Nah, not going to waste my time entertaining justifications for belief in the unprovable. I already told you, I’m not here to debate like a Reddit atheist, I just wanted to address your absurd strawman in the beginning. Thoughts are products of the brain, not of some idealist “soul” or other analogue. Matter is objective, measurable, and knowable, through scientific analysis and repeated testing. It isn’t subjective.
No, lol. The ideas of people like Kastrup and Hoffman rely on consciousness being distinct from matter, and not a product of matter. Brainwaves are measurable, as biology advances we understand the electrical signals and chemicals forming perception. Further, matter is measurable and consistent, many humans can measure the same rock’s mass in isolation from each other and get the same result without knowing the mass or the results beforehand.
What you’re doing is deliberately holding onto idealism as the basis for justifying what you personally wish to be true. Idealism always returns, in some fashion, to religion, as explanation. It’s a further abstraction from science and replicatable results in favor of subjectivism and vibes.
You’re having a bit of a meltdown now because you can’t actually argue against science. You have a hypothesis, and reject anything going against that on the basis of your hypothesis resting on the immeasurable and immaterial.
This is circular reasoning on your part, equivalent to positing that I’m not real simply because you are not me. Consciousness is a material, measurable process, that increasingly is better understood the more science advances. It isn’t that I require no proof, it’s that materialism is the best method for understanding, and the more science advances, the more it affirms the materialist understanding. You flip this on its head, affirming that even if materialism is the better method for understanding the world and is increasingly affirmed while idealism remains stagnant and increasingly disaffirmed, you prefer it to be true so you hold to it.
This is getting very, very silly. You’re rejecting any and all proof of matter despite the continuous and replicatable proof of the same experiments resulting in the same results, across double-blind testing and more, of matter behaving in the same way regardless of who is percieving it.
Nah, not going to waste my time entertaining justifications for belief in the unprovable. I already told you, I’m not here to debate like a Reddit atheist, I just wanted to address your absurd strawman in the beginning. Thoughts are products of the brain, not of some idealist “soul” or other analogue. Matter is objective, measurable, and knowable, through scientific analysis and repeated testing. It isn’t subjective.
Removed by mod
No, lol. The ideas of people like Kastrup and Hoffman rely on consciousness being distinct from matter, and not a product of matter. Brainwaves are measurable, as biology advances we understand the electrical signals and chemicals forming perception. Further, matter is measurable and consistent, many humans can measure the same rock’s mass in isolation from each other and get the same result without knowing the mass or the results beforehand.
What you’re doing is deliberately holding onto idealism as the basis for justifying what you personally wish to be true. Idealism always returns, in some fashion, to religion, as explanation. It’s a further abstraction from science and replicatable results in favor of subjectivism and vibes.
You’re having a bit of a meltdown now because you can’t actually argue against science. You have a hypothesis, and reject anything going against that on the basis of your hypothesis resting on the immeasurable and immaterial.
deleted by creator
This is circular reasoning on your part, equivalent to positing that I’m not real simply because you are not me. Consciousness is a material, measurable process, that increasingly is better understood the more science advances. It isn’t that I require no proof, it’s that materialism is the best method for understanding, and the more science advances, the more it affirms the materialist understanding. You flip this on its head, affirming that even if materialism is the better method for understanding the world and is increasingly affirmed while idealism remains stagnant and increasingly disaffirmed, you prefer it to be true so you hold to it.
deleted by creator
This is getting very, very silly. You’re rejecting any and all proof of matter despite the continuous and replicatable proof of the same experiments resulting in the same results, across double-blind testing and more, of matter behaving in the same way regardless of who is percieving it.
deleted by creator
Matter comes first, because consciousness is represented through brainwaves, electrochemical signals, and stimuli from material perception 👍