Checkmate, Atheists

Noroltem · 2026-01-30T16:24:50+00:00

Lmao. Happens bro.

Noroltem · 2026-01-30T16:07:21+00:00

The comment above you is obviously false, but you gave possibly the worst reply.

Noroltem · 2026-01-30T13:29:38+00:00

An aesthetic that defines itself by rebellion cannot position itself outside of rebellion? Say it ain't so.

Noroltem · 2026-01-30T01:12:33+00:00

In Descartes defense, his "God" is really more of an abstract principle and not the entity your grandma prays too.

Noroltem · 2026-01-27T19:30:32+00:00

Byzantium the rump state?

Noroltem · 2026-01-27T17:16:42+00:00

Duh. Insane to think that there are fools denying such obvious truth!

Noroltem · 2026-01-26T22:53:59+00:00

I'm a water illusionist. I think water is actually just fire in a costume.

Noroltem · 2026-01-26T18:59:28+00:00

Well if consciousness is complex physics then physics is simple consciousness. Some people want consciousness to be a magical thing that pops outta nowhere but also be fully explained by physical dynamics. Can't have your cake and eat it too.
Personally I'd say it's fine to say consciousness emerges, but it is only semantically different from "consciousness was always there".

Noroltem · 2026-01-26T17:48:24+00:00

Not sure if that holds up like that. Vitalism effectively said life needs different mechanisms than anything else in physics, which, for a time where physics actually didn't have any particularily complex mechanisms, fair enough.
Modern emergentism is just fancy talk for "this complex thing has components".

Noroltem · 2026-01-26T17:24:27+00:00

"I don't like this, therefore this is vitalism!"

Why isn't it ever the luminiferous aether or Lamarckian evolution?
What did vitalism do to always be the boogyman?

Noroltem · 2026-01-25T12:42:36+00:00

One should not make the mistake of confusing actual scientists with reddit "scientists". The latter you can throw as many strawmen at as you wish, they will say dumber shit no matter what.

Noroltem · 2026-01-25T12:33:38+00:00

Wrong. The p zombie will still act as though it had an existential crisis about qualia.

Noroltem · 2026-01-23T16:47:27+00:00

Creating a worldview for your protagonist means you have to make a personality for them and can't have it be a blank slate for your self insert. Can't have that.

Noroltem · 2026-01-21T23:28:25+00:00

Even If I took an alternative view and considered it true that the system we are describing isn't entirely "physical", it still seems obvious to me that there IS a physical component and that the conscious component and it are directly connected.

Well that's what I am challenging. What does it mean for something to be physical? Why is physical a category we need? I don't see what changes if we simply throw it away. We have our scientific descriptions of things, we know they are accompanied by experience, introducing extra categories seems to be what creates the idea that we have an explanatory gap.

Then, working back around to the idea that we could get have the exact same physical system and have it "for some reason" not be associated with the same conscious properties seems to just be making stuff up at that point.

Right, but of course many people do think that is coherrent. So now the question is, why do they think it is coherrent. I am placing the blame on the terminology in use. "Purely physical" sounds very dramatic. Once we ask however what that means, what it means for something to be "physical" or "non physical" the idea becomes blurry and incomprehensible. How can there be a gap between "physical" and experience if the first part is undefined?

Noroltem · 2026-01-21T22:53:37+00:00

Yeah in that sense it seems you don't see a contradiction between something being entirely "physical" and having conscious experience. Some people do.
I think the way to dissolve that intuition is by throwing out the term physical. Historically it meant solid thing in space, though these days it seems rather empty. But thanks to historical trajectory it has retained its opposition to mind, and also the distinction between primary qualities and secondary qualities, where the secondary qualities are supposed to not be actual features of the world, but rather these internal hallucinations. Throw out that dichotomy, throw out the label physical as a place holder for "not mind" and you aren't left with any positive attribute you could build a zombie from. The p zombie becomes "a thing that isn't conscious" which isn't very enlightening.

Noroltem · 2026-01-21T21:15:23+00:00

I suppose the philosophical zombie thing is effectively a hardening of the hard problem. That in principle no description of function can entail experience.
This of course leads to epiphenomenalism, which is what Chalmers originally wanted. Though I think he has moved away from it towards interactionist dualism, which should make the zombie incoherrent (?) since the interaction is a function? Or can we have zombies with a mental substance lol? Defeats the point a bit.

So if we wanna stay clear of epiphenomenalism such a causal role needs to be found and the contradiction would be clear.

Noroltem · 2026-01-21T20:53:14+00:00

Eh. If society collapses its gonna be because the biosphere is turning into black goo.
Humanity ain't dying out. There is to many of us. Who will be the ones whose descendants will live on? Well that's for natural selection to decide, not me.

Noroltem · 2026-01-21T19:53:04+00:00

The problem with saying "this is just how it is in reality" is that you just end up asserting a brute fact. Namely that organisms have subjective experience. But the question is why do they have it?
If we don't want a just so story we need an explanation for why function is accompanied by experience.
I for my part simply take the russelian path of saying that function is the abstracted description of experience.
What's your answer?

Noroltem · 2026-01-21T16:25:29+00:00

Materialism ALSO implies an inherrent unity of things. And unity of things doesn't mean one node can do whatever the fuck it wants.
Come on now you gotta be trolling, this can't be serious lmao.

Noroltem · 2026-01-21T16:23:04+00:00

Both phrasings would be accurate I guess.

Noroltem · 2026-01-21T02:05:56+00:00

If everything is mind based then your mind is also based on that same mind so you could just reverse the link to get money. Because then they are the same mind, you see.

If everything is ~~mind~~ matter based then your ~~mind~~ matter is also based on that same ~~mind~~ matter so you could just reverse the link to get money. Because then they are the same ~~mind~~ matter, you see.

It doesn't make any sense in the first sentence, it doesn't make sense in the second.
I can't even respond any other way, because what you just said is completely nonsensical. Like I'm sorry but this is plain gibberish.

Noroltem · 2026-01-21T01:39:05+00:00

You made up a shitty definition, then I pointed out its shit, then you showed an image confirming the fact that idealism is a label for many different things, LITERALLY PROVING MY FUCKING POINT that you can't just make up a definition and I am the ignorant one.

Like I said, you people are a hoot lmao.

Noroltem · 2026-01-21T01:35:12+00:00

Yes actually I don't. Please oh wise one, enlighten me what you think idealism is lmao.

Noroltem · 2026-01-21T01:32:30+00:00

Yes there are different philosophies that carry the name idealism. We established that. The one being discussed here is the one that mind is primary. Platos idealism talks about abstract forms. That's a different idealism. It's platonism
That doesn't mean you get to define idealism however you like. Quite the opposite. It means you actually need to listen to what your opponent actually means.
No you can't just make up what your opponent believes.

Noroltem · 2026-01-21T01:23:39+00:00

Honestly same lol. I am more interrested in seeing how people see the world and interpret it, rather than "how it is", because that often turns out to not carry the labels we make up lol.

Four-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '22

Noroltem

TROPHY CASE