Anonymous at Mon, 1 Apr 2024 22:56:29 UTC No. 16108464

>>16108452
jump off a cliff and find out

Anonymous at Mon, 1 Apr 2024 23:38:59 UTC No. 16108502

>>16108452
define materialism

Anonymous at Mon, 1 Apr 2024 23:39:21 UTC No. 16108503

>>16108452
OP you are misunderstanding the point here. The idea is rooted in German idealism, especially Kant. The concept is that behind the phenomenonal realm (things as they seem) must exist a noumenal realm (things as they are). Since we see that in our experience the noumenal realm is comprised of a priori ideas (assumptions made by the mind that dictate how the phenomenal world is accessed by us), the argument is that there must be Mind behind all phenomena, and that Mind is what gives all phenomena its initial expression, since phenomena cannot bring itself into being, but mind can (thru “will” — a function that allows Mind to produce new chains of causality).

But here’s the crux: this mind may just be that: our minds. It may not have any actual material existence. We assume it does, since we FEEL it impacts the world, but it may not. We can’t know, because this assumption is a precondition for the ability for us the even think about the world.

It doesn’t disprove materialism. It’s just the basic premise of idealism.

Anonymous at Tue, 2 Apr 2024 00:17:06 UTC No. 16108554

>>16108452
Not really. Materialism is pointless anyway. It's basically just
>Real things are real
>Unreal things aren't real
but this is tautological. Someone who believes in God thinks God is real, and thus from their perspective they believe real things are real and an atheist is a reality denier. If you ask a materialist to make a list of all the things that are real and all the things that aren't real, you will always be able to find delusions in their real list and realities in their delusion list.

Modern physics etc tends to view information as more fundamental than matter anyway. Materialism is a very 19th century thing. Trying to handle information from a matter-fundamentalist perspective leads to all kinds of difficulties. For example anything can be used to encode information provided that we agree on a meaning, and thus the distinction between signal and noise is to some degree arbitrary. Some scribbles on a page could just be scribbles, or they could be a secret code to launch the nukes. It's still the same paper and still the same ink in either case. Trying to understand this from a matter-centric perspective where the material state is distributed across many peoples' brains etc results in things getting very non-local and self-referential, which makes doing science almost impossible. Also if we go down the brain state route then we are back to God being real again, just as a mental state that tends to confer an evolutionary advantages on those possessing it. If materialism leads us back to God = real then it's not really going anywhere.

Anonymous at Tue, 2 Apr 2024 00:34:36 UTC No. 16108594

>>16108554
Given the age old /sci/ vs /x/, that is not the crux definition for materialism.
Materialism in the context of this contention is the belief that there are things out there (matter) that is independent (real) from one's consciousness.
/x/'s opposing view is that no, there are no independent (real) things out there; everything is dependent on and is a manifestion of consciousness, which could be put to practical use through Magick/LoA..etc.

Anonymous at Tue, 2 Apr 2024 00:37:46 UTC No. 16108598

>>16108594
But shouldn't the universe have started with consciousness? Our earliest records of consciousness are placed in a time where everything else seems to have already existed for a long ass time, probing shit through science. How did everything happen with no consciousness present? Even this perspective has to deal with "ok how it all started tho" question. Just stating that it all started like a bunch of time passed over all matter we now see is kinda cheap and childish

Anonymous at Tue, 2 Apr 2024 01:08:18 UTC No. 16108632

>>16108598
It's not cheap and childish, through they are mistaken nonetheless.
When you only have the use of the physical senses, empirical science is the best you can do, and the best guess of what the past and future are like is pretty much as it is known in science today.
High level schizos on the otherhand can unironically get their knowledge from picrel. Reality is a dream (simulation) ran in a higher consciousness of which we are an individuated portion of. You can approximate the state of the current simulation through the scientific method, or if you are able, you can download the source code and logs directly into your head.
For people who cannot or is not willing to attempt the latter, scientific approximation and educated guess is the best they can do.

Anonymous at Tue, 2 Apr 2024 01:14:44 UTC No. 16108643

>>16108632
>it is not scientific by any means
ok but why talk about it here tho?

Anonymous at Tue, 2 Apr 2024 01:23:18 UTC No. 16108652

>>16108643
Oh shit this is /sci/. My bad thought I was still on /x/.
Ignore my schizo post you guys carry on hahaha

bodhi at Tue, 2 Apr 2024 05:25:19 UTC No. 16108831

>>16108452
no, it is voodoo based on faulty, nay nonexistent coherent first principles, it is literally just hand waving

bodhi at Tue, 2 Apr 2024 05:27:30 UTC No. 16108834

>>16108632

Anonymous at Tue, 2 Apr 2024 05:31:14 UTC No. 16108839

>>16108452
reminder:

idealism is something to be seriously considered, but NOT the "i have le frre will, i create reality, i can do anything!!!" 'idealism' that too many so-called idealists push.

Anonymous at Tue, 2 Apr 2024 12:26:00 UTC No. 16109200

>>16108839
That's a philosofag cope out.
At least the schizos are upfront about their metaphysical position and isn't ashamed of it.
Philosofag hide theirs under a pile of word puzzles to attempt to sound academically acceptable.

Anonymous at Tue, 2 Apr 2024 13:02:17 UTC No. 16109229

>>16109200
Philosophy predates academia. Why do academics insist on being amenable to three thousand years of schizos?
My thesis contends that it is a survival mechanism. By avoiding confrontation and appealing to spergs, the academic pursuit maintains legitimacy that much longer; however, when they go awry and trample upon the autist, one comes along to dash them on the rocks of history.
Hypothesis 1: The Dinosaur
When the dinosaurs were fearsome and terrifying reptilian beasts, the autist was pleased and smiled upon evolution. Now, the dinosaurs are floofy chickens and they have incurred the screech. Such a minor thing is going to end the theory of evolution.

🗑️ Anonymous at Tue, 2 Apr 2024 15:50:28 UTC No. 16109374

>>16108831
sup pojeeti, how's the mental health these days?

Anonymous at Wed, 3 Apr 2024 08:06:50 UTC No. 16110329

>>16108643
>ok but why talk about it here tho?
>>16108652
God said if you seek him with humility then you will find him. Sounds testable to me.

Anonymous at Wed, 3 Apr 2024 10:13:49 UTC No. 16110439

Lotta ESL going on in this thread

I wanted to contribute at first but not with this many ESL jeet midwits around

Anonymous at Wed, 3 Apr 2024 10:15:14 UTC No. 16110441

>>16108632
Schizos actually can't make sense of anything because their pattern recognition is completely shot up/out of whack

No such thing as a "high level schizo" lol, they are all low-functioning and can't compartmentalize at all

Anonymous at Wed, 3 Apr 2024 16:30:47 UTC No. 16110805

>>16110441
>No such thing as a "high level schizo" lol
>Schizos actually can't make sense of anything because their pattern recognition is completely shot up/out of whack
You can't judge them by your standard. Schizo's ability lies in downloading information rather than processing it. Their "high level" denotes their high bandwidth when channelling from Source.

bodhi at Wed, 3 Apr 2024 16:43:43 UTC No. 16110817

>>16109374
dont you have a big pile of shit to be slurping on instead of riding my dick 24/7 NPD psycho?