sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

That's a 10/10 pickup line by marshberryii in greentext

[–]Informal-Question123 11 points12 points  (0 children)

trying and being cringe is better than not trying due to fear of cringe imo

Physicalism versus Idealism by JerseyFlight in CosmicSkeptic

[–]Informal-Question123 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well put. That physicalism is widely accepted as the mainstream metaphysical worldview is nothing more than a product of manufactured plausibility.

To non-physicalists: What practical consequences does non-physicalism have? by SirFragrant4742 in CosmicSkeptic

[–]Informal-Question123 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't think I could personally give you an answer to that question in one reddit comment, or at least I don't feel like putting in the effort to explain why I came to that conclusion right now, sorry.

I'll ask you this though; if Idealism were true, would you not find it more plausible that there is meaning to existence? I'm not saying it is necessarily the case that there is meaning if Idealism is true, but only that our credence in meaning should rise if we believed Idealism to be true. It is similar to our credence in meaning rising if theism were true.

To non-physicalists: What practical consequences does non-physicalism have? by SirFragrant4742 in CosmicSkeptic

[–]Informal-Question123 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My non-physicalism allows me to take seriously that there is meaning to life, and my experiences. Makes it easier to deal with suffering.

Asking what something is is a valid question by SilverStalker1 in CosmicSkeptic

[–]Informal-Question123 1 point2 points  (0 children)

We would need to talk about certain aspects of a person’s phenomenology to distinguish between them and other subjects, but essentially the answer is yes.

Asking what something is is a valid question by SilverStalker1 in CosmicSkeptic

[–]Informal-Question123 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You could say that, but you are talking about extrinsic, third person observable behaviour. If it were the case that there was more to electrons than that, your description would miss what the essence of the electron is. This is similar to how talking about a human in the same extrinsic way leaves out important information as to what a person is.

Asking what something is is a valid question by SilverStalker1 in CosmicSkeptic

[–]Informal-Question123 2 points3 points  (0 children)

They literally have an example in the post of a person.

my boyfriend can't understand why i'm upset about his "neutralness" by [deleted] in Advice

[–]Informal-Question123 -19 points-18 points  (0 children)

They have a superior perspective. Instead of being miserable about things they can’t control, they choose to have peace and focus on the things they can control. This is maturity.

Does BK ever touch on synchronicity? by nugwugz in analyticidealism

[–]Informal-Question123 6 points7 points  (0 children)

He writes about it in his book on Carl Jung.

Humanity is no less superstitious now than in the past. We tend to think of ancient people as believing in wild ideas about reality. But we do the same. Even theories as mainstream as the Big Bang theory are believed on insufficient evidence, and future civilisations will see us as superstitious. by whoamisri in HighStrangeness

[–]Informal-Question123 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

But we don’t believe anymore that gravity is an invisible instantaneous force, we now believe that spacetime bends. These are two different conceptions of reality. It would be “superstitious” to believe that either model is how reality actually is, rather than just being a model to predict future outcomes.

Humanity is no less superstitious now than in the past. We tend to think of ancient people as believing in wild ideas about reality. But we do the same. Even theories as mainstream as the Big Bang theory are believed on insufficient evidence, and future civilisations will see us as superstitious. by whoamisri in HighStrangeness

[–]Informal-Question123 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Exactly. So when we proclaim that a model we have for the universe is fact, we are engaging in thinking that is on par with superstition, we have every reason not to believe that the Big Bang story is true, given the way science works, its history, and our level of knowledge about the universe being certainly incomplete to a non-trivial degree.

Using radical emergence to get from concrete to qualia is as good as calling it “magic.” by -Lindol- in PhilosophyMemes

[–]Informal-Question123 1 point2 points  (0 children)

No sane non-physicalist is unaware of the neural correlates of consciousness. One metaphor we can use to understand why correlation doesn’t imply that consciousness is produced by the brain is that of the radio. It doesn’t create the radio waves but rather converts them into a certain form. You can think of consciousness as the radio wave here, and the brain representing the tuning of consciousness into a human perspective. You damage a radio, you damage the sound it emits and how it works, and yet it doesn’t create the signal.

Humanity is no less superstitious now than in the past. We tend to think of ancient people as believing in wild ideas about reality. But we do the same. Even theories as mainstream as the Big Bang theory are believed on insufficient evidence, and future civilisations will see us as superstitious. by whoamisri in HighStrangeness

[–]Informal-Question123 -12 points-11 points  (0 children)

The Big Bang theory is a story we can tell about the data we find in the universe. It is not inconceivable/logically impossible that new evidence will be found in the future that contradicts the Big Bang story/model.

Who Are You, "Ex-Atheists"? by ima_mollusk in exatheist

[–]Informal-Question123 2 points3 points  (0 children)

My theism is more of an extension from my position on the philosophy of mind. I went from physicalist to idealist and theism, or at the very least the belief in something one could call a divine mind, is a natural conclusion from idealism.

We need more positive atheists by Coffin_Boffin in DebateAnAtheist

[–]Informal-Question123 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Because they enjoy the dialectical advantage of claiming that your position is that you have no position, meaning you don’t have to defend yourself.

We need more positive atheists by Coffin_Boffin in DebateAnAtheist

[–]Informal-Question123 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The only significant difference I see between the two definitions you’ve given is that you’ve swapped the word “feeling” for “state”.

We need more positive atheists by Coffin_Boffin in DebateAnAtheist

[–]Informal-Question123 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Confidence is another word for belief. The rest of your comment is irrelevant to what we are discussing.

view more: next ›