AnDoLiN

Is it? I avoid politics and I’ve blocked the tankie instances. If anything, I worry there isn’t enough communalism (there’s a joke here somewhere) to sustain it.

Not exactly sure what you mean by herd mentality though.

Here’s Dr. Bernardo Kastrup (PhD in Computer Science (AI) and a PhD in Philosophy, and he worked at CERN) explaining analytic idealism. This is a framework where consciousness is fundamental, not matter. Not magic, not metaphysics: a structured, peer-reviewed alternative to the gaps in physicalism you ignore:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-rXm7Uk9Ys

Also his articles here: https://philpeople.org/profiles/bernardo-kastrup

If you’re open to alternatives, actually engage with the materials given. Also the things Ageedizzle linked. And if you are going to dismiss these, before asking me for yet another model, please define what you would accept as proof.

https://lemmy.zip/post/58312368/24394920 this is the post you initially challenged. Both I and Ageedizzle have been having this conversation with you. Everything we bring to you, you dismiss as “magic”, “silly”, “navel gazing”. Because it doesn’t fit your paradigm, yet you can’t logically defend your paradigm as evidenced by the circularity of your arguments. They hinge on the unproven claim that matter is prior to consciousness.

I’ve been around this block a few times so I’ve seen this cognitive wall you got going on many times. It’s exactly the same as with religious people. I can’t force you to access enough impartiality and awareness to see the logical error.

But you do have to start somewhere, with a framework for consistency and logic

Then why don’t you? Why are you starting at a logically flawed position? You are insisting the horse exists because there’s a cart. You insist that all models must adhere to your unproven physicalist model. In any other case this would be called dogma.

That’s just not how science works.

No, science works by positing an idea and then pokes and prods at it until it either falls apart or survives. Yours keeps falling apart but you keep insisting. This is intellectually dishonest.

The original point is essentially that you argue matter is prior, and dismiss everything else by calling it “silly” and “crazy”. Yet you keep going around in a circular argument, failing to prove that your beliefs hold any more water than those you dismiss.

You said “We don’t have proof that consciousness is the result of a physical process. But there’s no reason to think it isn’t.”. You are subtly asking for proof for something NOT being the case. When the burden of proof is on you. Provide positive evidence or arguments for physicalism, or acknowledge it’s an assumption - there’s no point in offering alternatives when you will reject them based on your unproven, physicalist worldview.

Lazy argumentation.

"Can you show me across the ages that humanity in general experiences that the quality of their lives has clearly improved? "

You haven’t. Because you can’t. Back then, people could’ve rated their quality of life as 3/5 stars. People now could rate their life as 3/5 stars. But by your logic, we should be having infinitely more stars now. But looking at the world, I’m not sure if we’d get 5/5. If you can’t prove that the subjective experience of people’s quality of life has improved, you are just believing a narrative you want to believe, and you use argumentation tactics of believers, not of those who follow logic.

For being so sure of your stance, you seem weirdly reluctant to question your own assumptions.

But I think healthier longevity is pretty clearly a plus.

Based on what?

Your cellphone may not actually make your life better, but having your cancer detected and treated early certainly can.

May not make it better. It may. Could. Or maybe it can’t.

And more academic modeling has certainly improved lives with much less food scarcity throughout the world, and much improved healthcare.

You are just elaborately saying “we have soap now”. But have you quantified the subjective experience of suffering between people who live now and people who lived before soap?

Does it? Animals seem to do well without modeling reality. Can you show me across the ages that humanity in general experiences that the quality of their lives has clearly improved? And understand the question. I’m not asking you, a modern human to look back to antiquity and say “we have soap now”. I’m asking what universal human experiences have fundamentally changed for the better? We still have disease, war, hunger, heart break, suffering. We have average people living the life of fantastic luxury, and yet the desire to fill the void doesn’t seem to go anywhere. We have more stuff, we have amazing intellectual frameworks to model reality with but still, most people are very clearly unsatisfied. And the more stuff we have, the more stuff we want. The early humans weren’t fretting about getting a new smartphone, they were fretting about where to get their next meal. We fret about the meal AND the smartphone.

I’m not saying tech is bad. I’m not saying building models is bad or wrong. We have so much beauty because of it. But it’s wise to know what the end goal is and ask if the methods of getting there are actually effective.

To what end? What happens when you understand and can make predictions?

Again, define useful/useless? To what end do you create these models?

A model is an understanding of how it works.

“Models work because they help us make better models, and we know better models work because… they’re better models.”

You can try to build a model of the universe based on any gibberish of feelings, but it isn’t useful in any way.

Useful to what end? The very idea that you need to build a model is based on believing in a system that thinks the model is important.

Thing is that science cannot prove matter is prior either, yet that is taken as the core assumption that all other assumptions must align to.

This is the scientific version of Christians saying “god is real, says so in the bible, and because bible was written by god, it must be true”.

“Say, let’s admit consciousness is the result of a physical process.”

Let’s not. I don’t have any proof of that. Everything obviously exists inside consciousness. Why should I believe it arises from matter? Even a brain cell under a microscope exists inside consciousness. You’d need to have some kind of an objective view that exists outside consciousness that can show matter creating it. But then you wouldn’t be able to know about it because it’s outside consciousness. Everything you know must exist inside consciousness. Else you wouldn’t know about it.

It’s autism vs. psychopathy

Nope.

I have absolutely 0 desire to harm anyone. I don’t believe in free will… i don’t even experience myself as having it. But I have absolutely no true desire to hurt anyone. Maybe sometimes I get upset and I wanna tear someone a new one but i would never actually harm anyone. It’s just a passing feeling.

But yeah, that other guy maybe did kill someone. But correct it ain’t their “fault”. Because there’s no such damn thing as fault. However there are CONSEQUENCES. Maybe that kid got bullied, they were alone, and the consequence is they shot up the school. I don’t need fault to recognize yeah that ain’t a good thing. i can just recognize a potential chain of events and ask oh hey maybe fucking let’s do something to address mental health issues BEFORE people get hurt. Because the consequence of that just might be less shot up schools. Or maybe someone actually did get born with a brain unlike mine that just is cool with hurting other people. Let’s find a way to address that. I don’t need to hate that person but I can say, yeah, maybe don’t let them around other people in the interest of the well-being of majority. give them as humane life as possible but don’t give them the opportunity to hurt others. That’s all. Fault has fuck all do with any of it. Like I said, just a tool of tyranny.

The idea of free will is just a tool of tyranny. That’s the excuse they can use to persecute everyone who doesn’t “choose” to do the “right” thing. What the “right” thing is depends entirely on the cultural sensibilities of the time.

Do you have insomnia or do you just “choose” to be lazy.

Are you an alcoholic or do you just “choose” to drink.

Do you genuinely enjoy exercise or do you “choose” to do it?

Do you just value family or do you “choose” to prioritize it.

You will always do the best damn thing that’s available to you and arbitrarily it’s either vice or virtue.

There but for the grace of god go I.