>One could, of course, simply deny that reality has such an subjective part. And there are philosophers who deny it - Daniel Dennett, for one. Dennett refuses to concede that consciousness contains any intrinsically qualitative elements. As far as he is concerned, "qualia" are a philosophical myth.
>Such denialism leaves philosophers like Searle and Nagel incredulous. It seems willfully blind to the very essence of what it means to be conscious. Nagel has written, "The world just ISN'T the world as it appears to one highly abstracted point of view" - that is, the scientific point of view.
Scifags BTFO. How do you respond, /his/?
I both agree and disagree.
It's pretty clear that empirical science has yielded results in the material world that are undeniable.
But at the same time, concluding that consciousness doesn't have any intrinsically qualitative elements seems like a very very naive thing to do.
>>426047
Your quotes only indicate that two sides disagree with one another. Nobody is getting BTFO, those are just statements of positions on one of the openest questions in the world.
>>426149
The contention that science cannot explain the intrinsic nature of reality just because it can describe it very well is a sound one
>>426180
You're still acting as if a statement describing the position in general terms is any kind of in depth argument.
>>426185
Scientists trying to tell us reality is nothing but matter is the equivalent of a person trying to tell us music is nothing but a bunch of funny squiggles on a page, even if they seem to obey a kind of internal consistency
Nothing to get PhD for but the whole point of the thread was to inspire in depth discussion. and maybe the rare Eliminative materialist to actually and intuitively explain why his position isn't as ludicrously autistic as it sounds
>>426047
NEUTRAL MONISM
E
U
T
R
A
L
M
O
N
I
S
M
>>426047
What's the sauce on this?
>>426260
Why Does the World Exist? By Jim Holt
Very entertaining rundown of all the possible answers to 'why is there something instead of nothing?' He lets both theists and atheists have it. I haven't finished reading it but the book makes a good case for why we may never know, since any possible final ground or condition will always leave one question unanswered: 'why is it this way and not THAT way?'
>>426234
Nothing about the idea that the world is made of matter makes anything less special or denies human experience. Saying that stoplights are made of matter doesn't deny that they tend to have three states and direct traffic. Cool your jets.
>>426284
Of course you're right but I think you've been living under a rock my friend. It's the in thing now to why the reality of anything beyond rote mechanical processes. 'everything is matter, lol @ the deluded steeple who still believe in things like meaning and beauty heh' is the dogmatism of today
>>426312
M8 you're dealing with a cartoon about men in white coats coming to take the fun away. Show me these people writing against meaning and beauty.
>>426381
You're either lucky as fuck or trolling if you don't have sufficient evidence of these attitudes posting on a humanities board on 4chan
>>426405
I've seen plenty of people argue that beauty and meaning are natural rather than supernatural, but that isn't the same as arguing that they don't exist. As far as I can tell, you are projecting the existence of a faction to disagree with. Name some writers.
>>426419
Do you not know what 'prevailing attitude' means? Dennet, Dawkins, Krausse, these guys are rich off of shitting on any worldview with the slightest whiff of God or transcendental meaning about it. They've been taken up by a whole generation of unread under-educated fedoras who commit suicide the progressivist fallacy of believing the only supporting argument they need is the current year.
>>426446
>commit the
Fucking autocorrect
>>426234
>Scientists trying to tell us reality is nothing but matter is the equivalent of a person trying to tell us music is nothing but a bunch of funny squiggles on a page, even if they seem to obey a kind of internal consistency
No, that is a terrible comparison.
It would be like saying that music is nothing more than sound in different structured relations of frequencies and different timbres.
Which it is. Affirming this doesnt exclude our subjective perception of those sounds.
>>426446
If you want to complain about atheists, start by complaining about atheists.
>>426446
>with the slightest whiff of God or transcendental meaning about it
And here is where the confusion is. You think that because beauty and meaning aren't transcendent or supernatural, they don't exist. Of course they exist within a human context, they just aren't leaking out from some fancy-shmancy alternate dimension.
>>426500
/thread
OP just needs to go and read any philosopher post-Nietzsche. Nietzsche included
>>426467
You get that the issue isn't whether or not that is actually true - which it is, it's the subjective experience of music that cannot be adequately explained - but the exact type of people who think that that not only doesn't affirm subjective meaning, but denies it totally, right? Right?
>Our scientific knowledge of reality is thus, in Sprigge's words, "rather like the kind of knowledge of a piece of music which someone born deaf might have from a musical education based entirely on the study of musical scores"
>>426500
Exactly the kind of dismissive attitude I've been talking about. Thanks for making the errenous assertion that science can comment on metaphysics, pal, you think you'd all learn by now
>>426521
No, you were talking about
>Scientists trying to tell us reality is nothing but matter
>shitting on any worldview with the slightest whiff of God or transcendental meaning about it
>'everything is matter, lol @ the deluded steeple who still believe in things like meaning and beauty heh'
If you can't calm down, step back, and stop rolling everything vaguely supportive of naturalism up into the same ball of angsty projection, why should anyone bother engaging you?
>>426549
>I can't tell you what consciousness is, but I can tell you about the ultimate nature of beauty, meaning etc.
That's what it boils down to. Everything is matter is tantamount to saying everything is meaningless nowadays, I'm not gonna hold your hand through every step of a pretty straightforward thought process you goober
>>426568
>Everything is matter is tantamount to saying everything is meaningless nowadays,
This is incorrect. You think it is meaningless because your personal definition of "meaning" involves transcendence.
>>426568
> Everything is matter is tantamount to saying everything is meaningless nowadays
You feel, apparently quite strongly, that this is implicit in various other statements, but have yet to produce any explicit version.
>>426578
I mean colloquially, not formally dude. Subjective 'meaning' is no meaning at all when it comes to ethics and aesthetics, at least if that's where the explanation ends. Do you really assume that I think fedoras are denying the existence of SUBJECTIVE meaning Lmao? Of course they don't, we're talking about objective and presumably transcendent truths
>>426588
Literally go to r/atheism or read the religion threads on here. Come on dude. Either you just don't give a shit about the subject and never noticed it which is fine ...or you're fucking trolling
>>426595
>Subjective 'meaning' is no meaning at all when it comes to ethics and aesthetics,
Debatable. This is your position.
>>426603
Beauty is either capital-B Beauty or it's only the particular arrangement of colors, shapes, symmetries etc. that give your precise physiological makeup the fuzzies and thus as arbitrary as your favorite ice cream and not that meaningful at all. My assertion is that there's a bit of wiggle room in what people find individually aesthetically pleasing but that there's something we can't explain about why we tend to agree about things universally hailed as beautiful, like a sunset, great music, the ideal human form, classical art and all that.
>>426618
>and not that meaningful at all.
Again, debatable. This is your position, and based on the implicit assumption that meaning must be transcendent to be worthwhile. "Universalities" could easily be based on an interaction between humans and their environment in a way that produces regularities. For example, "beauty" is commonly associated with uniqueness, which is another way of saying "of limited quantity" which often times is another way of saying "desirable resource to be acquired." This sounds cold and mechanical, but so would a description of water quenching thirst, and that's one of the most important things a human can do.
>>426600
I'd question why you think it's important to start threads purporting to be about the existence of qualia when, as soon as anyone questions you, you admit outright that it's just a proxy for shitting on reddit neckbeards. If you want to start neckbeard hate threads, follow your dreams. If you want to talk about scientists denying the existence of meaning, name actual writers.
>>426645
Well okay then, what is it about limited quantities that inspires beauty? You see what I'm getting at? You're extrapolating this feeling from some objective quality that does not seem to suggest anything more than itself - we can say beauty is symmetry but a piece of paper divided down the middle isn't that pretty. Of course some physical combination of atoms is responsible for the exact appearance of this shape here, this line there, but the sum total of what they contribute to exceed a simple aggregate of features
>>426654
Literally in the op dude. Dennett, Krausse, Dawkins, and all the other guys in the book who vehemently deny a transcendental reality
>>426618
wait, hold up
are you arguing in favour of forms?
>>426658
>but a piece of paper divided down the middle isn't that pretty
This is literally an opinion.
>but the sum total of what they contribute to exceed a simple aggregate of features
Emergence is not an argument against naturalism.
>>426667
Objective beauty conditions the experience of itself and all the other experiences of beauty that are subjective and only reflections of the individual psychology that perceives it. So there's the beauty of a woman, and there's the greater beauty of a chick with red hair cause she reminds me of my first girl etc.
>>426658
>Well okay then, what is it about limited quantities that inspires beauty?
In this model, "beauty" would be the sum total of features that elevates the perceived value of an [object, utterance, anything to which the term "beauty" can be applied] above its intrinsic, functional value. A bowl with dolphins jumping out of a boat because Dionysus is angry isn't anymore valuable as a bowl than a blank one, but it is more beautiful, thus its perceived value is higher.
>we can say beauty is symmetry but a piece of paper divided down the middle isn't that pretty.
But it's "prettier" than one wrinkled or crumpled randomly.
>but the sum total of what they contribute to exceed a simple aggregate of features
This is known as an emergent property. There is nothing supernatural about it.
>>426675
Then you must satisfactorily explain the presence of these qualities that damn near universally emerge from certain shapes, colors etc. I can say consciousness is an emergent phenomenon of the brain, but it doesn't explain the capacity for complex neurological systems to have an inner life in the first place. It doesn't disprove materialism but it doesn't prove it either
>>426662
>Dennett, Krausse, Dawkins, and all the other guys in the book who vehemently deny a transcendental reality
You're still talking as if denying a transcendental reality is denying meaning is denying beauty is denying God is shitposting on /r/atheism when all of these are different things.
>>426711
Maybe you should just learn to debate the points presented instead of trying to find a person who completely encapsulates an attitude that is an aggregate of many points that aren't really that far from one another
You keep quibbling about meaning. If course subjective meaning is still meaning but is not the meaning implied when one asks about the purpose of life or existence or whatever.
>>426687
Bro, saying beauty is what elevates something's perceived value is like saying art is what gets sold for high prices at a museum. Doesn't tell me shit about it, only that it is valuable
>>426718
> If course subjective meaning is still meaning but is not the meaning implied when one asks about the purpose of life or existence or whatever.
Most people I know take subjectivity for granted and imply nothing else when they ask those questions.
>>426735
There you go, that's the problem
>>426732
Beauty isn't what elevates the perceived value, it is a collective term for individual qualities that elevate any particular piece. Given that all known evaluations have been performed by humans who have on the whole very similar brains, it is no surprise there are commonalities (allowing for differences in culture.)
>>426749
"Craftmanship isn't what enhances the sculptures aesthetic appeal, it is only a collective term for the individual qualities that do that"
You're not wrong but this tells me nothing about beauty.
>>426744
>people believe in subjectivity
>this is objectively a problem
This is the problem with people who believe in objectivity.
>>426764
Why you getting flustered bro it's all in the mind man :^)
>>426760
And we can break down craftsmanship into its individual properties. Like attention to detail, or continuity of separate parts. Individually, none is "craftsmanship" but when combined, there is a term for the overall effect. "Beauty" is no different.
>>426771
I can break down water into two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen and while functionally this is correct it doesn't tell me shit about these atoms/qualities give us the something that we experience as water. Sure you can say the atoms determine its viscosity and shit but how/why we exist in a universe that expresses these qualities from this atomic makeup it doesn't tell us anything about
>>426692
> I can say consciousness is an emergent phenomenon of the brain, but it doesn't explain the capacity for complex neurological systems to have an inner life in the first place.
There is no reason to expect an offhand summation of multiple active fields of research to contain detailed explanations of a wide variety of subjects.
>>426760
>You're not wrong but this tells me nothing about beauty.
Same here. If you want to understand beauty, you can start by working through the knowledge people have built up about color theory, composition, proportion and so on. There are real principles there that have been known for a long time that you can learn about but don't want to. The fact remains that on top of that there are unaccountable differences in perception that have forced the artistic community to embrace subjectivity.
>>426798
>it doesn't tell me shit about these atoms
It tells you quite a bit, actually. Many of the properties of water are predictable based on the electronegativity difference between oxygen and hydrogen, and the geometry of those differences. These define the water side of the equation, to look at how "we exist in water" you would look to neurology and physiology.
>>426810
Dude I get that. I know. You're not lying to me. But you have to explain the axioms of emergence, as it were. I can conceivably imagine a universe where two atoms of not-hydrogen and one atom of not-oxygen give us a reddish liquid that's sticky to the touch and boils at 50 degrees Fahrenheit. Why this universe and not that one? It's not how do emergent phenomenon emerge, but why those phenomena?
>>426823
There are whole books already in the world that you can read about these things instead of demanding complete answers from strangers on an anonymous anime imageboard.
>>426823
>Why this universe and not that one?
That's a question for the highest level of quantum physics. It's not an impossible question, just one still in the process of being solved.
>>426846
You're reading a book on the chemistry of water?
>>426847
I'm reading a book on why there's something instead of nothing and posing the same questions the author poses to world class physicists and theologians. Unsurprisingly, they can't answer it either
>>426846
>I know it's not answerable
It's not that it's not answerable, it's that as of right now it is still unanswered. It may turn out to be unanswerable, but that comes later.
>>426856
Hey, well, maybe it's better not to take a pop philosophy hardback at its word that the properties of water are ineffable mysteries and go see for yourself just how much can be explained.
>>426894
I think you're legitimately autistic. Read those posts again and again until you get it
>>426910
I get it, you think the universe is fundamentally mysterious and this belief by itself lets you dodge all possible questions just by claiming that they're unanswerable. Everyone has their convictions, I suppose. Later cowboy
