No.1750318
>>1750315Bro you were just imagining it. If there was really extra sensory powers then every corporation and government would be using them
No.1750319
marxist materialism is pretty shit ngl it has its sociologik value (understand the society by looking at how they make a living) but materialism is limited. the "only matter exists" school is foolish. the "matter is primary" school is foolish.
No.1750321
>>1750319Prove anything supernatural exists
No.1750323
Explain to me, seriously, how we can understand anything other than what we see hear and touch.
I am not arguing that spiritualism is worthless, at least not from a political standpoint, but what I am saying is when we are talking and arguing about society and economics there is no other way to argue other than materialistically.
Materialism helps us excel socially, materialist states have gone further than any other mindset in terms of progress. Morality can be explained and argued materialistically.
No.1750332
>megadoses dissociative
>dissociates from body
imagine my shawk
its called a k-hole magic isn't fucking real NMDA antagonism is very real. this is the same thing as some burning man techbro dipshit thinking 5HT2A agonism told them "we're all like one but im also lik god bro i had a eagle death brah". Woo Woo bullshit is nonsense and often straight up reactionary propaganda and quite literally one of the ways your so called elites hold "the answers" from us.
No.1750337
>>1750315elites arent into esoterik stuff. except fake crazies like mr crowley. capitalism is about resource extraction so they dont want people thinking theres more out there. the bourgeoise wants to be god. they killed god (death of god) so they could raise themselves over humanity as the new god (tower of babel). its why they fear the jihadis more than leftisstsstss.
some parts of the elite want to try and harness power. thats why u see rich fucks who are into the occult. but they always fall for fake shit (crowleyanity) or gay shit (california buddhism) or fake and gay shit (wicca)
>>1750321ive been to an exorcism once. went to see teh sufis and the buddhoids. seen stuff u cant explain science man. u people keep asking for teh proof but keep shifting teh goal posts so that no matter what anyone tells u u just say its all false and caused by delusions or whatever. evil spirits exist. djinns. daemons. shinto kami all real.
>>1750323>how we can understand anything other than what we see hear and touch.the stuff u see and touch isnt real anone. its a dream within a dream. the matrix of matrixes. its like this. buddha teaches there is no self. we are just fleeting states, sensations, feelings and there is no real self. same is true for everything else.
materialism is like wittgenstein's ladder. its just a tool for dealing with one specific thing. like a telescope. materialism is good for understanding our worldy dimension okay. but not anything else. i would never use materialism to interpret dreams.
No.1750339
>>1750317kill yourself newfag.
No.1750348
>>1750315>I'm going to sound like a schizo but I've recently had an out of body experience after taking too much ketamine. experiences on drugs are not reflective of reality
No.1750350
>>1750337If you can't prove it scientifically then I have no reason to believe it exists
No.1750353
Master-crafted bait.
No.1750358
>>1750356Yes that's true, if it can't be proven then it's not rational to believe it
No.1750362
Oh I can't remember where I read what I'm about to quote freely (Anti-Duhring, or Dialectics of Nature or even Philosophical Notebooks) but there is a weird tendency thinking that materialism necessary is mechanicistical and likes to pretend that there is not a difference between the immaterial and material, in the sense that, immaterial experiences are nonexistant - and this solves in essence the contradiction between mind and matter.
But Marxists never had this issue with their materialism. Take a fertilized chicken egg. In due time with sufficient warmth (which translates to molecular movement i.e. a material effect) it develops life. Movement presupposes existence in general, then, and a particular composition of moving matter produces something 'immaterial'. A similar process then also probably arises within our minds. In spite being just 'dead' matter, the movement of matter (in neurons etc) creates (You), the person you think you are. There is no reason to think that your spiritual, supernatural experiences, aren't just a differently structured moving matter (they are - you took drugs).
No.1750363
>>1750332I'm pretty sure I died or something
No.1750365
>>1750350uygha natural science is called natural science for a reason. its the method for studying physical material phenomena. you cant apply that method for other things. spirits are not material objects so the scientific method is useless. you cant use spiritual techniques to study fish because fish are objects of teh natural world. like u cant run a gensis game on a playstation (except maybe psp i guess)
>If you can't prove it scientifically then I have no reason to believe it exists^ this here proposition is not something proven by science either :O
No.1750369
>>1750365Science is measurably useful tool with verified results whereas spirituality isn't
No.1750371
>>1750369Neither is philosophy if you're gonna go that route
No.1750373
>>1750371Well I have limited patience with philosophy too
No.1750374
Is the demiurge real bros? I'm scared
No.1750377
>>1750365<spirits are not material objects so the scientific method is uselesshttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1883/don/ch10.htm
>Enough. Here it becomes palpably evident which is the most certain path from natural science to mysticism. It is not the extravagant theorising of the philosophy of nature, but the shallowest empiricism that spurns all theory and distrusts all thought. It is not a priori necessity that proves the existence .of spirits, but the empirical observations of Messrs. Wallace, Crookes, and Co. If we trust the spectrum-analysis observations of Crookes, which led to the discovery of the metal thallium, or the rich zoological discoveries of Wallace in the Malay Archipelago, we are asked to place the same trust in the spiritualistic experiences and discoveries of these two scientists. And if we express the opinion that, after all, there is a little difference between the two, namely, that we can verify the one but not the other, then the spirit-seers retort that this is not the case, and that they are ready to give us the opportunity of verifying also the spirit phenomena.
>Indeed, dialectics cannot be despised with impunity. However great one’s contempt for all theoretical thought, nevertheless one cannot bring two natural facts into relation with one another, or understand the connection existing between them, without theoretical thought. The only question is whether one’s thinking is correct or not, and contempt of theory is evidently the most certain way to think naturalistically, and therefore incorrectly. But, according to an old and well-known dialectic law, incorrect thinking, carried to its logical conclusion, inevitably arrives at the opposite of its point of departure. Hence, the empirical contempt of dialectics on the part of some of the most sober empiricists is punished by their being led into the most barren of all superstitions, into modern spiritualism.
>It is the same with mathematics. The ordinary metaphysical mathematicians boast with enormous pride of the absolute irrefutability of the results of their science. But these results include also imaginary magnitudes, which thereby acquire a certain reality. When one has once become accustomed to ascribe some kind of reality outside of our minds to √-1, or to the fourth dimension, then it is not a matter of much importance if one goes a step further and also accepts the spirit world of the mediums. It is as Ketteler said about Döllinger[7]: “The man has defended so much nonsense in his life, he really could have accepted infallibility into the bargain!”
>In fact, mere empiricism is incapable of refuting the spiritualists. In the first place, the “higher” phenomena always show themselves only when the “investigator” concerned is already so far in the toils that he now only sees what he is meant to see or wants to see – as Crookes himself describes with such inimitable naivété. In the second place, however, the spiritualist cares nothing that hundreds of alleged facts are exposed as imposture and dozens of alleged mediums as ordinary tricksters. As long as every single alleged miracle has not been explained away, they have still room enough to carry on, as indeed Wallace says clearly enough in connection with the falsified spirit photographs. The existence of falsifications proves the genuineness of the genuine ones.
>And so empiricism finds itself compelled to refute the importunate spirit-seers not by means of empirical experiments, but by theoretical considerations, and to say, with Huxley[8]: “The only good that I can see in the demonstration of the truth of ‘spiritualism’ is to furnish an additional argument against suicide. Better live a crossing-sweeper than die and be made to talk twaddle by a ‘medium’ hired at a guinea a séance!" No.1750378
>>1750369Then how do you prove Marxism is correct then?
It's literally a belief system. There's no indication that communism is attainable by le science
No.1750380
>>1750369Spirituality is easily at the level of "science." You can easily find lots of scientific studies on "psychosomatic" and their physical and measurable results. Even if you don't belive there is anything there beyond the psychoaomatic, it is still real and measurable science. The whole field of psychology as well
No.1750382
ITT: anti-materialist, superstitious cope
No.1750384
>I'm beginning to disregard every philosophical tenet I've once held and I'm now in this real of philosophical nihilism where I can't simply answer any of my questions.
Congrats, you just MKUltra'd yourself. You know are a perfectably mallable specimen akin to a Japanese kamikaze fighter pilot or a false flag patsy, ready to serve the current power structure.
No.1750385
>>1750382If the world was purely deterministic and objective there would be no reason for discussion.
No.1750386
>>1750362see u move the goal posts again
anything good has to be a useful tool with verified results <- this cannot justify itself anon… i cant measure this claim… i cant verify it
spirituality is not mathematically measurable (u forgot about magic squares and maths being founded by occultists like pythagoras)
its useless
>>1750374no its fake neoplatonist bullshit
>>1750377im gonna read this book lemme see
No.1750390
>>1750385never said that lol but clearly your used to believing in shit that isnt there lmao
No.1750395
>>1750384>You know are a perfectably mallable specimen Fuck bros how do I escape this psyop? Help me
No.1750398
>>1750390> your used to believing in shit that isnt there lmaoThat's what every scientist was told every step of the way in the history of science.
No.1750400
>>1750385It's more probabilistic than deterministic
No.1750408
Any good books on neoplatonism?
I wanna tap into some ancient knowledge, college
No.1750410
>>1750408you have to read plato first to understand neoplatonism because every neoplatonist claimed to just be doing a correct interpretation of plato the same as Marxists and MLs today claim to be just interpreting Marx
No.1750412
>>1750395Stop doing drugs or at the very least, stop giving a deep mystical meaning to the result of you deep-frying your own brain.
No.1750413
>>1750408enneads of plotinus
No.1750417
>>1750416Drugs are good tho.
No.1750419
It's funny all the people who are "anti-drug" but not anti-psychiatry. At least have some consistency.
No.1750421
>>1750417Recreational drugs aren't >good tho, they're a complete waste of money and a physical rehabilitation.
No.1750422
Drugs shouldn't be criminalized but communists should do drugs.
No.1750423
>>1750421What is a recreational vs a non-recreational drig?
No.1750424
>>1750417An IV drug habit?
Good for what? Your health? Your social relationships? Your job prospects? Your finances? Your mental health? Your housing?
Nope.
No.1750428
And particularly with "hallucinogens" people take them occasionally vs being high on SSRIs and amphetamines, and anti anxiety whatevers 24/7
No.1750430
>>1750424>Good for what?Moralizing
>Your health? Individualism.
>Your social relationships? Wataboutism.
>Your job prospects?Petty-bourgeois ideology.
>Your finances? Capitalist money-spook.
>Your mental health? Already adressed.
>Your housing?<personal propertyTry again
No.1750431
>>1750423Theer is no recreational vs non recreational drugs but drugs that are used in a recreational or non recreational way.
Think of it are using it to get high versus using it as medication.
No.1750433
>>1750424Just because you can't work a job and take care of your responsibilities doesn't mean others can't. There are straight edge druggies and losers and outstanding workers.
No.1750434
>>1750431No doubt but that is us up to the individual, just like calories can be nourishment or poison.
No.1750440
>>1750425Under capitalism, only an idiotic socialist would waste time and money on:
>addictive or hallucinogenic drugs>paying for books, television shows, movies, music, news, scientific studies or other media [get it for free]>adsJust say no. Your time is valuable and your money is better used elsewhere. Play a sport, learn an instrument or a skill, clean your house, make friends and connections, volunteer for your unions and orgs, learn about the world, or do a myriad of other things which aren't paying too much for temporary brain damage. Hell, just pretend to be retarded for free if you have to.
>>1750423Taking a drug for the sake of amusement rather than a medical need or advantage. Caffeine and nicotine are (actual) coping mechanisms and expensive ones too for dependent users, but at least they're serving a practical purpose as a stimulant.
No.1750445
>>1750440Why can't I take my fucking LSD in peace every two months over the weekend? It's like I have to be a fucking machine to be worthy of the name "communist". Fuck you, buddy.
No.1750449
>>1750440What is a medical need for a psychoactive drug? Everyone is taking drugs according to their needs.
No.1750450
If Moloch existed it would be necessary to abolish him.
No.1750452
>>1750445>Why can't I take my fucking LSD in peace every two months over the weekend?You can! It's a treat. Despite my strong wording, I'm not trying to say everyone must be some pure robot.
I am saying, don't fry your brain like OP or take this shit many times a week. I didn't say it out aloud, but
habitual use and
abuse are the problems for these types of drugs.
No.1750454
>>1750315>but I've recently had an out of body experience after taking too much ketamine.you mean you experienced hallucinations while on a mind altering substance.
>I was literally hovering over my own body and I could see myself asleep lying. This does not change reality, only your perception of it.
>Im starting to doubt materialism why
> and the very notion that our senses and our collective knowledge of this universe is incredibly limited to an absurd degreeIf you're also doubting your senses then how does your out of body experience mean anything to you? Your OBE was just something your senses told you while you were hallucinating on a mind altering substance.
>our collective knowledge of this universe is incredibly limited to an absurd degree.Yes. And? We should study the
material universe more. The most reliable way to do that is to be materialist, not idealist.
>I feel like we're like a goldfish living in a bowl.Your feelings do not change the underlying nature of reality. though your feelings can alter material circumstances if you act on them. For example, if you feel like killing someone, and then you do it, your material circumstances will change (likely you will be detained for committing a crime)
>No matter how hard we try we will never have the faculties to understand the universe we inhabit. most scientists throughout history have been a weird mix of materialist and idealist. For example isaac newton invented calculus and documented many laws of physics, but he also believed in gematria and alchemy. In his former materialist efforts he was a lot more successful and well remembered than in his latter idealist efforts. Every time a human decides that the universe is beyond our understanding and therefore [insert idealist bullshit], it's a great tragedy, because they are foregoing their own potential and taking the lazy way out.
>I'm beginning to disregard every philosophical tenet I've once held and I'm now in this real of philosophical nihilism where I can't simply answer any of my questions.You place far too much weight on what is going on inside your mind and not enough weight on what is going on outside of your mind. Nobody cares about your drug-fueled nihilism but you.
>I'm also beginning to wonder if our elites are holding some answers from us. go watch alex jones and ancient aliens if you want to hear navel gazing libertarian individualist idealist nihilist anti-materialist schizo conspiracy theories about "muh uhleets"
>Like why did Epstein have a temple with a minerva statue? who knows? I have a statue of siddhartha gautama, not because I'm a buddhist, but because I think it looks cool.
>I mean they seem to be into some really weird esoteric shit.yes, rich people are into the occult. it's actually one of the areas in which they are at their most buffoonish and ineffective. If every rich person stopped doing ayahuasca pedo rituals at bohemian grove and started researching better ways to fuck over the working class, they'd have a firmer grip on their power.
>What's the deal with their obsession with moloch and shit ?see above
No.1750457
>>1750433>Just because you can't work a job and take care of your responsibilities doesn't mean others can'tStatisticaly improbable. This is what addicts do btw, justifying your addiction.
No.1750458
>>1750454>This does not change reality, only your perception of it.Yes his perception was from an out of body perspective.
No.1750459
>>1750430If you don't care about being homeless, destitute and aline go ahead but don't in any way pretend it is a desired state of 99.9999% of people.
No.1750463
>>1750457Your view is biased. Look at alcohol. Many drink and take care of their shit and view are addicts. It is the same with every drug.
No.1750464
>>1750459>way pretend it is a desired state of 99.9999% of people.<normativism/majoritanismwow
No.1750465
>>1750460
>Your view is biased
I worked in the services for a long time anon you're a retard justifying his addiction.
>Look at alcohol
No. Not an IV drug. Goalpost moving cuntbag.
No.1750467
>>1750465>Not an IV drug.Bourgeois categories matter little. Marijuana is literally a cure to cancer yet its class IV.
No.1750468
>>1750465IV drug? What? You know you can take any drug any way right? I know people who inject meth and shit. You can just be not a retard and take drugs in a safe ingestion method
No.1750469
God is real and he wants us to build communism, but to that end we must pretend he doesn't exist.
No.1750470
>>1750458he had a dream he was floating above himself. that does not mean his mind was actually outside of his body, it means that his visual cortex was generating hallucinations of floating above his body while he was in a drug fueled stupor. i have had similar experiences on mushrooms. I took a nap while on mushrooms and fought satan. I argued with a council of different aspects of my personality. It was very real to my mind, but that didn't mean it was really real. It was a hallucination caused by neurons firing. The same way the electrical activity on a motherboard can do thousands of calculations per minute and produce a 3D illusion of you running around in minecraft on your monitor, so too can the electrical activity of your brain generate illusions. Especially when fueled by substances that alter the activity from its normal functioning.
No.1750471
>>1750467>Marijuana is literally a cure to canceryou got a source for that
No.1750472
>>1750471Cuba gives marijuana vaccines to people
No.1750474
>>1750449>What is a medical need for a psychoactive drug?- weening off of existing drug dependency (this can be life-saving)
- pain management (where other approaches are ineffective)
- treatment of psychosis, anxiety disorders, etc. ( " )
- and more
Are they all ideal? Maybe not. Are they medically necessary to prevent harm? I believe so.
>Everyone is taking drugs according to their needs.Millions of people can't even self-administer
food according to their needs. This is just a ludicrous claim.
No.1750475
>>1750467>Bourgeois categories matter littleLook im sure such sentences make you seem very smart to tour fbi.gov kiddies but you have to realise it means nothing in the context of this conversatuon…
>yet its class IVI don't even know (or care) what that means in the contextof this conversation.
You very clearly are not knowledgeable or educated enough on the topic to gave this conversation, anon.
No.1750476
>>1750472"Marijuana vaccines?"
No.1750477
>>1750472Cuba gave my diplomat autism.
No.1750481
>>1750475Wait I guess IV meant 4 not intravenous. Wtf?
No.1750482
>i had an acid trip so materialism is fake
The absolute state of this board
No.1750514
>>1750482You're standing on an internet street corner where literally anyone can walk up and say whatever, and which it's implicitly encouraged to say the most retarded shit possible because people like you will take it at face value and react accordingly.
No.1750516
>>1750482Why is naterialism real? By what constant di you know it to be real?
No.1750517
>>1750516Man must prove the truth — i.e. the reality and power, the this-sidedness of his thinking in practice. The dispute over the reality or non-reality of thinking that is isolated from practice is a purely scholastic question.
No.1750523
>>1750517>>1750517>Man must prove the truth Yes of course. But not much has been proven about our existence. What is you and me.
No.1750526
>takes too many drugs
>becomes schizophrenic
Many such cases
No.1750532
>>1750318The CIA actually did experiment with them with some success. Alleged clairvoyants were able to correctly identify the location and layout of Soviet military bases without any prior knowledge.
No.1750535
>>1750523All social life is essentially practical. All mysteries which lead theory to mysticism find their rational solution in human practice and in the comprehension of this practice.The highest point reached by contemplative materialism, that is, materialism which does not comprehend sensuousness as practical activity, is contemplation of single individuals and of civil society. The standpoint of the old materialism is civil society; the standpoint of the new is human society, or social humanity.
No.1750537
>>1750531Why should life and evolution exist at all? There is no material explanation.
No.1750542
>>1750537And isn't that some shit? Physiciats want to explain the most mundane matter in our existence and then call it like they explained our experience. Retardation.
No.1750543
>>1750537I dont know the mind of god
What i gather is that life's purpose is to reproduce after itself to replicate the DNA molecule
This doesnt just have to be sexual reproduction however, but epigenetic or cultural (where those who have no children often involve themselves more in social or political causes - like gays, who have famously been philosophers and artists).
So life is an integral thing tied to the species and to the ecosystem as a whole.
No.1750544
>>1750542It's like, wow, now I know how a rock operates, neat, that sure informs me.
No.1750546
>>1750543But why should it exist? Life is a contradiction to everything else we can observe in nature.
No.1750551
>>1750547Mind over matter.
No.1750552
>>1750546>something happening in nature somehow contradicts naturewOaH
No.1750555
What's mind? It doesn't matter. What's matter? Never mind.
No.1750556
>>1750546It isnt.
Theres a saying which is "war comes like the seasons". Life follows after nature's own design, principally. We are shaped by our environments as we shape the environment ourselves. Its a feedback loop.
I agree, its amazing and mysterious - but i dont jump to conclusions.
No.1750557
>>1750552An anomaly would be the word.
No.1750558
>>1750551Theyre the same thing
No.1750559
>>1750556That's as much of a feels based argument as any other.
No.1750564
>>1750559How? There are mating seasons and warring seasons like theres summer and winter.
Back in the day the pagan religions would map their societies around the year and see it as the passage of life's own process - where even the sun is reborn each christmas day.
We are determined beings - from a macroscopic lense you can track human behaviour like you can track ant colonies.
Its not a bad thing, its just the way it is.
No.1750565
>>1750560Consciousness comes from the body
No.1750566
>>1750564The macroscopic distegards anomalies and life itself is an anomaly. Newtonian physics disregards the anomalies of quantum too.
No.1750567
>>1750565Why should inanimate matter evolve towards consciousness?
No.1750569
>>1750567>shouldanthropomorphism
No.1750575
>>1750566There arent real anomalies in statistics, they're just another variable of probability.
>Newtonian physics disregards the anomalies of quantum too.We're getting into brain rot territory now anon.
>>1750567Because organic tissue as a feeling thing slowly adapts to environmental factors like light, and so builds eyes over generations - brains come later as cognitive machines that give an empirical read-out for the creature.
No.1750580
>>1750575>There arent real anomalies in statistics, they're just another variable of probability.You can't deny free will or agency through statistics.
>We're getting into brain rot territory now anon.What I said was 100% factual and maybe if you think a little more you could understand the analogy.
>Because organic tissue as a feeling thing slowly adapts to environmental factors like light, and so builds eyes over generations - brains come later as cognitive machines that give an empirical read-out for the creature.That's not an explanation of the topic at all. You might as well give me an evolutionary history of the gall bladder or something.
No.1750586
>>1750580>You can't deny free will or agency through statistics.Yes we can. Thats the whole idea of statistics in sociology - that we arent as special as we think. We follow trends like everybody else.
>That's not an explanation of the topic at all. You might as well give me an evolutionary history of the gall bladder or something.Its an explanation of why consciousness develops from basic organic material which is what you asked for. Many types of birds and mammals have passed the mirror test, so have self-consciousness, yet we dont say that they have free will - but us humans are somehow superior.
I dont believe that.
No.1750588
>>1750580>>1750580It's actually a great example because vision has evolved several times over in many different species, completely independent from each other and if you had ever read a 5th grad biology text book you would have known that lmao.
No.1750590
>>1750586>Yes we can. Thats the whole idea of statistics in sociology - that we arent as special as we think. We follow trends like everybody else.The possibility to he original or unoriginal doesn't deny tge pissibility of being original. I can copy your homework or I can do my own, the choice is mine.
>Its an explanation of why consciousness develops from basic organic material which is what you asked for. Many types of birds and mammals have passed the mirror test, so have self-consciousness, yet we dont say that they have free will - but us humans are somehow superior.>I dont believe that.I wouldn't agree with the mirror test either. I think himans are obvs a step above animals. The tests that would sistinguish are non-existent because animals have no language. They are not truly aelf-cognizant in the same way because they don't have the same concepts of time-space past-future, history, their inevitable death etc. the concwpts that seperate us xan"t be articulated by them obviouslybecayse they are animals.
No.1750593
>>1750315The closer you get to death the more you will find yourself thinking of things like this. Existence is short and fleeting for us. Material wealth is in a way everything and in a way it's nothing. It's quite fascinating to think about. Material wealth gives you great power over shaping reality and influencing the world obviously it's important, but on an individual level, our individual experiences, connections and memories are really all we get in life, you can't really buy authentic enlightening experiences. It would make sense that physical materialism is all there is yet our consciousness exists in this weird limbo half in reality and half out of it. It would seem that spiritualism is like a cope to reconcile this.
All we can know for sure is our comprehension of reality is very flawed and limited, so remaining open minded to the true nature of reality is imo not a bad thing so long as you stay grounded when it comes to political/real world issues.
No.1750599
>>1750333Was he, though? If anything, drug use reinforces materialism, not disprove it. It shows how fragile and subservient out relationship with reality is. It doesn't grant us the ability to cast spells, or affirms
anything associated with idealism. Consciousness did not precede reality, reality preceded your consciousness so hard it left it behind. You affected
nothing in the real, including yourself. It got literally proven to you that there exists a real outside of (you).
No.1750601
>>1750315You’re just an idiot
No.1750603
>>1750599Yes and no. Yes how subjective our viewooint is, but also that there are more ways our ideas interact with the ohysical world than commonly accepted.
No.1750605
>>1750590Youre right that we have free choice, but our choice itself is determined in advance. There have been experiments done where people choose from a multiple choice variable, and the data showed that their brain or "unconscious" had decided about 8 seconds in advance of their "conscious" decision.
It reminds me of something alan watts said, where you get ready to do something and practice it and whatever - but as soon as the moment arrives you immediately do what you were going to do instead. The point is that we are in a dialog with our instincts, and we often "lie" to ourselves by self-sabotage - think of addiction - why does the unconscious want to ruin our lives?
I believe in psychoanalysis this is called the death drive, where the logic of the unconscious is directly contrary to the interests of the body. Like how eating bad food tastes so good - or addiction, again. Why we drink and smoke.
The basic point is that our "freedom" is something predecided - lets say its preprogrammed by our instincts. Or do you not believe in instincts?
>They are not truly aelf-cognizant in the same way because they don't have the same concepts of time-space past-future, history, their inevitable death etc. the concwpts that seperate us xan"t be articulated by them obviouslybecayse they are animals.I agree, but they do still have a rudimentary understanding of physics and so on.
Heres a crow displaying the knowledge of water displacement (the "eureka" moment we're taught about in school).
No.1750606
Materialists have no meaningful framework to describe how ideas intersect the physical. Some wires and neurons or something.
No.1750608
>>1750603It doesn't matter in how many ways our ideas interact with the physical world, because all of them are subservient, not dominant, like idealists believe.
No.1750611
>>1750605>It reminds me of something alan watts said, where you get ready to do something and practice it and whatever - but as soon as the moment arrives you immediately do what you were going to do instead. The point is that we are in a dialog with our instincts, and we often "lie" to ourselves by self-sabotage - think of addiction - why does the unconscious want to ruin our lives?There is a concept of a lower mind and higher mind. Your body has it's own mind and there is your brain and your spirit anove it. I guess they call it lizard brain and etc. it is your lower mind that tells you beat this man over the head with this heavy object, your higher that you will get fucked up for many years for doing that, and your higher still that it is badong to kill people.
No.1750614
>>1750610That doesn't answer the question at all in any meaningful sense.
No.1750615
>>1750611I would just say that our lower mind and higher mind are both in the brain
Like how animals show cruelty and compassion like us
No.1750616
>>1750614Congratulations on being a drooling retard, then.
No.1750618
>>1750616That's just a terrible flowchart.
No.1750619
>>1750586>Its an explanation of why consciousness develops from basic organic material It's not, it's more of a description of the mechanical inputs being fed to consciousness. Why do we actually have the self awareness and individuality of consciousness itself though? If we were all philosophical zombies merely reacting to input purely mechanically it would have the exact identical outcome. This kind of goes into the AI debate, an AI that could replicate consciousness perfectly but didn't actually have it would fool everyone, and it may even be able to end the debate of whether or not consciousness can be manufactured but if it wasn't actually conscious, simply emulating it nearly perfectly, we would have a completely incorrect interpretation of the actual reality of that AI by attributing consciousness to it.
So why do we actually have consciousness and when did it become biologically necessary? I don't believe anyone has an actual satisfactory answer for this as of now.
No.1750620
>>1750618It's comprehensible to me and other communists. Git gud.
No.1750621
>>1750615It's possible but still the question of why does matter refine into this anomaly.
No.1750622
>>1750620Because you are a simpleton.
No.1750632
>>1750619Well like i say, its not just humans that have self-consciousness, so we have to start there.
The reason we developed it in the first place is something only speculative to me - it seems like its good for our survival
But i also just think nature does random things that have no strict purpose, like give us consciousness, or give babies cancer - its a lottery
Brains create the software capable of creating a feedback loop with environments very effectively - so this ability for self-reference probably developed out of this inherent creativity in our anatomy. We think of self-consciousness symbolically as a mirror, and a mirror is a feedback loop in visual terms.
Understand though that humans have very big brains proportionally, so this is definitely a necessary part of our intelligence - brains matter.
No.1750636
>>1750621Well idk
Some say it was just a primordial chemical soup that created biological life, like how heavier elements are born from simpler ones. Cosmic evolution in these terms leads to life tautologically in our experience, where physics creates chemistry and chemistry creates biology.
Some say that DNA came from another world or was created by aliens but if thats true, then who created the aliens and so on ad infinitum
No.1750637
>>1750632It's not a lottery lmao. Building a nuclear reactor ior a cpu sn't rabdom chance much less a human.
No.1750647
>>1750632I think this is probably one of the hardest subjects to actually start gaining real knowledge about. The more I seriously think about it the more I wonder if consciousness itself is merely a complete illusion. I mean really sit in your mind and try to grasp the reality of your existence right now and it just seems to make even less and less sense. Why does my brain actually need to produce this internal reality of experience the way it does? And when exactly did it start on the evolutionary chain? This really is one subject I find myself just entirely baffled by the more I look into it and wonder.
No.1750649
>>1750646Fine scratch reactor because the sun is obviously a natural nuclear reactor too.
No.1750653
>>1750647Well i would say that consciousness is "virtual" or symbolic. Its a way for us to mediate the world. Human development is inherently tied to language (as a means of exchange) the same way economies grow out of commodity circulation in trade.
No.1750659
>>1750653Consciousness is very real. Each of us experience it every moment. I think all of us experience it if we're not in some kind of fugue state. Why did you just write that message you just wrote? Was it 100% automatic writing?
No.1750660
>>1750642Well i dont separate life as biology from the rest of the physical universe. We are physical, chemical and biological beings - and the laws of these forces can be traced out.
No.1750661
>>1750659So do you believe in conscious existence after death?
No.1750667
How’s this for some materialism. As a human I gotta piss I gotta shit, I smell when I don’t shower, I’m hungry so I eat food, I’m thirsty so I drink, I’m horny so I jerk off or have sex. I saved you the trouble from being a pathetic nerdy philosopher.
No.1750670
>>1750661>So do you believe in conscious existence after death?Perhaps. I can't say until it happens. I don't claim to know things I don't know, but I don't believe firmly in hypothetical propositions like the end of my consciousness through physical means. To give an analogy, in a dream you believe it completely real, but the moment you wakeup, you understand it as a fabricated reality.
I mean it really could be either or, but if you want to look at the strict materialist perspective, it's truly nihlist. Nothing means anything, it's all a random assortment of particles and we're all selfish animals. I dunno, I'm not going to say believing in that viewpoint mean you have to be amoralistic but I don't see the harm in believing in a perpetual consciousness and not having to worry about the absolute end of it. I guess if you believe in multiple lives, you have to believe that your remembered surface level experience will disappear, but that doesn't sound too bad to most people. Start over again as a child, no bad memories, sounds like a dream right?
No.1750672
>>1750653I agree with what you're saying but speaking mechanically, couldn't our brain do all of that on it's own without the consciousness part? It is capable of doing so much as it is entirely sub/unconsciously right? Why does it need it for other behavior/processing/etc. I don’t actually expect an answer but I find it fascinating to ask these questions.
>>1750659>Each of us experience it every moment.Now that's the core problem anon, we can only know for sure that we ourselves experience we don't actually know that others do. We assume it because everything points to it, it would be crazier if other people weren’t conscious. But what if some people aren't? I have actually spoken to people on this subject who work in fields like this and some of hem have told me they don't believe everyone is equally conscious and that some people aren't at all. And I don’t mean in a coma, I mean a walking talking person responding to you. Now this is just their opinion but the fact they even said that surprised me
No.1750675
>>1750672>Now that's the core problem anon, we can only know for sure that we ourselves experience we don't actually know that others do. We assume it because everything points to it, it would be crazier if other people weren’t conscious.But that's actually a boo boo and stupid thought question. We can start with the same math question and independently solve it and come to the same answer, so we can be sure the logic is existent in both of us.
No.1750680
>>1750670I dont think life is inherently meaningless in a material universe though. We have meaning right now talking to each other - that means something.
>life as a dream and reincarnationI can accept this because its unfalsifiable, like believing in god. You cant test for it so it cant be proven wrong. I personally use god as a symbol in my own life, but i dont believe in any religion. I pray, but i dont know to what. It doesnt mean i become an idiot, i am just humble to nature's design.
No.1750683
>>1750675No it's not, there is a reality and an actual answer to that, there is a factual truth waiting there but it cannot be adequately empirically demonstrated as of right now. It's like a block due to the very nature of our existence itself and unfortunately without that knowledge we’re left making many assumptions when answering questions about this subject. I am sad to say as well because I am very curious about this kind of thing
No.1750685
>>1750380Placebo effect and other social phenomena aren't supernatural
No.1750686
>>1750672Well the theory in psychoanalysis is that the unconscious exists as a filter for our trauma. So everything we repress goes into the unconscious, because it violates the ego (or consciousness). Here then consciousness is somewhat primary and the unconscious develops later in childhood.
There is the idea of the bicameral mind, where it says humanity experienced a time in its past where it was experiencing both the unconscious and conscious until they split. Our religions supposedly come from this period.
I think consciousness as something symbolic has to do with language and developed with language.
No.1750688
>>1750680>>1750680>I dont think life is inherently meaningless in a material universe though. We have meaning right now talking to each other - that means something.Well that's how I feel and I think most people feel which is why so many religions were invented to explain afterlifes and etc i think reincarnation is the best perspective because the answer to your nect life is simply you eill get another chance, rather than you are judged for eternity baded off this one.
But who knows right? We will see the truth regardless.
No.1750696
>>1750687>Materialism doesn't literally mean "everything is matter."Yes it literally does lol
No.1750698
>>1750696What about energy?
No.1750699
How is this garbage thread the most active thread compared to everything else?
No.1750702
>>1750699it's all vibes so you can just say whatever without having to back up what you're saying with any kind of evidence, like the christcuck threads
No.1750704
>>1750702Okay well. Magic is real and I don’t mean magic abstractly, I mean magic really exists as in Harry Potter magic exists in the real world, materialists could never explain the real existence of muggles in the real world.
No.1750706
>>1750704If magic isn't real then how did Harry Potter take over the world?
Checkmate materialists.
No.1750711
>>1750708So maybe spirit equals mass and energy jn some ratio.
No.1750712
>>1750698E=MC² shows that matter and energy are interchangeable
Materialism is a monism
Matter is just the "stuff" of things that exist
Souls would be made out of matter too, but they would have to be quantified to exist in materialism, yet there are no registers of this material yet.
No.1750713
>>1750710Jk Rowling isn’t very clever, Voldemort’s snake who’s a horcrux is literally basically when satan turned himself into a snake to tempt Adam and Eve. Jk Rowling isn’t clever with her symbology to have Voldemort closest friend literally be satan.
No.1750714
>>1750712We have some energy that decides our lower energetic and matter states that can't be fully explained through tge descriptions of inabimate matter.
No.1750717
>>1750715Sure, an explanation can be mostly correct within its purview yet not descriptive of everything in existence.
No.1750719
>>1750715The point of historical materialism is to reverse hegel's concept of absolute knowing by giving agency to the material base - the purpose is an ontological one - to instantiate materialism as a way to understand reality.
As for what "soul stuff" would be made out of, it would just be another type of material.
Gravity is invisible yet detectable by impressions it makes on space - if anything "supernatural" existed it would similarly leave an impression.
No.1750721
>>1750714>inanimate matterAll matter is animate by definition
Mass = energy = motion
No.1750724
>>1750721Fair enough but by orders of magnitude.
No.1750728
>>1750724Well yeah
For example, the earth spins at 1000 miles per hour because of its mass
The more mass the more velocity, until you reach the speed of light, which if an object has mass, it requires infinite energy - but if youre a proton with no mass then your natural speed is light
So thats an interesting relation between infinity and nothingness
No.1750730
>>1750729And yet youre here posting on leftypol
No.1750744
ITT: people conflating philosophical materialism with political materialism
Both are very useful frameworks.
No.1750980
>>1750979you're a fascist
No.1750981
>>1750980Because they made fun of a stupid flowchart that doesn't explain anything?
No.1750982
>>1750687>Materialism doesn't literally mean "everything is matter."Incorrect. There is no soul. The consciousness is the sum of many wholly material processes.
No.1750985
>>1750981They strawman marxist theory to make a mockery of it, as fascists do.
No.1750987
>>1750984you fail to grasp the basics of marxism
No.1750989
>>1750987The better question would be why are you so attached to that particular infographic?
No.1750991
>>1750990That doesn't prove it's the product of those materials.
No.1750996
>>1750991You got indulged more than you deserve, because you demand someone prove a negative, and I don't see your proof of existence of "souls".
No.1751000
>>1750996Well the proof is we are the only matter that we know of in existence like us. No where in the rest of the universe outside of Earth is anything remotely close.
No.1751001
>>1751000 And besides that. No one can define the physical determination between alive and dead,
No.1751004
>>1751002Well you are sitting here trying to argue you're some kind of automaton, that has to count for something right?
No.1751005
>>1751004Pleading your fucking creationist case isn't a fucking argument.
No.1751006
>>1751004And I mean why should an automaton care for arguing its own lack of will?
No.1751007
>>1751005You still haven't proven you are an unthinking unwilling robot yet.
No.1751010
>>1751006>shouldthere's that word again
No.1751011
>>1751007So you're arguing in bad faith now and shifting topics? Is this comedy to you?
No.1751015
>>1751010>should>here's that word again*would anglo -ould pedant
No.1751017
>>1751011You claim you have no soul so than what do you claim you are? A mechanism that is a product of his environment? A carbon robot?
No.1751019
>>1751011>Is this comedy to you?Uhhh, in a cosmic sort of way, yes
No.1751020
>>1751017Hydrocarbon*
Same as you.
No.1751021
>>1751001>No one can define the physical determination between alive and dead,An individual who has sustained either (1) irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions, or (2) irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem, is dead.
No.1751023
>>1751019Shut the fuck up, Plankton. "Trolling" hasn't been funny since 2008 to anyone who actually left their gated community to interact with actual idiots.
No.1751024
>>1751022They say or because those are two different criteria to determine death: the cardiopulmonary criterion and the neurological criterion.
No.1751025
>>1751024But what is the fundamental physical difference between live or dead in those two states?
No.1751026
>>1751024Note: neurological will quickly follow the cardiopulmonary.
No.1751027
>>1751025Lack of oxygen to the brain.
No.1751029
>>1751024For example, you can have artificial support for heart or lung functions while also having little brain function, or vice versa. This would meet the first criteria but not the first.
>>1751025>the fundamental physical difference between live or dead in those two states?A dead person meets one of these criteria: An individual who has sustained either (1) irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions, or (2) irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem, is dead.
An alive person meets none.
No.1751030
>>1751029Kind of a voodoo explanation to say "irreversible." That's a subjective word.
No.1751033
>>1751030>Death is when you are irreversibly, not aliveok then
No.1751034
>>1751030You are now breathing manually, btw.
No.1751036
>>1751033Yeah and being retarded is when you are operating at subnormal level beyond a certain threshold. Such is life.
No.1751037
>>1751030Wrong. Irreversible means that the cessation of functions is preferment and cannot be restored by any known medical intervention. Irreversible does not mean that the functions have stopped for a certain amount of time, or that they cannot be artificially maintained by machines. Irreversible means that there is no possibility of recovery or return to life. This definition of death is not a voodoo explanation, but a scientific and legal clarification.
No.1751039
>>1751037Well and I said that's highly subjective. What medical technology can return someone to normal function is dependent on place and time. It's not an adequate definition of live an dead.
No.1751040
>>1751039Adequate enough for our current level of tech.
And it still will not be advisable to try to revive a person that went without oxygen for longer than… six(?) minutes.
No.1751042
>>1751040>And it still will not be advisable to try to revive a person that went without oxygen for longer than… six(?) minutes.People can easily hold their breath for longer.
No.1751044
>>1751039What constitutes death isn't subjective in any way. The material fact of what constitutes death is CONTINGENT on extant material conditions.
No.1751045
>>1751042Yeah, and it was accomplished by abusing the circulatory system. Like pre-breathing 100% oxygen.
No.1751046
>>1751044That's subjective by another name. Fine call it relative.
No.1751047
>>1751046At this point you are at war with the concept of knowledge itself.
No.1751049
>>1751046That's NOT what "subjective" means.
No.1751050
>>1751047Hmm? I am very exact. If I say I am broke because I have $5000 dollars or $500 or $5 dollars or 5 cents.
>>1751049Indeed it is. Your status as deemed by your surroundings is the definition of subjective.
No.1751051
>>1751050I know you don't know the basics of epistemology. Bro I can tell.
No.1751053
>>1751050Or how about something more physical. I can be tall in one environment or short in another and still be the same height. It's a matter of subjectivity. So saying whether you have the power to restore life or not is subjective you fucking retards.
No.1751065
>>1751053>So saying whether you have the power to restore life or not is subjective you fucking retards.Whether someone is legally dead or not isn't subjective. Whether someone is legally dead or not is an objective condition that is contingent on other conditions. You are just confusing subjective and contingent. Relax.
No.1751067
>>1751065For example, while a short man may be tall in relation to a shorter man, a legally dead person is always legally dead in relation to anything else.
No.1751074
>>1751072Hmm? I said the determination of life or death is decided by the situation therefore it is subjective, what is hard for you to understand?
No.1751075
>>1751074all things are decided by the situation. all things are subjective
No.1751076
>>1751074Nothing's hard for me to understand
>therefore Because you don't know what "subjectivity" is
Graduate high school
No.1751079
>>1751076You can't even speak English properly Ukie Jew dude.,
>>1751075Not at all. Some things are defined by simple measurements that are concrete and not based of multi-step abstract processes like medical "reversibility."
No.1751081
>>1751079>Some things are defined by simple measurements that are concrete and not based of multi-step abstract processes like medical "reversibility."But measurements are used to determine the status of the patient and thusly the reversibility of their issues.
No.1751083
>>1751082*measures pulse and brain functioning*
*it's zero*
He's dead.
>THATS SUBJECTIVE AND NON-CONCRETE No.1751086
>>1751083The thing uniting techno-optimists and the religious is irrational fear of death.
No.1751089
>>1751086I have no fear of death. I accept it as inevitable. I was a techno-optimist when I was a child, but then I realized even after 10k or 100k or 1000000k years the outcome is the same.
But at the same time I have no assurance of what death means. The experience could be anything. From cessation, to reincarnation, to ever lasting life in heaven or hell.
No.1751091
>>1750315I think there is a spiritual aspect to life but it doesn't necessarily correlate to Christianity or Islam or Judaism or any single religion and that there's more to the story than we know.
Still….no reason to not explore it.
No.1751093
>>1751089>The experience could be anything. From cessation, to reincarnation, to ever lasting life in heaven or hell.Not really.
If you don't like the term "bollocks" bc it's too concrete, let's call it "highly statistically unlikely".
No.1751094
>bro I took a bunch of drugs and I saw SPIRITS MAAAAAAAAAAAAN
>Marxism doesn’t matter just get high bro
As if we needed additional reasons to shoot drug addicts on sight, thank you for providing added incentive
No.1751095
>>1751093>There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,>Than are dreamt of in your philosophy. Well that's the whole thing, You can't appreciate how limited your viewpoint is. No technology has invented jack shit, We all eat, breathe, shit, reproduce the same way for the most part. It's objective to say that all of science hasn't explained really one iota of our existence. It's so controversial to people to think that we and our intelligence exist for a reason. You are so determined to argue your point for some reason. Why is it>
No.1751097
>>1751096So you draw some kind of parallel between yourself and some random schizo?
No.1751099
>>1751097Yeah. He's not a random schizo, cretin.
No.1751100
>>1751099King Schizo? Christards are the most close-minded and retarded and schizo at the same time,
No.1751101
>>1751100I'm gonna post a cognitohazard that makes Roko's Basilisk look like a fuckin chicken if you keep acting retarded at me. Go do it somewhere else.
No.1751104
>>1751101'>Roko's Basilisk look like a fuckin chicken
Like what does this mean? You have some made up sci-fi bullshit that is more believable or something?
No.1751107
>>1751104No it tells you what really happens. But you are not ready for that.
No.1751109
>>1751107Whoah dude. I am ready. Hit me with your dystopian sci fi fan fic futurology.
No.1751117
>>1751111>what if death was…le BAD?!?!?! Le omg 2 spooky XDDDDDDDDGod I had almost forgotten how retarded nu-SCP is. Everything is a two hour long narrative that’s either a metaphor for the author’s mental health issues, a self-insert, or trying and failing to make a basic concept LE HECKIN SPOOKY, or in this case all of the above
No.1751121
>>1751117>what if death was…le BAD?Well, in that case you are reading it wrong. It's more the other way around, fear of death makes people act deeply retarded. It's a long time since I read it but it could be totally made up shit and the 05s freaking out completely.
No.1751133
>>1750315>I'm going to sound like a schizo but I've recently had an out of body experience after taking too much ketamine. >I took a fuckton of hallucination inducing drugs and now I dont believe reality if real anymoreYoure like someone who just watches fox news all day and now think transgender mexican communist are coming to your door to kill your toddler. You were literally just dreaming while awake.
No.1751135
>Dialectics in motion supposedly
>weeks happening
>possible turning point in Gazan genocide
>possible change in the nature and existence of the Israeli project
>300 posts in 12 hours on anon's K hole
shitposting is fun and K is fun but this is notable
No.1751137
>>1751136
Almost. Any board with the 2 best counter-narrative conflict threads in the west will be taken seriously.
No.1751313
>>1750982You're just claiming that materialism relies on an unknown to work. It doesn't. As far as materialism is concerned, all that matters is matter. Something not literally being matter by current understanding of the term doesn't doesn't mean it is immune to materialism.
There is no praxis to the non-existence of souls. The lack of a praxis to the existence of souls means that as far as materialism is currently concerned, it doesn't exist. Anything more abstract than that is idealism.
No.1751328
>>1750315Every psychedelic experience I've had, LSD, mushrooms, peyote, 2cb, 2ci, 225i-nbmoe, mdma, etc. have convinced me of materialism. Psychedelics give you what you put into them, if you're an idealist before the experience you'll be an even greater idealist after. There is no information coming from "the outside", the psychedelics work with whatever is in your mind already.
No.1753170
>>1753160Do you think aliens are talking to you when you take acid?
No.1753263
>>1750996>>17509911) The inability to prove a negative doesn't prove or disprove the existence of something, and asserting the negative in such a circumstance literally just creates a god shaped hole.
2) The lack of praxis in either case in if, or elif souls exist makes the pondering it pointless until the existence is proven. It is less than mattering if that doesn't happen, because wasting resources on the insistence of a negative against the insistence of a positive is even more wasteful than the pursuit of something of the positive if it cannot ever be reached, since the latter will be perused anyway in either case.
2) Asserting that materialism would be debunked by the existence of souls inherently mystifies it, even if you truly believen't in souls. In doing so you make surrender it to philosophy, when it isn't philosophy.
No.1753420
"I got really high on drugs" isn't an argument.
No.1753957
>>1750599Lmao, are you retarded? Drugs show us that how we PERCEIVE the Physical world is just an IDEA in our heads. This means that materialism, science, etc are just mental constructs and ways of viewing the world, same as any other. Schizophrenics can literally see, touch, and hear entities that other people can't.
Saying there is only one material reality that is equally true to everything and everyone is false. Idealism is correct because we literally create the realities we live in with the power of our minds.
Sorry you're not a Skyrim character and you can't spy on people or cast a fireball, that's not how it works. The power of your mind is limited mostly to controlling your own world. Religion and ideology is how you change the worldviews and realities of others.
I'm not a commie btw you people are silly. Imagine believing there's only one material reality, and that ideas don't matter, while also believing in transgenderism. The idea that you can be metaphysically born in the wrong physical body.
No.1753958
>>1753957>Saying there is only one material reality that is equally true to everything and everyone is false<Sorry you're not a Skyrim character and you can't spy on people or cast a fireball, that's not how it works.So you admit that every Human cannot cast a fireball and magic doesn't exist, ergo there is an objective material reality that exists and is distinct from every individual's personal perspective. Thanks for proving Marxism and Materialism to be correct.
No.1753961
>>1753957why is the background of that projection screen entirely made of swastikas
No.1753965
>>1753958>So you admit that every Human cannot cast a fireball and magic doesn't exist, ergo there is an objective material reality Admitting that there are limitations to the power of belief and ideas is not admitting to there being only one reality. We are ALL changing the reality everyone else is living in through our beliefs. The power of other minds is what limits your own. Some people don't live in consensus reality, we label them schizos, psychotics, etc. Their unique perspectives on reality are not powerful because their souls are outweighed by the collective Holy Spirit of the consensus reality shared by most.
Bronze Age people pretty much all unequivocally wrote of magic rituals being true, powerful, and important; this was not because they were stupid or deluded (In a sense, they could be considered those things , but not how you imagine it) That's just the world they lived in, since that's what they believed.
We live in a world of belief in materialism, so that is the law we generally live in collectively. Christians believe in material/spiritual duality, this is why they reject science. Even they don't really believe in magic, they think it's separate from reality. Christians are closer to Atheists than ancient people.
Science is is just another type of magic, a ritualistic mechanistic action taken in order to enact change. Ritual is how one changes the world, and when the Materialist God rules, the rituals you use to enact change are those of the machine. Building a missile is how you cast a spell in this day and age.
This does not however mean that only the materialist way of seeing the world is the only one true, it obviously isn't, but it is for some. Most people throughout history did not see the world like you or I.
>ergo there is an objective material reality that exists and is distinct from every individual's personal perspective. No, there isn't. There is only belief, and collective belief which tends to be enforced through education. If everything collapsed tomorrow, you'd see new perspectives and new rituals done to enact change. Same as any other time one age goes into another.
>>1753961Should be obvious, I know it's offensive…
No.1753966
>>1753965Adding to this, look up the observer effect in quantum mechanics in order to see a good example about the perception of the mind changes material reality.
No.1753972
>>1753965>>1753966You also have to remember that humans are not the only things doing this. The plants and animals are alive too, and they influence the consensus reality we share as-well. Humans are more able to dominate other species due to their superior consciousness, but they are not the sole constructors of reality themselves. Even if you were to drug every human into believing something, the effect might be great, but not as pronounced as you'd might hope. I have my personal doubts you could ever cast fireballs. Do a ritual to summon the rain however? Well, we can already do that with the magic called science today, and in the past, our ancestors had different rituals that made just as much sense to them, in their worlds.
No.1753983
>>1753972I'm heading to bed, one more thing I'll tell you all though. Remember, emotions are the realest things there are. What you see with your eyes? That's information filtered through a lens, no different fundamentally from what you see through your computer monitor.
Feels really are before reals, because feels are the most reals. What you and other feel is fundamentally the most important. If you bring suffering to others, that will only lead to more and more suffering, as the collective belief of living beings is more and more dominated by the concept.
It matters not if you're abusing animals, or people. The effect is the same. If you want to understand how something like the Holocaust could have happened, look to the factory farm, it's the same damn thing. You're just a German who thinks he's racially superior and you think that justifies it.
No.1753994
>>1753957Spouting some classic idealism of the Mach type there. The laws of nature are objectively determined by nature, not by your consciousness and feelings, and these laws exist whether we know them or not. Try jumping off a cliff and see how much physics is a mental construct. Insane obscurantist.
No.1754009
>>1753994Decided to stay up a bit longer. What is nature? Nature is an idea. Yes, if you fall from a great height you will die. You will even die even if you don't believe you will. You want to know why? It's because we're living in a rational world.
Do you want to know how we're living in a rational world? Through the power of belief, through the spirit of rationalism imposing its will onto reality.
Those who are possessed by other types of archetypes are not powerful, so while in their worlds gravity might not exist (We would call this a delusion) The power of the consensus reality we live in would still smite them if they undertook actions we would see as lethal. Our reality is more powerful than theirs.
The concept of gravity likely took power in our hearts far before we even existed, before life even existed. It's a concept that likely has always existed in this universe. That does not mean it is anything but an idea. Because everything is an idea.
Ideas are transcendental. Human beings are just very small parts of reality, so of-course their powers are limited. Their power to influence how ideas interact with the world is limited.
How limited beings change reality is through calling upon greater powers/universal archetypes, and this is done through ritual. It's why all cultures have ritual, even animals have ritual, it's how change is made.
You couldn't make a ritual to change gravity however because gravity is a fundamental aspect of our reality, and inherent natures. To do so would just destroy everything, you couldn't convince many to pursue such a task seriously either, because the IDEA of doing such is absurd.
No.1754013
Let's assume that materialism is wrong; then, what is the correct worldview? Do keep in mind that saying that "we don't have the correct worldview figured out yet, and we will arrive at it at some time in the future" it means that you are already on the materialist worldview rails
No.1754014
>>1754009>Yes, if you fall from a great height you will die.Will you, though? What if it's a trick of perception? What if you believe hard enough you'll actually go and fly away, and if you fall down, that means you just didn't believe enough in your flying ability?
No.1754017
>>1754013There is no correct worldview, there's just the reality you live in, and the reality others live in. It's all subjective. The only MORAL viewpoint however is understanding how others think, and trying to reconcile the differences and minimize suffering in the process. You could choose to be a crusader for your worldview, burn the heretics, etc. Anyone who does this is fundamentally the same. They think they're fighting for the truth, when it's only their truth.
>>1754014You're not a God, your powers are limited. Others see you as delusional, you will see yourself as doing that until you hit the floor. Re-read my posts, comprehend them, I have already explained why this doesn't work.
No.1754020
>>1754017>You're not a God, your powers are limited.You are not believing in your powers hard enough.
>Others see you as delusionalThis means you are not believing in yourself hard enough. Idiots have managed to trick millions of people into believing their phoney religious nonsense, and then here you are saying that others will see you as an idiot. You are just not good enough
>It's all subjective.Yeah, that's what I am saying. Believe in yourself, and you'll achieve anything you want. Even jump off a roof and start flying
>trying to reconcile the differences and minimize suffering in the processNah, that's stupid. Given an eternity, all human minds will arrive at the same worldview (talking about comprehending reality here, not emotional/moral response to it). Final truth is the same for everyone.
No.1754026
>>1754020God it's like I'm back on /pol/
>You are not believing in your powers hard enough. Nah, insane people believe from the bottom of their hearts that they can do things, but they're no able to fucking fly. You wanna know why? BECAUSE NO ONE ELSE BELIEVES THEY CAN FUCKING FLY! YOU'RE NOT A GOD! YOU'RE JUST A VERY SMALL CELL OF DIVINITY! YOUR SUBJECTIVE REALITY IS HOW YOU PERCEIVE THE WORLD, BUT CHANGING HOW OTHERS PERCEIVE THE WORLD IS ANOTHER MATTER ENTIRELY!
>This means you are not believing in yourself hard enough. Idiots have managed to trick millions of people into believing their phoney religious nonsense, and then here you are saying that others will see you as an idiot. You are just not good enoughAs a communist, you should be familiar with the concept of the collective, and how it's more powerful than the individual…
>Nah, that's stupid. Given an eternity, all human minds will arrive at the same worldview Maybe, and give it another eternity, and that worldview will splinter once again. Nothing lasts forever.
No.1754029
>>1754020>Final truth is the same for everyone.Yeah, and this is the flaw in progressive thinking. I see this is truly delusional. Sure, in your reality the inevitable march of truth must seems like such a profound idea. Truer than the belief the Christian holds in Christ. I find it very hard to agree however. We've never observed this in all of history. You're on a fool's errand. You're the person who wants to change gravity. Sure, it's theoretically possible, but it's not going to happen.
No.1754034
>>1754026>Nah, insane people believe from the bottom of their hearts that they can do thingsThey know deep down that they are fakes, and as a result they don't believe hard enough. Even a shred of a doubt destroys it all. It's like a dream, really - if you start thinking about it, you start falling
>YOU'RE NOT A GOD! YOU'RE JUST A VERY SMALL CELL OF DIVINITY!There's no divinity or god. Believing in shit like this is why you can't fly at will
>concept of the collective, and how it's more powerful than the individualpffft. You are trying to apply truisms - that a collective will fell trees and chop it into wood blocks faster than a single man, and they will produce progressively more wood blocks per capita - to a willpower. What, you think that collective willpower is what is rooting you to the ground? No, you are just a failure who can't persuade himself, nevermind those around him, in your ability to fly
>>1754029>Yeah, and this is the flaw in progressive thinking. I see this is truly delusionalSo, what you are saying is, that given the eternity, two men will arrive at different explanations of atom? Given that they start at zero as cavemen, for example. Like, there would be different language, sure, but if the only thing they can do is theoretize and make experiments forever and ever, they will trial and error their way into the same kind of science, without contradicting each other
No.1754042
>>1750315>take drug>hallucinateThat is explicit proof of materialism though.
You directly impacted your consciousness through physical phenomena. That shows that the brain is a material thing that is affected by the material. There is no supernatural element required.
The fact that you were able to "see" your own body doesn't mean anything except that you have a conception of what you look like, which is true of almost everyone. It's not like you can take a screenshot of that moment and compare it with a top-down picture or something.
No.1754043
>>1754034>They know deep down that they are fakes, and as a result they don't believe hard enough. Even a shred of a doubt destroys it all. It's like a dream, really - if you start thinking about it, you start fallingI guess this is why real communism has never been implemented. Communists just don't believe in communism hard enough, they feel like fakes.. I suppose it's a similar issue, you're living in such a different reality from normal people, so your worldview can never hold power. I guess that's why you want to kill anyone who isn't a communist. Maybe if you kill everyone else, you can finally fly….
>There's no divinity or god. Believing in shit like this is why you can't fly at willIt's a metaphor, that's what religion is. God is not a magic man in the sky. God is existence, and we're all a part of it.
>pffft. You are trying to apply truisms - that a collective will fell trees and chop it into wood blocks faster than a single man, and they will produce progressively more wood blocks per capita - to a willpower. What, you think that collective willpower is what is rooting you to the ground? No, you are just a failure who can't persuade himself, nevermind those around him, in your ability to flyConsensus reality construction is no different fundamentally from your anology about chopping wood. All you're doing is creating a strawman to argue against and than proclaiming victory. It's sad.
>So, what you are saying is, that given the eternity, two men will arrive at different explanations of atom? Sure, look at observer effect in quantum mechanics. In actuality, the physical composition of an Atom would look entirely different to two different men raised in complete isolation. One man would probably call in the magical bean or something, and pray to it for explosive power. Only if those two men shared their ideas would the idea of the Atom be shared, and while they would both share common ground, in their internal worlds it would still be perceived differently. Same as how a Mantis Shrimp doesn't perceive an object the same as we do.
>sure, but if the only thing they can do is theoretize and make experiments forever and ever, they will trial and error their way into the same kind of science, without contradicting each otherOnly if they worked together. Trial and error is how you get religion, it's also how you get science. Both worldviews dominated by theology and ritual, just one rational, the other spiritual, both symbolic at the end of the day. Both ideas.
No.1754044
>>1754043NTA but you are an absolute moron and that guy is a masochist for arguing with someone with such low mental faculties.
No.1754047
>>1754044Yes I know, I'm one of those heathens that just doesn't understand the true faith. Living in ignorance and sin….
No.1754052
>>1754043>Communists just don't believe in communism hard enough, they feel like fakesWhy would willing yourself to fly translate into ability to force people into communism? Ever heard of a body autonomy, lmao?
>God is not a magic man in the sky. God is existence, and we're all a part of it.Nah, you and I are not the same person
>Consensus reality construction is no different fundamentally from your anology about chopping woodYou are making a metaphor where there is none. There's no higher will, no nothing. Read the theory - Harry Potter - and look at how the timeloop works there. There's just THINGS that exist because they exist. Timeloop happens not because there's something that begins and ends, timeloop justifies itself. Material reality behaves the same way, it just is, and it's a separate entity from yourself
>Sure, look at observer effect in quantum mechanicsDoesn't exist. Experiments have shown that observer effect is merely an issue with scientific equipment: it is impossible to measure something without touching it in some way, and touching quantum entagled things results in changes to the observed object.
Besides, the new meta is that quantum shit happens because time travel happens there. It all always ties back to the theory - the Harry Potter saga
>Mantis Shrimp doesn't perceive an object the same as we do.Perception is meaningless. Strong will understands all and perceives all
>Only if they worked together.No, it will happen regardless of anything. Universe works the same way for everyone, and given an endless timeline to do all kinds of research all people will independently arrive at the same conclusions. It has nothing to do with perception, either. It's just truth of the matter
No.1754057
>>1754052>Why would willing yourself to fly translate into ability to force people into communism? Ever heard of a body autonomy, lmao?We'll, they're both believed by the delusional. Most other people don't take the idea seriously. Sometimes the delusional chimp out when their delusions aren't taken seriously…
>Nah, you and I are not the same personI know, the self-hatred is strong. I used to be an atheist commie you know. I know exactly where you're coming from. I honestly find it cute. If you were a woman I'd fuck your brains out. I love silly girls.
>You are making a metaphor where there is none. There's no higher will, no nothing. Interesting hypothesis, so, where did the voice that directed your fingers to type this came from? Yes, yes, I know you have a brain and organs, all that shit. But, where is that voice you're listening to, coming from right now? Oh it's just a biological construct you say? A chemical reaction? Very interesting idea, you should write that down.
>There's just THINGS that exist because they exist. That is so deep. Wow, I'm befuddled, you have won.
Here's a hint
The chicken and the egg both have always existed.
Time is just an idea, same as any other. A useful, rational, idea. Just an idea.
>Perception is meaningless. Strong will understands all and perceives allAnd that is just a perception.
>Universe works the same way for everyone, Yes King Cultist, you know the only truth, everyone else is wrong, blah buh fucking blah.
>given an endless timeline to do all kinds of research all people will independently arrive at the same conclusions. Of-course, there's plenty of historical basis for that. I mean, we can observe it today, in the past…. We can see people progressively disagreeing less and less as time goes on. One day, the true faith will shower enlightenment on all, and we will all live in Heaven forever.
No.1754121
>>1754057>We'll, they're both believed by the delusional.Again, they don't believe hard enough. Your argument isn't persuasive, you know? You have to try harder than this half-assed attempt
>I know exactly where you're coming fromYou are not, though. You can't even grasp the concept of there being no divinity, no shared consciousness, and at the same time being able to fly through the sheer force of will
>where did the voice that directed your fingers to type this came from?From my brain, duh. Rocks falling from a higher place to a lower place don't need any soul to move either. But that's besides the point, because you for some reason want to argue that material world's laws are the same ones that govern the ability to fly through the sheer force of will. Didn't you read the theory - Harry Potter? Material reality out there is just THERE, like the timeloop being JUST THERE. It doesn't bear any relation to the ability to fly through the sheer force of will
>The chicken and the egg both have always existed.Nah, they didn't. First came the chicken, and it came out of the egg of some almost chicken-like dinosaur. Timeloop is a completely different thing
>One day, the true faith will shower enlightenment on allWhat true faith, lmao. Are you seriously arguing that different countries have different outlook on science? What are you even talking about?
>And that is just a perception.Dude, you don't have the right to talk about perception when you don't even understand the idea of a timeloop being without beginning or end. Hell, you probably don't even understand the idea of the end of the universe due to the timeloop cutting off all history past a certain point
No.1754147
>>1753957>we literally create the realities we live in with the power of our minds.i'm sure your mind is mighty powerful in your mind you hippie lol
No.1754152
>>1753957>Saying there is only one material reality that is equally true to everything and everyone is false. lol schizo
No.1754154
When I tool shit loads of LSD, I never fell into idealism
No.1754218
>>1750606What bother you about ideas being information on supports, whether neuron activity or symbols on paper?
Not fancy enough for you?
No.1754352
>>1750532least gullible anarchist
No.1754483
>>1750315Metaphysics is based on material reality. Without material reality no ideas, souls or spooky ghosts would exist.
No.1754571
>>1753965>We are ALL changing the reality everyone else is living in through our beliefs. You are missing the point. I already told you (and you agree) that no human being alive can cast a fireball or magic missile and throw it at someone else. Reality stands independent of perception. Imagining that you can throw a fireball is not going to set whatever you're aiming at on fire. Likewise a schizo can imagine someone in an empty room talking to them. However through third party verification and observation we can all confirm that there isn't actually another living breathing human being in that empty room with (for instance) CCTV monitoring. Your argument about the mind changing reality is falsifiable with these two and many other examples and therefore easily demonstrated to be wrong. You haven't refuted Marxism or Materialism you've just generated a tautology for yourself ("people's imagination can change reality because people's imagination can change reality") and failed to rebut any of the millions of examples blowing a gaping hole through that idea.
No.1754606
>>1754121You're boring, you're just making the same stupid argument you've made over and over again which I've already debunked. You are an NPC with no reading comprehensions
>Again, they don't believe hard enough. Your argument isn't persuasive, you know? You have to try harder than this half-assed attemptCommunists don't believe in communism hard enough?
>You are not, though. You can't even grasp the concept of there being no divinity, no shared consciousness, Lmao, that's what I've believed for most of my life. That's the baseline belief in our society. Christians don't even really believe in divinity because they believe it is entirely separate from real life, and only matters after death.
>From my brain, duhOf-course, a thought is something material, like a neuron, my mistake… Do you not realize how stupid you sound? You do realize everything material you see is just information being processed by your brain correct? The tree you see isn't really what a tree looks like, a tree is just how a symbol your brain creates to help visualize a concept in your head. A tree is not really one solid object, go down in scale enough and you'll see it's just a colony and cells , farther it's just and a collection of molecules.
>Rocks falling from a higher place to a lower place don't need any soul to move either. The soul is just a metaphor for existence, so yes, rocks exist. Everything has a "soul" because everything exists, and is all a-part of creation.
>because you for some reason want to argue that material world's laws are the same ones that govern the ability to fly through the sheer force of will. Like I keep repeating, you're the one who wants to change the law of nature, not me. All I say is that it would be theoretically possible, but not in actuality.
>Nah, they didn't. First came the chicken, and it came out of the egg of some almost chicken-like dinosaur. Lmao, so go far back enough what came first? The first egg? Or the first dinosaur? Perhaps we could quibble over definitions until we both feel like we win, but doing so doesn't actually matter to my point. Time isn't actually real, I have no clue why you believe in retarded bullshit like timeloops.
>What true faith, lmaoDon't act like your shit isn't a cult.
>Are you seriously arguing that different countries have different outlook on science? Of-course they do. The USSR for example did not believe in natural selection (Even after Lysenkoism was gone they were still skeptical) Modern liberal countries do not believe natural selection applies to human beings (We're special apparently) Got two scientists together to discuss the nature of black holes, or quantum physics, or biology, or anything, you will get two separate theories. What do you think science is a cult? It's a methodology. and people get different conclusions all the time. Actually there's only been more disagreements as the theories have become ever more complex, not less. Plus, not all people think scientifically or rationally, thinking in those ways is just another way of viewing the world.
>Dude, you don't have the right to talk about perception when you don't even understand the idea of a timeloop being without beginning or end. Time we perceive it is cynical, but time isn't actually even real, it's an idea but one that ironically doesn't have any material basis. As a marxist the fact you believe in timeloops is very funny to me, since you're part of a progressive materialist cult; yet you subscribe to such an idealist way of viewing reality that pretty much makes the concept of material development irrelevant.
>Hell, you probably don't even understand the idea of the end of the universe due to the timeloop cutting off all history past a certain pointEntropy kills the universe, than it's reborn. Even scientific theories say as much, many believe the Big Bang has happened over and over again. It's a cycle, not a loop. A cycle of life and death. Same as the life cycle of the stars, or of living creatures.
>>1754147For me, it is. If I wanted to, I could live in hell by taking Datura for example.
>>1754152Schizoes are a perfect example for how not everyone is living in the same reality. A schizo can literally interact with perceived entities, touch them, hear them, etc. That other people can't see.
>>1754571>Reality stands independent of perception. In a sense you are correct. But the true reality, the one that is truly independent of perception, makes no sense. It's more like the unending fractals of a drug trip than the trees and the grass, our brains have to filter out so much information in order to for us to live the lives that we do. How you PERCEIVE this infinitely complex universe you're living in is limited by your brain, which itself is a limiter on your mind. So in this sense, we do create our own SUBJECTIVE realities with our minds. The only way to fully comprehend the truth would be to be everything. Plus, everyone's brain is a little different, how you see colors is likely different to how another does for example.
>Likewise a schizo can imagine someone in an empty room talking to them. However through third party verification and observation we can all confirm that there isn't actually another living breathing human being in that empty room with (for instance) CCTV monitoring. Yes, because most are not living in the same reality as the schizo. If we were, we wouldn't consider him a schizo. That doesn't mean that schizo can't fully interact with his demons same as how we can interact with another human. There's actually been cases of people who gone through psychosis together through drug abuse seeing the same entities that normal people can't. Of-course you can't prove this materially, since it's a subjective experience and materialism only helps those who share common ground explain the world.
>You haven't refuted Marxism or Materialism I haven't, because I haven't tried to. Materialism is actually very true, for some people. What I'm saying is that everything is true. You are correct in a sense in some sense, and so are the idealists. We can go back and argue about chickens and eggs, which came first? The ideas or the material? Well, in my eyes, both have always existed.
>and failed to rebut any of the millions of examples blowing a gaping hole through that idea.You can't use rationalism to argue that rationalism isn't true. It's like trying to debate that God doesn't exist by quoting the Bible, not how it works. Materialism and Idealism are actually both true, and my ideal would be finding the middle ground between them both.
No.1754609
>>1754606Btw, by "Materialism being true" I mean the Materialist idea and perception of viewing the world is very true for many.
No.1755063
I've always wondered how materialists explain the undying and eternal human desire to be free. In any case, I don't think being a staunch materialist really matter unless you are part of a hierarchical religion (e.g. christianity, islam, judaism, etc.) Historical materialism is bunk in any case as well
>What's the deal with their obsession with moloch and shit ?
the bourgeois continue to be religious esoteric freaks, this is a key component to bourgeois culture. The bourgeois fill their cold inhuman hearts with pleasant and absurd rituals, you saw it with the monarchists, the SS, and you see it now with the capitalists.
either that or the upper strata know A LOT more than us, although I prefer the former just due to occam's razor.
No.1755081
>>1754606If you go deep enough, you'll only see molecules, atoms and then waves.
The thing is, we have ways of getting information about them through the use of specialized tools that are able to perceive things beyond what our limited senses can. That is the closest thing to a material reality we're able to grasp, and we are constantly improving on our tools to do so. Our subjective reality only helps us interpret this data and give it some kind of human meaning or conclusion. And yes, different people can make different conclusions from the same data, it's what we call perspective and such.
When a schizophrenic perceives something that isn't there, he can't actually get "objective" proof about it through the use of tools. Just look at all the people claiming that UFOs exist and never providing any actual clear recording of one. Or all the people that believe in God, or ghosts, you get the point. There IS a very substantial difference between "normal" individuals and people with mental health issues, the difference being that most of the normal people share a baseline in how their senses capture data and this is what we use as the common reality of things (otherwise cooperation and society would be impossible!).
No.1755242
>Materialism is wrong because… I did drugs!
>I literally believe in magic
>No you see, Everything is subjective
>i saw an exorcism and shit
>my mind created the world
>Marx and Lenin are wrong because uh… I can't explain why
I can't tell if this thread is some weird raid or idealists in 2024 are just really this bad at arguing, but it's just more proof that idealism is a failure that boils down to personal feelings and wishful thinking.
No.1755268
matter doesn't exist, it's all waves and shit.
in fact, our experience of matter is an illusion, therefore idealist.
materialism is idealist.
No.1755315
>>1755268"Your" "self" doesn't exist either so how can you have ideas?
No.1755338
>>1755063>human desire to be freelel
I dunno, like, "Information wants to be free"?
No.1793241
>>1755242> idealists in 2024 are just really this bad at arguingAlways have been.
This reminds me of someone I knew that tried acid 1 time and then wouldn’t shut up about new age crap
No.1793293
98% of the time when people mean materialism they are just being retarded vulgar materialists. This question isn't even that interesting. Who gives a fuck about matter? Its being/existence that's the more interesting area. Western philosophy was pure garbage until Deleuze and Heidegger. Nobody should ever give a fuck about the idealism vs materialism debate. Its settled already. Move on.
No.1793310
>>1753957>unironic iron march posterholy fuck lmfao
Unique IPs: 64