to be tortured, but it wouldn't be any different than damaging any other object

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 03:57:07 No.13945383 Report

Quoted By:

>>13945379
The body has a self preservation instinct to increase the chances of not being terminated.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 03:58:27 No.13945387 Report

Quoted By:

>>13945379
It’s a stupid argument anyway
Refuted from the days of Descartes

The problem of the I think therefore I am is that it is only true for any given conscious individual, so it does not prove it universally

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 03:59:12 No.13945389 Report

Quoted By: >>13945395

>>13945352
>Why? Because I say so!

>Greek gods
Not creator(s), not relevant.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 03:59:50 No.13945392 Report

Quoted By: >>13945410

>>13945377
Many Atheists are already sold on something from nothing.

You can find what "I" points to is nothing.

If there could not be more than one nothingness, then the thing pointed at with the word "I" is the same nothingness which energy, matter, the universe, etc, emerged as a form out of.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 04:00:36 No.13945395 Report

Quoted By: >>13945411 >>13945414

>>13945389
>The Ancient Greeks believed that in the beginning, the world was in a state of nothingness which they called Chaos. Suddenly, from light, came Gaia (Mother Earth) and from her came Uranus (the sky) along with other old gods (called primordials) like Pontus (the primordial god of the oceans).
It is a more accurate creation story than both Christianity and the big bang.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 04:01:21 No.13945396 Report

Quoted By: >>13945407

>>13945353
>The Big Bang theory isn’t all of atheism
So?
>even if the bing bang were refuted it wouldn’t refute atheism
Where did I say it would? You need to work on your reading comprehension.
>It’s a lot more random than that, and the reason it could rearrange into self replicating life is because it was provided with an incomprehensible time scale of entropy and randomness to play around with
Randomness-of-the-gaps. No explanatory power. Dust theory. Boltzmann brains. Pure schizo.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 148384432780.jpg, 124KiB, 1281x770

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 04:02:21 No.13945400 Report

Quoted By:

>>13945373
LOL the opposite is true.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 04:03:22 No.13945404 Report

Quoted By: >>13945417

>>13945364
What you're saying is randomness-of-the-gaps. No explanatory power. Dust theory. Boltzmann brains.

In short, pure schizo and useless either way. Cognitively self-defeating.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 04:03:57 No.13945407 Report

Quoted By: >>13945419

>>13945396
>where did I say it would
The image implies that, and framed it as if the Big Bang strawman definition was atheism

The next bit doesn’t say anything, give real reasons rather than just list theories.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 04:04:29 No.13945410 Report

Quoted By: >>13945415

>>13945392
Is it possible that there never was a nothing but that there was a something with an origin located within itself?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 04:04:43 No.13945411 Report

Quoted By:

>>13945395
That's precisely what I was going to say (before you went to look it up on Wikipedia). The Greek gods, contrary to what dumb atheists typically believe, are not creators.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 04:05:44 No.13945414 Report

Quoted By: >>13945426

>>13945395
>It is a more accurate creation story than both Christianity and the big bang.
Proof?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 04:05:57 No.13945415 Report

Quoted By:

>>13945410
Like two origins that complement each other? A head that produces its tail and a tail that produces its head?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 04:06:04 No.13945417 Report

Quoted By: >>13945423

>>13945404
You used the fallacy of personal incredulity

Anyway please take your time, and show me why life from matter in our universe is physically impossible. Maybe if you say ‘god did it’ explain that physically as well and show me how Occam’s razor helps that argument

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 04:06:45 No.13945419 Report

Quoted By: >>13945424

>>13945407
>The image implies that
No it doesn't. You're committing a fallacy oft he inverse.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 04:07:47 No.13945423 Report

Quoted By: >>13945440 >>13945615

>>13945417
>You used the fallacy of personal incredulity
False.
>show me why life from matter in our universe is physically impossible
No. I don't believe that (though you haven't defined "matter").
>Maybe if you say ‘god did it’ explain that physically as well and show me how Occam’s razor helps that argument
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQ7GBZm087Y

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 04:08:23 No.13945424 Report

Quoted By: >>13945442 >>13945538

>>13945419
You didn’t refute anything in that comment. It is very clearly mocking atheism and is framed as a definition. The definition itself is a mock on the Big Bang theory, implying that the definition of atheism is the Big Bang theory, making them the same

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 04:08:38 No.13945426 Report

Quoted By: >>13945433 >>13945448

>>13945414
I don't need to prove something to know it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 04:10:07 No.13945433 Report

Quoted By: >>13945435

>>13945426
you need to be able to

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 04:10:49 No.13945435 Report

Quoted By: >>13945451

>>13945433
Prove it. :P

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 04:11:10 No.13945440 Report

Quoted By: >>13945452

>>13945423
>”False”
Ok that’s not an argument
>Define matter
That which occupies space and has mass

Can you give a tl;dw on that video, I may watch it later but I don’t want to right now

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 04:11:40 No.13945442 Report

Quoted By: >>13945459

>>13945424
You didn't prove anything in that comment.
>The definition itself is a mock on the Big Bang theory, implying that the definition of atheism is the Big Bang theory, making them the same
Nope.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 04:12:41 No.13945448 Report

Quoted By: >>13945458

>>13945426
You don't know it. You can't know something that's false.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 04:12:47 No.13945449 Report

Quoted By: >>13945463

>>13945255
duplication isn't possible. a perfect copy of something is impossible. It's pretty obviously impossible.
You have to be an idiot who is incapable of recognizing you're thinking in abstractions to believe it
You're basically saying 1 = 2 = 1+2 because they share similar digits and you don't care enough to bother with the differences between them
A "perfect duplicate" would also have to occupy the same spacetime trajectories, and it's pretty clear that things can't occupy the exact same position as other things. And that difference is part of a things "definition" and a fundamental part of its existence.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 04:13:07 No.13945451 Report

Quoted By: >>13945455

>>13945435
I can say I know something and you can say you know something different. If neither of us can demonstrate our knowledge, how do we determine which of us has a reliable know?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 04:13:41 No.13945452 Report

Quoted By: >>13945473

>>13945440
>Ok that’s not an argument
You never gave one.
>That which occupies space and has mass
Define "occupies space", "space", and "mass".
>Can you give a tl;dw on that video, I may watch it later but I don’t want to right now
Too bad.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 04:14:05 No.13945455 Report

Quoted By: >>13945460

>>13945451
Either I am right you are right we both are right or we both are wrong but I can tell you one thing I know for sure and it's that I am right!

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 04:15:07 No.13945458 Report

Quoted By: >>13945468

>>13945448
Then I must know something that is true!

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 04:15:11 No.13945459 Report

Quoted By: >>13945474 >>13945527

>>13945442
>”Nope”
I think you’re wrong, there are several pointers that show it is meant to be as I said

>comedy
Person said fucking KEK
>Big Bang
The origin of the universe being matter exploding from seemingly nothing
>atheism definition
Has a title that says ‘atheism’ and shows text under, as a definition is formatted

Go on, keep denying subjective things, I know you love that burden of proof fallacy

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 04:15:15 No.13945460 Report

Quoted By: >>13945462

>>13945455
How do you know for sure you're right if you can't demonstrate it?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 04:16:08 No.13945462 Report

Quoted By: >>13945464

>>13945460
I saw it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 04:16:21 No.13945463 Report

Quoted By: >>13945490

>>13945449
There’s not much of a point to say ‘a perfect __ is impossible’ as we all know it won’t get you anywhere

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 04:16:33 No.13945464 Report

Quoted By: >>13945467

>>13945462
Saw what?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 04:16:45 No.13945465 Report

Quoted By: >>13945469 >>13945472

OP, like a large number of posters on this board, is an NPC and I have no doubt possesses every little consciousness. Many such cases

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 04:17:08 No.13945467 Report

Quoted By: >>13945480

>>13945464
The truth.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 04:17:34 No.13945468 Report

Quoted By:

>>13945458
Nope. You're just lying.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 04:17:46 No.13945469 Report

Quoted By:

>>13945465
>very little

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 04:18:34 No.13945472 Report

Quoted By: >>13945496

>>13945465
>I have no doubt possesses every little consciousness
Quite the Freudian slip there.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 04:18:45 No.13945473 Report

Quoted By: >>13945486

>>13945452
I did give an argument on reasons I think atheism is very plasibke, why else would you know what you are arguing against right now? I gave points for you as well, unlike you ‘Nope’

>hurr sure much define define
I thought you mocked me at one point for lack of reading comprehension, is that correct? Please feel free to look them up yourself as the indefinite why question is not something I want to deal with, but you seem curious

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 04:18:54 No.13945474 Report

Quoted By: >>13945487

>>13945459
>exploding from seemingly nothing
Nope. The big bang theory encompasses the beginning and what came shortly after, not what caused it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 04:19:56 No.13945480 Report

Quoted By:

>>13945467
False.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 89728.jpg, 36KiB, 640x480

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 04:20:57 No.13945486 Report

Quoted By: >>13945491

>>13945473
>I did give an argument on reasons I think atheism is very plasibke
No you didn't, lol. You seem to have memory problems.
Plus atheism is retarded.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 04:21:12 No.13945487 Report

Quoted By: >>13945489

>>13945474
Yes, and that includes the explosion

Use other pointers in the image that show it is about the big bang

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO satania laughing.gif, 2MiB, 540x304

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 04:21:20 No.13945488 Report

Quoted By: >>13945513

>it exists even though i don't have a proof
>it doesn't exist even though i don't have a proof
what an interesting argument

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 04:21:59 No.13945489 Report

Quoted By: >>13945494 >>13945500

>>13945487
Again, the big bang theory encompasses the beginning and what came shortly after, not what caused it.

Keep coping. You got caught lying again.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 04:22:26 No.13945490 Report

Quoted By:

>>13945463
Well a lot of "problems" when it comes to this stuff is usually because people going apeshit over A =/= A' because for some reason they are under the impression A = A'

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 04:22:37 No.13945491 Report

Quoted By: >>13945508

>>13945486
Fallacy of appeal to ridicule

Why don’t you scroll up and look at the messages I sent

In particular one I made about how many religious stories are not scientifically replicable, thus rendering them useless

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 04:23:11 No.13945494 Report

Quoted By:

>>13945489
>caught lying again
typical atheist, dishonest is very common with those types

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 04:23:21 No.13945496 Report

Quoted By: >>13945501

>>13945472
>phone auto correct changes a word
>freudian slip
this is the power of the pseud

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 04:23:47 No.13945500 Report

Quoted By: >>13945511

>>13945489
I wasn’t lying

The Big Bang theory (hence the name) includes the ‘big bang’

And my point was not what it is, rather that the message was referencing the Big Bang

Fallacy of appeal to ridicule was used by you

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 04:24:00 No.13945501 Report

Quoted By: >>13945505 >>13945517

>>13945496
Lol I am saying basically materialism is a kind of metaphysical demon possessing every little conscious.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO arguing with zombies.png, 2MiB, 1280x7779

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 04:24:19 No.13945502 Report

Quoted By: >>13945540 >>13945829

>>13944789
Dennett is a P-zombie

http://www.jaronlanier.com/zombie.html

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 04:25:25 No.13945505 Report

Quoted By:

>>13945501
oh kek, I thought I was misreading your post but I couldnt make sense of it. My bad little nigga

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 04:26:08 No.13945508 Report

Quoted By: >>13945516

>>13945491
>Fallacy of appeal to ridicule
You mean appeal to plausibility.
>In particular one I made about how many religious stories are not scientifically replicable, thus rendering them useless
History is not scientifically replicable. Is it useless? The big bang is not scientifically replicable. Is it useless? You have a very weird view of what "useless" means.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 04:27:10 No.13945511 Report

Quoted By: >>13945520

>>13945500
>I wasn’t lying
Yes you were. The big bang theory encompasses the beginning and what came shortly after, not what caused it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 04:28:17 No.13945513 Report

Quoted By:

>>13945488
It exists in language, not materially.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 04:29:07 No.13945516 Report

Quoted By: >>13945523

>>13945508
>you mean…
They are both related, I could have said both

Although the Big Bang is not replicable, scientific theories and models are that can lead us to draw conclusions about the big bang, making them useful
There is no way you can replicate of prove the existence of religious miracles, making them effectively useless

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 04:29:24 No.13945517 Report

Quoted By:

>>13945501
Considering all material has the same building block at the core, yes.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 04:30:08 No.13945520 Report

Quoted By: >>13945526 >>13945527

>>13945511
I never disagreed with that point, meaning I was with certainty not lying, assuming you think you weren’t

QED

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 04:31:04 No.13945523 Report

Quoted By: >>13945528 >>13945546

>>13945516
>There is no way you can... prove the existence of religious miracles, making them effectively useless
Yes you can, same way as you'd prove any other historical event: through the historical method.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/9781444308334.ch11

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 04:31:50 No.13945526 Report

Quoted By: >>13945529

>>13945520
And you cannot say I was lying in this case without lying yourself, as you would be disagreeing and agreeing with your opinion at the same time
thus creating a paradox only possible if I was telling the truth

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 04:32:18 No.13945527 Report

Quoted By: >>13945529

>>13945520
>I never disagreed with that point
Yes you did, in >>13945459:
>>Big Bang
>The origin of the universe being matter exploding from seemingly nothing
You equated the two.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 04:32:52 No.13945528 Report

Quoted By: >>13945530 >>13945532

>>13945523
Give me an example of a real miracle

None have ever existed

I cannot prove they will never exist, but this is a good pointer to show they wont

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 04:33:19 No.13945529 Report

Quoted By: >>13945534

>>13945526
See >>13945527

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 04:33:54 No.13945530 Report

Quoted By: >>13945535

>>13945528
Also
Look up James Randi

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 04:34:02 No.13945531 Report

Quoted By:

>>13945305
>>13945212
The feeling is what requires a consciousness, though. The events themselves don't appear to.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 04:34:30 No.13945532 Report

Quoted By: >>13945539

>>13945528
>Give me an example of a real miracle
Not counting the very creation of the world? The resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.
>None have ever existed
False.
>I cannot prove they will never exist, but this is a good pointer to show they wont
False. This is also a non-sequitur.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 04:35:37 No.13945534 Report

Quoted By: >>13945538

>>13945529
I think there was a misconception
I thought your point was that the picture r didn’t reference the Big Bang
You may have thought I was trying to define the big bang

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 04:35:53 No.13945535 Report

Quoted By:

>>13945530
I already know about him. What about it? Do you think everyone else is as ignorant and confused as you are?
>hurr durr knowing that some miracles have occurred means you believe any purported miracle has occurred

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 04:37:28 No.13945538 Report

Quoted By: >>13945544

>>13945534
You said >>13945424
>The definition itself is a mock on the Big Bang theory
Which is false. You are now trying to obfuscate because you got caught lying again.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 04:37:46 No.13945539 Report

Quoted By: >>13945542 >>13945546

>>13945532
I wanted you to prove the miracle

It’s not a non-sequitur, I was saying that if past performance indicates future events (an effective theory), that would show that miracles likely aren’t possible

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 04:38:05 No.13945540 Report

Quoted By:

>>13945502
what part of the brain makes the difference between a p-zombie and non zombies?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 04:38:41 No.13945542 Report

Quoted By: >>13945545

>>13945539
Define "miracle".

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 04:39:12 No.13945544 Report

Quoted By: >>13945555

>>13945538
I cannot repeat myself again

I remain the same point as I had before,
I was not once caught lying, as you said I was lying about something I wasn’t even talking about

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 04:40:13 No.13945545 Report

Quoted By: >>13945552

>>13945542
An event that doesn’t follow the laws of our universe and is said to be supernatural

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1193539179.0.x.jpg, 715KiB, 2611x3024

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 04:40:23 No.13945546 Report

Quoted By: >>13945553 >>13945615

>>13945539
See >>13945523 and pic.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 04:42:30 No.13945552 Report

Quoted By: >>13945556

>>13945545
>An event that doesn’t follow the laws of our universe
So QM phenomena were miracles before the 1920s? GR phenomena were miracles before then? Etc, etc. See Hempel's dilemma >>13945141.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 04:42:59 No.13945553 Report

Quoted By: >>13945557

>>13945546
I want a real proof, not talking about how it can be proven and the theory

A proof may include the reliable replication of the event or a complete physical understanding (proven) of the event

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 04:43:31 No.13945555 Report

Quoted By: >>13945559

>>13945544
>I was not once caught lying
Yes you were. I already conclusively demonstrated that, despite your repeated attempts at obfuscation.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 04:44:51 No.13945556 Report

Quoted By: >>13945560

>>13945552
I think you confused the prevalent theory of everything with the absolute laws of our universe which are not fully discovered

Admittedly, my point was a little bit stupid as you cannot prove something does go against the laws of the universe without knowing the laws of the universe

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 04:46:00 No.13945557 Report

Quoted By: >>13945565

>>13945553
If you refuse to read, that's not my problem.
>A proof may include the reliable replication of the event
So you think historical macroevolution and historical geology are false.
>or a complete physical understanding (proven) of the event
1. Define "physical".
2. So you think the big bang didn't happen.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 04:46:48 No.13945559 Report

Quoted By: >>13945562

>>13945555
Where is the conclusive demonstration?

I was typing about the images reference, not the true definition of the Big Bang theory
Read over it again if you do not believe me

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 04:47:06 No.13945560 Report

Quoted By:

>>13945556
>I think you confused
My point is that you have that confusion, not me.
>Admittedly, my point was a little bit stupid
Exactly. But scratch out "a little bit".

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 04:48:25 No.13945562 Report

Quoted By: >>13945568

>>13945559
You claimed the image was mocked the Big Bang theory because you conflated the latter with
>The origin of the universe being matter exploding from seemingly nothing
which is a lie.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 04:49:02 No.13945565 Report

Quoted By: >>13945570

>>13945557
See godels incompleteness theorems

A miracle is simply not possible, and I have no reason to believe otherwise, unlike the given theories which obey the laws of the universe and can be predicted with mathematical models

The evolution one is trivial, and can be replicated in a lab with bacteria

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 04:50:03 No.13945568 Report

Quoted By: >>13945571

>>13945562
I think I found the misconception again

This was what the images writer saw the Big Bang as, not me

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 04:50:33 No.13945570 Report

Quoted By: >>13945576

>>13945565
>See godels incompleteness theorems
Haha oh boy, I can guarantee that I understand them better than you do. I studied mathematical logic. What about them?
>A miracle is simply not possible
Completely false and baseless.
>I have no reason to believe otherwise
False. You simply refuse to look at the evidence for emotional reasons.
>The evolution one is trivial, and can be replicated in a lab with bacteria
You are conflating microevolution with a replication of the history of macroevolution. Atheist dishonesty again, tsk tsk.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO index.jpg, 12KiB, 301x167

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 04:51:45 No.13945571 Report

Quoted By: >>13945578

>>13945568
Nice attempt to cover yourself.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 04:54:37 No.13945576 Report

Quoted By: >>13945582

>>13945570
Ad hominem off the bat

Calls my opinion baseless while returning a baseless opinion
I wouldnt exactly call mine baseless, when gods theory has no real evidence

>refuse for emotional reasons
Do you mean rational reasons? First of all, as stated earlier, I will look at them later as I do not have the time right now. Second of all, if the existence of gods had been proven conclusively we would see all the smart people of the world agree with it, and suddenly become religious (not just a hand-picked bunch from an image posted on 4chan).

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 04:56:28 No.13945578 Report

Quoted By: >>13945584 >>13945586

>>13945571
Your whole argument is like me saying
‘So you think that covering yourself is bad? Do you think everyone should be naked? That’s discrimination’ against your point

I remained the same point, and I know exactly what I was talking about
Read over it again until you believe me, as I was clearly not talking about the theory’s definition, and trying to refute the image

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 04:56:52 No.13945581 Report

Quoted By:

>>13944981
there is no such thing as flavour
no such thing as colour
no such thing as shapes
and no such thing as reality
as much as one preaches about continuity, for all purposes reality itself ends with your death

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 04:58:13 No.13945582 Report

Quoted By: >>13945602

>>13945576
You clearly don't know what an ad hominem is.
>Calls my opinion baseless
Correct, because it is. You've given no basis for it.
>gods theory has no real evidence
False, you simply refuse to look at the evidence for emotional reasons.
>Do you mean rational reasons?
No, I mean irrational reasons.
>If the existence of gods had been proven conclusively we would see all the smart people of the world agree with it, and suddenly become religious
Non-sequitur. People's cognitive biases can lead them to false beliefs. Even "smart" people.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 04:58:53 No.13945584 Report

Quoted By:

>>13945578
Unclear vocabulary by me

*I was clearly not talking about the theory’s definition, rather I was trying to refute what was stated in the image and show what the image was trying to say

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 04:59:14 No.13945586 Report

Quoted By:

>>13945578
No, you just got caught lying and are now pivoting to save face.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 04:59:46 No.13945589 Report

Quoted By: >>13945597

>example of a miracle
>the resurrection of jesus
Lmao, what a retard

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1580973875960.jpg, 48KiB, 581x659

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 05:01:09 No.13945594 Report

Quoted By:

>Lmao, what a retard

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 05:02:14 No.13945597 Report

Quoted By: >>13945599

>>13945589
>>example of a miracle
>>the resurrection of jesus
Correct. Problem?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 05:03:14 No.13945599 Report

Quoted By: >>13945607

>>13945597
I'll give you an example of an actual miracle: you being able to post without possessing a functioning brain

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 05:03:50 No.13945602 Report

Quoted By: >>13945615

>>13945582
>don’t know what an ad hominem is
Yes I do. And you saying that you have a better understanding of the incompleteness theorems qualifies
>baseless
Remember that yours was, but mine had reasons to believe otherwise (no mathematical models, replicability, experiments showing it etc etc) unlike prevalent physical theories
>irrational
Again baseless
>non-sequitur
You might have got me there, that was a pretty shit argument from me, regardless there is still no conclusive proof of gods theory, and smart people tent to be more aware of their biases, and want to seek truth and knowledge.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 849728.jpg, 46KiB, 491x625

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 05:06:06 No.13945607 Report

Quoted By:

>>13945599
Throw your little tantrum elsewhere.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 05:11:38 No.13945615 Report

Quoted By: >>13945631 >>13945636

>>13945602
>Yes I do.
No you don't.
> you saying that you have a better understanding of the incompleteness theorems qualifies
Haha, no it doesn't. That's simply a statement of fact. You need to look up what ad hominem means.
By the way, you still haven't explained what you meant by "See godels incompleteness theorems". Afraid that you'll look like a fool now?
>Remember that yours was
False.
>mine had reasons to believe otherwise
Also false.
>Again baseless
Correct. Your atheism is baseless.
>there is still no conclusive proof of gods theory
False, see >>13945423 and >>13945546.
If by "conclusive proof" you mean "mathematical proof" (which is a dishonest move on your part, since you're artificially raising the bar for emotional reasons), then see
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781444308334.ch10
philpapers.org/rec/MAYOAR-2
www.researchgate.net/publication/332869777_Reply_to_Oppy's_response_to_Ontological_Redux
https://www.isa-afp.org/entries/Types_Tableaus_and_Goedels_God.html
for examples.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 05:11:45 No.13945617 Report

Quoted By: >>13946365

>>13944851
Wouldn't emotions themselves be evidence for consciousness?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 05:19:26 No.13945631 Report

Quoted By: >>13945632 >>13945636

>>13945615
>no you don’t
Baseless
>statement of fact
Also baseless
It’s also insulting, meaning it’s an ad hominem
Unironically you used the fallacy fallacy
>false
Baseless again
I believe it was baseless, showing other people had their opinions without any significant evidence is baseless
>atheism is baseless
Another baseless opinion
>proof
I’m not raising the bar for emotional reasons, rather for reasoning reasons
How would you know my emotions? Are you telepathic?
I mean a conclusive proof, not an elaborate theory

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 9316758E-DB25-499A-8CA4-3B570F5A (...).png, 144KiB, 217x233

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 05:20:28 No.13945632 Report

Quoted By: >>13945649

>>13945631
Anyway, I have to go now. I may continue the argument but I will be gone for a while
Good debate

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 05:23:22 No.13945636 Report

Quoted By: >>13945646

>>13945631
>Baseless
You're the one who threw out the accusation of ad hominem. Can you support it?
>Also baseless
Try me.
>It’s also insulting, meaning it’s an ad hominem
There's the issue. You think "ad hominem" means insult".
>Baseless again
You're the one who hasn't provided a basis for it.
>Another baseless opinion
False. See all my previous posts.
>I’m not raising the bar for emotional reasons, rather for reasoning reasons
No. You're doing it for emotional reasons.
>How would you know my emotions?
I can make a good guess.
>I mean a conclusive proof
See the last part of >>13945615

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 05:25:28 No.13945639 Report

Quoted By: >>13945650

Also, it wasn't meant as an insult. Few people study mathematical logic, no shame in that. The shame comes when someone misuses/throws around terms incorrectly when they don't understand the subject.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 05:29:35 No.13945646 Report

Quoted By: >>13945649 >>13945659

>>13945636
>can you support
Yep and I did using already stated points
>you think…
You think you know what I think. Ad hominem is attacking someone’s motivations and character rather than their points, something you did
>you didn’t provide
You don’t need to provide a basis when calling a point baseless, it’s simply a matter of fact, such as when you say “False.” and provide no reasoning
>no emotional
Once again, you do not know my emotions, and the reason I want a conclusive proof is because that is what proves it’s existence beyond doubt
>see this link
You still have not made a single point of your own, and I am hesitant to click a link posted on 4chan

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 05:32:01 No.13945649 Report

Quoted By:

>>13945646
Anyway,
See>>13945632
And bye for now

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 05:33:03 No.13945650 Report

Quoted By:

>>13945639
Sorry I thought it was an insult, it’s not any shame in not being able to perceive intent from words on a screen

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 05:41:06 No.13945659 Report

Quoted By:

>>13945646
>Yep and I did
Where?
>Ad hominem is attacking someone’s motivations and character rather than their points, something you did
So you acknowledge it doesn't mean "insult", which means you acknowledge you were wrong. And I did address your points. Insulting (which I didn't do anyway) and rebutting is not an ad hominem. An ad hominem is substituting the latter with the former.
>and provide no reasoning
Because you advanced the claim but failed to support it.
>the reason I want a conclusive proof is because that is what proves it’s existence beyond doubt
Yet you don't demand the same standard for many other things. You do it in this case for emotional reasons.
>You still have not made a single point of your own
False. Anyone who reads the thread can see this is a lie.
>I am hesitant to click a link posted on 4chan
Lol.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 05:58:35 No.13945702 Report

Quoted By: >>13945828

>>13944789
It's quite odd how conscious I am of this thread then.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 07:29:32 No.13945814 Report

Quoted By:

>>13944789
This is what materialists want you(r non-existent consciousness) to believe.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 07:34:25 No.13945822 Report

Quoted By:

>>13944789
why santa?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 07:35:22 No.13945824 Report

Quoted By:

>>13944789
"Consciousness" is a void concept

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 07:36:47 No.13945828 Report

Quoted By:

>>13945702
Doesn't work that way. You have an emotion. That emotion consists of having a conscious experience, with specific detailed content. The emotion is real. The experience is not. None of the detailed content is anywhere in your brain. Why is this so hard to grasp?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 07:39:06 No.13945829 Report

Quoted By: >>13945860 >>13945868

>>13945502
Literally everyone is a P-zombie, but with one caveat. Despite being P-zombies, they're convinced they're *not* P-zombies. That conviction doesn't make it so. It's just a conviction, nothing more.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 08:00:23 No.13945860 Report

Quoted By: >>13945867

>>13945829
Who is it that is being convinced?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 08:04:23 No.13945867 Report

Quoted By: >>13945896 >>13945913

>>13945860
Your brain is being convinced by a module of itself. Why is this complicated?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 08:04:27 No.13945868 Report

Quoted By:

>>13945829
only a p-zombie would believe and say something like this. You are an NPC

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 08:17:58 No.13945889 Report

Quoted By:

>>13944789
Dennett is not a neuroscientist, even Sam Harris disagrees with him

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 08:22:08 No.13945896 Report

Quoted By:

>>13945867
It's not, it's just wrong. Very obviously wrong. And considering it as a proposal is actually a brilliant line of self inquiry to deeper understanding of reality.

It would be easy to program AI to answer "yes" when asked if it is conscious. You are not only doing this. The apparent trick involves experiential qualities, those in themselves ARE an act of consciousness. Even a false memory of something qualitative like red involves something which cannot ever be found in the physical realm. The trick also of course serves zero evolutionary benefit, SmarterChild does not survive easier if it's preprogrammed to say "yes" to an input regarding whether it is a conscious being.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 08:33:39 No.13945913 Report

Quoted By: >>13946008

>>13945867
>a module of itself
So the module is conscious, but not the brain itself except the part that gets convinced by the convincing agent?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 08:38:03 No.13945921 Report

Quoted By:

Nerds are tools and mere biological robots, serfs. Deal with that.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 08:44:01 No.13945932 Report

Quoted By: >>13945969 >>13946008

>>13944789
i dont think that a dumber statement could possibly exist. it is the exact opposite: nothing BUT consciousness exists, the physical world is an illusion. what a complete tool

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 08:48:34 No.13945941 Report

Quoted By: >>13946001 >>13946006

>>13944789
No, mine does.
Everyone else is nothing more than an automaton, of course.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 08:57:46 No.13945956 Report

Quoted By:

>>13944843
Don't stage magicians have to be conscious to do what they do?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 09:04:12 No.13945969 Report

Quoted By:

>>13945932
This is eminently more likely. If you can be tricked into knowing you exist, how could you possibly trust any of the alleged tricks (as all knowledge is known by nonexistent consciousness) to be accurate to reality?.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 09:21:11 No.13946001 Report

Quoted By:

>>13945941
That's my line!

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 09:23:17 No.13946006 Report

Quoted By:

>>13945941
That's my line! Bastard

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 09:25:28 No.13946008 Report

Quoted By: >>13946021 >>13946044

>>13945932
Incoherent absurdity.

>>13945913
Nothing in the brain is conscious. You already know that powerful computations are done without your being "aware" of them. Why is it so hard to grant that literally everything is happening under the hood, and the sequelae that remain are just those blind calculations telling itself they're not blind?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 09:27:45 No.13946011 Report

Quoted By: >>13946013 >>13946016

Post essential reading to understand both side of the arguments.
t. Retard fit tourist

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 09:28:47 No.13946013 Report

Quoted By:

>>13946011
>essential reading
Just use your head, this is not a deep or complex topic

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 09:30:23 No.13946016 Report

Quoted By:

>>13946011
https://esotericawakening.com/what-is-reality-the-holofractal-universe

start with the greeks

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 09:30:59 No.13946017 Report

Quoted By:

>>13944931
>to make her think
So she does think and she is conscious?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 09:33:09 No.13946021 Report

Quoted By: >>13946026

>>13946008
If you aren't actually seeing things and you are blind, then how are you able to walk around without using a stick or bumping into everything like an actual blind person.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 09:35:14 No.13946026 Report

Quoted By: >>13946030

>>13946021
How does any robot walk around and do stuff? Do you think a Boston Dynamics robot needs to be "conscious" to interact with the world?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 09:38:40 No.13946030 Report

Quoted By: >>13946035

>>13946026
With sensors that see particular stimulus, perform calculations at some central processing unit, and make algorithmic choices based on programming. When this is done biologically by an autonomous organism, it is called consciousness.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 09:41:56 No.13946035 Report

Quoted By: >>13946043

>>13946030
Begging the question, friend. You know perfectly well that the robot doesn't have conscious experiences. The difference between you and the robot is that you have an evolved instinct to believe that you're having subjective experiences, when you in fact are not.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 09:46:00 No.13946043 Report

Quoted By:

>>13946035
>You know perfectly well that the robot doesn't have conscious experiences.
How do you know? Are you a robot?
Also I didn't even say a a robot has a conscious experience, I said it has a programmed algorithmic experience and when the algorithms are adhoc being performed autonomously by biological organisms that generate their own programming based on environmental electrochemical input, its called consciousness.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 09:46:06 No.13946044 Report

Quoted By: >>13946052

>>13946008
>Incoherent absurdity
you mean dennett's POV? if you deny consciousness you are unironically one of the lowest beings in the universe, one of the ones most separated from god (perfect consciousness of everything)

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 09:49:21 No.13946052 Report

Quoted By: >>13946079 >>13948597

>>13946044
Religious beliefs belong in the >>>/trash/ not on the science board

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 10:04:34 No.13946079 Report

Quoted By: >>13948597

>>13946052
the irony here is that i'm trying to get you out of the trashbin of souls, earth literally being the place where the godless evil ones go.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 12:22:45 No.13946365 Report

Quoted By: >>13948404

>>13945617
No, emotions are physically dependent on bodily needs. It's a language intended to prod you in a self preserving direction, based on hormonal, cellular, and physical needs. That's where instinct comes from.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 14:03:50 No.13946572 Report

Quoted By:

>>13944789
By using the word "consciousness" without any qualification you're referring to the common sense meaning of the word. The common sense of consciousness includes that it's an everyday aspect of human life, so the burden of proof is on you to show that it doesn't exist. Go ahead and prove it.

Feel free to introduce an explicit definition if that will help your argument. I doubt that it will.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 15:11:40 No.13946707 Report

Quoted By:

>>13944789
so, am I talking to myself ?
or are we (plural) talking to ourselves (singular) ?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 23:23:45 No.13948337 Report

Quoted By:

>>13944931
Based

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Dec 2021 23:44:15 No.13948404 Report

Quoted By:

>>13946365
And isn't instinct technically a form of consciousness intended to keep you from harm?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 11 Dec 2021 00:31:29 No.13948569 Report

Quoted By:

>>13944789
No but a thousand BBC exist inside your ass.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 11 Dec 2021 00:35:17 No.13948582 Report

Quoted By:

>>13944789
>Consciousness doesn't exist.
https://www.glasgowcomascale.org/
>The Glasgow Coma Scale provides a practical method for assessment of impairment of conscious level in response to defined stimuli.
>conscious
fag

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 11 Dec 2021 00:39:40 No.13948597 Report

Quoted By:

>>13946079
no nigger
>>13946052
fag
without religion to control the masses, everything goes down a spiral of troons and fake science

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches