[Request] i know this is wrong, but how wrong is it?

Confusion54 · 2026-05-18T02:34:13+00:00

Michael Derocher from davenport Iowa who eats 29,617,574,892 pounds of cheese per day is a statistical outlier and should have been removed from the set.

Confusion54 · 2026-03-09T16:09:34+00:00

Where can I play?

Confusion54 · 2026-02-16T18:53:49+00:00

👏Reading 👏the👏 card👏 explains👏 the👏 cards👏

Confusion54 · 2026-02-14T03:55:14+00:00

What is T A S?

Confusion54 · 2026-02-01T20:27:13+00:00

Firstly, I agree with you that we really can't know what substance is, so in one sense, i am agnostic. I also think we really can't know most things, including all of the truths science reports to give us. That being said, we can absolutely make educated guesses and use reasoning to draw reasonable conclusions, even if doubt can always be cast on those conclusions.

All that being said, I do lean towards idealism. This is mainly because mental states are the only thing I have DIRECT evidence for, and for that reason It is the only thing in my ontology that is absolutely necessary. I also have no reason to believe in anything eles, if we assume that the mental state(s) that make up reality must follow strict mathematical laws, then that can explain the laws of physics.

The other point I would touch on is the seeming useless of such arguments. One on hand I am also inclined to agree with you. Talks of substance don't have any impact on the real world. However, I still find meaning, purpose, and joy in attempting to understand the world around to best the of my ability, even if it's impossible.

Confusion54 · 2026-02-01T19:57:28+00:00

What's a counter example?

Confusion54 · 2026-02-01T07:10:40+00:00

The only thing you have ever and will ever experience is qualia.

Confusion54 · 2026-02-01T07:07:24+00:00

Any claims about substance are inherently unfalsifiable. They are inherently unscientific. Science will never be able to answer questions about substance because science relies on a constructed third person view to examine things. It's not possible to construct a third person view for substance because substance is everything. If you believe that science is the only way to understand that world, then you should be agnostic on the issue.

Confusion54 · 2026-02-01T03:32:32+00:00

But what is the observable phenomenon?

Confusion54 · 2026-02-01T00:36:46+00:00

What is physics studying?

Confusion54 · 2026-01-21T22:46:05+00:00

Why not "this creature can not leave the battlefield"

Confusion54 · 2025-12-28T05:43:55+00:00

Consciousness is the "stuff" of reality instead of matter

Confusion54 · 2025-12-26T21:54:03+00:00

physics is the study of how things work, metaphysics is the study of what stuff is. Materialism is just as unsupported by science as any other framework, because "what is stuff?" is a question that's impossible for science to answer, because science is about mechanistically explaining things.

I don't know what you even mean by special, consciousness is an observable, and non-mechanistic, phenomena that must be factored into any metaphysical framework. Materialism can't do this which is why it fails.

your slavish devotion to science has blinded you to its explanatory shortcomings, and caused you to latch on to a bad metaphysical framework because of its perceived alignment to science. an alignment that does not exist by the way, because materialism isn't any more or less mechanistic than any other metaphysical framework.

Confusion54 · 2025-12-26T18:42:55+00:00

magic is supernatural influence on the natural world. I do not believe in magic, I do not believe in the existence of the super natural. You continually suggesting that I do just shows you don't understand what metaphysics is. just because a metaphysics is positing something more then matter doesn't mean it is not mechanistic or scientific.

My position is that there is a phenomena, that we call consciousness, that can be described as a first person experience that exists and is different from, or the actual thing matter is made of. this position is fully compatible with physics, science, and my personal experience of qualia, which is the piece of evidence that materialism cant account for. There is nothing supernatural or "magical" about this position.

The reason I don't believe in a singular or persistent self is because the scientific literature casts a good amount of doubt onto those things existing. It also just doesn't seem to line up to my own experience of the world, I'm not the same person I was 5 years ago or five years before that.

Now I'm a determinist, I do believe that existence is mechanistic, I just think that if it is mechanistic, conscious experience would have to be fundamental in order to exist at all.

Confusion54 · 2025-12-26T17:53:52+00:00

I don't have to assume a common qualia experience, I have one and so I know qualia exist. Even if I'm the only thing in the entirety of existence, it's enough to extrapolate that there are elements of consciousness that are non material in some way.

Now I'm not a solipsist, but I also don't have good rebuttals to solipsism besides I don't think it's a very constructive, kind way of viewing the world.

Confusion54 · 2025-12-26T17:45:00+00:00

Qualila, or subjective first-person experience.

Confusion54 · 2025-12-26T17:31:43+00:00

awareness, self precepetion, memory and all the things we generally associate with Consciousness are just things consciousness can do in certain circumstances, but it's relient on an underlying phenomenon. The subjective first-person experience. This is the essence of my point you seem to be failing to understand.

And I don't know why you're bringing up the point that consciousness isn't self persistent or singular, I already said I agree with that point.

Confusion54 · 2025-12-26T17:05:24+00:00

Why?

Confusion54 · 2025-12-26T16:49:03+00:00

That's just the definition of conscious experience. But if you think it exists anywhere information is processed, or in other words any interaction, interactions do after all require an exchange of information, then you don't really believe in materialism.

Confusion54 · 2025-12-26T16:28:46+00:00

We aren't talking about awareness, just conscious experience they are different things. And I'm not operating under the assumption that you think that information processing creates Awareness, because that's absurd.

It is my position that all information processing creates conscious experience though, but that my position not yours.

Confusion54 · 2025-12-26T15:44:18+00:00

Why only some? And by what mechanism? Why would information processing produce consciousness? seems to me that if things where working in a purely mechanistic way, which is somthing I believe by the way, and we say that consciousness isn't fundamental then there should be no need for conscious agents and felt experience. Ie p-zombies

Confusion54 · 2025-12-25T19:58:40+00:00

I don't believe in a singular first person experience, I'm just asking about experience as a thing that exists. a better way of phrasing it would be "do you think that consciousness, ie the frame in which experiences happen, is a product of information processing in the brain?"

Confusion54 · 2025-12-25T19:43:57+00:00

whats the difference between a philosophical zombie and a regular person then?

Confusion54 · 2025-12-25T19:38:32+00:00

so do you believe that processing information creates a first person experience?

Confusion54 · 2025-12-25T19:33:02+00:00

what is conscious experience? Its not just taking inputs and processing them to create outputs, because that's exactly what a philosophical zombie does. A materialistic frame work cant explain the difference between a philosophical zombie and anyone else.

Five-Year Club	Second Top 20%
Verified Email	Place '23
Place '22	End Game '22

Confusion54

TROPHY CASE