4 ms·
Is your opinion that there is something non-material about Humans?
by AndrewKemendo 9mo ago
Is your opinion that there is something non-material about Humans?
- unicorn_cowboy 9mo agoMaterialism is not fundamental; consciousness is. This assumes materialism as fundamental.
- AndrewKemendo 9mo ago> Materialism is not fundamental; consciousness is What is your epistemological basis for this claim? Any proof of this? And just for extreme clarity note: at no point have I made a claim yet
- svnt 9mo agoThe human concept of materialism appears to have been produced by historical humans who were also conscious, which at least sets an order. To call this into question is to render logical debate incoherent. Materialism is a theory, not a reality, but its adherents can't tell the difference.
- AndrewKemendo 9mo agoSo your epistemology is historicism?
- svnt 9mo agoDid you recently discover the idea of epistemology or does your line of questioning have a purpose?
- AndrewKemendo 9mo agoThe OP suggested “The engineering-focused materialist way of looking at stuff like this makes my head and heart hurt.” Therefore excluding “materialist way of looking at stuff” from the question of social theory I have still yet to hear any elucidation with any type of philosophical rigor of why about the questions of humanity should exclude materialist lenses Further, at no point was there a epistemological foundation laid for the claim that consciousness is the foundation apriori from materialism
- svnt 9mo agoI read it as an expression of personal experience, not a declaration of anything. "Be not arrogant because of your knowledge, but confer with the ignorant man as with the learned, for the limits of skill are not attainable."
- deleted 9mo ago[deleted]
- unicorn_cowboy 9mo agoHere's a starter pack of resources: https://www.harpercollins.com/products/the-holographic-universe-michael-talbot https://www.harpercollins.com/products/the-holographic-unive... https://www.essentiafoundation.org/ https://www.essentiafoundation.org/ https://curtjaimungal.substack.com/ https://curtjaimungal.substack.com/ Be advised this is not something that can be understood through intellectualization. At some point you have to put down the books and seek out the experience.
- fc417fc802 9mo ago> To call this into question is to render logical debate incoherent. Unfortunately there are quite a few things of that nature. In no case does it justify blindly picking one of the options and then following up with bold claims based on an arbitrary assumption.
- svnt 9mo agoWhere did I make the case that it does?
- strogonoff 9mo agoWhether monastic materialism or idealism is correct would be an unfalsifiable claim within the framework of natural scientific method. (That method is designed to help us make predictions; interpreting experimental outcome for a statement of objective truth is a misapplication of scientific method.) An existing natural-scientific model can be referenced in a philosophical argument, but the argument remains a philosophical statement. A philosophical argument can still be debated on other merits—e.g., which alternative grants magical objective existence to more arbitrary entities, or such.
- houllan633 9mo agoAre you interchangeable with a few mounds containing the exact same amount of the same molecules as your body?
- patch_cable 9mo agoIn the exact same configuration? Yes.
- throw36745 9mo agoReducing sociology to physics is a category error?
- unicorn_cowboy 9mo agoIt's missing the forest for the trees.
- svnt 9mo agoHumans are nearly defined by their access to the abstract. The abstract is definitionally non-material.
- fc417fc802 9mo agoI dunno about that, latent spaces are looking pretty material these days. I've got several variants saved to my local disk.
- svnt 9mo agoMap meets territory.