• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The study of atoms in the brain doesn't explain the redness of red;Materialism = FAKE

JoeMorgue said:
Yeah yeah "Hardy hard lookit the OP he's crazy."

He's not saying anything that coffee shop intellectuals haven't been gushing over the deepness of in philosophy 101 books for almost a thousand years.

I'm so sick of well written stupid being given such a huge pass over poorly written stupid.
Click to expand...

Good for you, Joe.
 
LarryS said:
\
I should have said Hmmm maybe some people aren't metacognitive or self-reflective.
Click to expand...


What is “meta cognitive” and what has “experiencing redness” only when looking at something red to do with being self-reflective.
 
JoeMorgue said:
"Therefore you're a hypocrite for telling me my woo isn't true." It's that. It's always that. It was that last time. It will be that next time. The same "I'm so intellectually insecure about being wrong about one thing that I'm going to scorch the entire intellectual earth of the entire concept of knowledge" crap it literally always is. "You can't prove reality is real, therefore homeopathy or God or government conspiracies or whatever beyond the event horizon of the formless Woo I've picked as my gris-gris." Cut and paste, save for later, make a Macro for a keyboard shortcut because it's always that.

"You can't metaphysically pull reality up by its own bootstraps into proving its own existence, therefore you are a hypocrite for calling me out on whatever unsupported nonsense I'm vomiting out, therefore I have a moral victory, which I will now shoehorn into equating with an intellectual victory, therefore you are wrong, therefore I am correct, therefore my Woo is True. You can't prove reality, therefore I'm correct that Bigfoot was hired by the Grey Aliens to plan 9/11 to cover up the evidence that Kennedy was killed to prevent the New World Order from using the Denver Airport to turn frogs gay with chemtrails. QED."

The only question is why (g)we so easily recognize it when it's wall of text Timecube online gibberish but gush over it when it's in Latin in a fine leatherbound book.
Click to expand...

Because it’s coherent and it forms part of a long line of discourse that we can trace minimally to Ancient Greece and that is integral to our worldviews.
 
Robin said:
Not quite. It is impossible for me to be directly in contact with anything but my perceptions.
Click to expand...

That depends entirely on how you define "me". If "me" is your brain, it is certainly in physical contact with the surrounding world, and it receives a steady stream of concrete, physical stimuli.

If your "me" is not your physical brain, please explain what you think it is, and how it is insulated from the physical stimuli affecting your physical brain.

Hans
 
Darat said:
I’m getting more and more confused, you mean you don’t understand the words you are using?
Click to expand...

we are just dancing a jig and having some fun . . . we both know what it's like to be a human, or to have an inner life, be sentient, etc.
 
Sideroxylon said:
Because it’s coherent and it forms part of a long line of discourse that we can trace minimally to Ancient Greece and that is integral to our worldviews.
Click to expand...

So, to be clear here, your issue isn't with "Reality isn't real" it's with "Reality isn't real" worded in a way that doesn't show proper respect to established historical philosophical tropes, themes, and style.

I stand by my statement then. You don't have a problem with anti-intellectual nonsense, you have a problem with anti-intellectual nonsense that's new.

"I think therefore I am" and "LOL prove we're not brains in jars or admit homeopathy" are exactly equal intellectual statements.
 
Last edited:
MRC_Hans said:
That depends entirely on how you define "me". If "me" is your brain, it is certainly in physical contact with the surrounding world, and it receives a steady stream of concrete, physical stimuli.



If your "me" is not your physical brain, please explain what you think it is, and how it is insulated from the physical stimuli affecting your physical brain.



Hans
Click to expand...
I think you may be misunderstanding my point.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Yeah yeah "Hardy hard lookit the OP he's crazy."

He's not saying anything that coffee shop intellectuals haven't been gushing over the deepness of in philosophy 101 books for almost a thousand years.

I'm so sick of well written stupid being given such a huge pass over poorly written stupid.
Click to expand...
I don't know about anyone else, but I didn't say he was crazy, I am simply addressing what he said.

I haven't been to the kind of coffee shop where they "gush" over the "deepness" of philosophy and I suggest you avoid those places in the future too if they upset you.

In general, I don't see the point of you continually turning up and sneering at people for discussing things that don't interest you.

If the subject does not interest you, don't pay attention.
 
I'm really wondering just how many of these diss science, promote woo threads is he going to make?

Not all naturalistic or materialistic theories have been proven. Devhdb is right about that. And yet not a single non-materialist or non-naturalist theory has ever been proven. That says a lot.

Some of us live in the repeatable, testable actual world and some of us live in fantasy land. You choose.
 
JoeMorgue said:
So, to be clear here, your issue isn't with "Reality isn't real" it's with "Reality isn't real" worded in a way that doesn't show proper respect to established historical philosophical tropes, themes, and style.

I stand by my statement then. You don't have a problem with anti-intellectual nonsense, you have a problem with anti-intellectual nonsense that's new.

"I think therefore I am" and "LOL prove we're not brains in jars or admit homeopathy" are exactly equal intellectual statements.
Click to expand...
So "My metaphysical beliefs are correct because I continually sneer at anyone.who even discusses the possibility of any alternate metaphysical belief" is better?
 
JoeMorgue said:
So, to be clear here, your issue isn't with "Reality isn't real" it's with "Reality isn't real" worded in a way that doesn't show proper respect to established historical philosophical tropes, themes, and style.

I stand by my statement then. You don't have a problem with anti-intellectual nonsense, you have a problem with anti-intellectual nonsense that's new.

"I think therefore I am" and "LOL prove we're not brains in jars or admit homeopathy" are exactly equal intellectual statements.
Click to expand...

This is just such a childish strawman of philosophy yet you seem sincere.
 
MRC_Hans said:
That depends entirely on how you define "me". If "me" is your brain, it is certainly in physical contact with the surrounding world, and it receives a steady stream of concrete, physical stimuli.

If your "me" is not your physical brain, please explain what you think it is, and how it is insulated from the physical stimuli affecting your physical brain.

Hans
Click to expand...

The claim by the Physicalist "I am my physical brain/body" is strenuous. First one has to abstract a physical reality outside experience, a reality devoid of any mental precepts. Then, claim that I am an emergent property of this abstraction. I am an emergent property of a physical world I can only imagine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom