Do you have a personal metaphysics? Or subscribe to an existing system? What is it?
I don't believe in metaphysics
>>806522
>I don't believe in metaphysics
What did he mean by this?
Assuming scientism, that is a metaphysics in itself, you know
>>806522
>my metaphysical belief is that there is no metaphysical realm
Interesting.
>>806522
>he's a positivist
The one that I can actually confirm with my senses.
>>806603
>2016
>He's not a positivist
>>806620
>confirming a metaphysical system
>with your senses
wew
>>806661
If you cant confirm it with your senses it means its not real
Therefore metaphysics are not real.
>>806661
>not confirming it
>assuming your reason and logic are a reliable guide to reality
Read a book.
>>806694
>implying your senses are infallible
>implying there aren't a whole host of things we take on faith
I can't confirm I'm conscious with just my five senses guess i don't exist lmao
>>806718
>>implying your senses are infallible
He didn't imply that at all, strawman much?
You know what's MORE fallible than using your senses? Not using them.
>>806718
Pinch yourself, if you feel pain you're conscious, otherwise you're dreaming
>>806726
Yeah bro all metaphysics were devised in a sense dep chamber before glorious SCIENCE came on the scene
My personal metaphysics is that all metaphysics are valid except one that contradicts each other.
My philosophy is always evolving, but my current standpoint has a few foundational assumptions / presuppositions:
1. Everything is part of the same. Every person and all matter is part of the universe, basically this is what i call "God".
2. Human sensory perception is inherently flawed. We are never experiencing the true reality.
3. Human intellect is flawed. We can never have perfect memory of an event, and we can never have perfect knowledge about the universe. We are all very flawed and imperfect.
4. Life is a gift. It's a privilege, not a right. We should be happy that we are given the chance to live for a short while, and try to make the best out of it.
>>806514
>Do you have a personal metaphysics?
No. It's a waste of intellectual effort.
Metaphysics is what cowards call theoretical physics.
>>806514
I invested a long time into learning about a wide variety of metaphysical systems. Every time I thought I had it all figured out, the next one threw me for a loop.
No system is perfect, unfortunately. And most of them require pretty big leaps of faith.
>>807170
Well yes
>>807206
>1. Everything is part of the same. Every person and all matter is part of the universe, basically this is what i call "God".
Why?
Seriously.
What exactly is metaphysics? I usually only hear it when people talk about 17th/18th century philosophers
Is it something like alchemy?
>>807300
It's useful in logic and linguistics.
>>807299
Consider that all the matter in the universe is just there. It can't be erased, and you can't add more matter. For example, a human being such as yourself is made out of molecules which previously belonged to your mother's body, and probably came from minerals and vitamins and nutrients absorbed into her body from the stuff she ate etc. So in the end the relevance of this is that you aren't detached from the world, you're a part of the one thing which is everything (the universe).
You could consider the universe to be a piece of putty. You were shaped out of a small part of that putty, and when you die you are squeezed into the putty again. And the same goes for every living organism, and every planet, and every star. Somehow considering this has a profound effect on me. to be honest.
Pic completely unrelated.
>>806514
I made this about an hour ago trying to explain something to a guy
>>807314
>linguistics
How?
>>807343
shit like this is why "define your terms" is the #1 rule of philosophy
>>807357
You gotta embrace vagueness man. No such thing as total accuracy in regards to abstractions and definitions.
Also what bothers you about it
I guess I trust in science and try to understand in its laws and it's explanations so I can make out a world which otherwise is pretty chaotic in itself, I guess that's for a metaphysical level, on my immediate plane of existence I just follow common sense and try and apply what I've gathered in my life.
Not so impressive I guess.
>>806514
I postulate that there's some sort of impersonal ground/framework of existence that is the catalyst for the universe's formation. How, I have no idea. I don't consider it a deity though.
>>807348
Semantics, and sintaxis can be represented by some metaphysics.
>>807459
Explain further
>>807334
I still don't see where you're getting the god part from.
Is there any reason to think the universe as a whole thinks anything?
I'm curious, what do you think regular physics can't explain that metaphysics can?
>>806514
the gnosis of divine love
>>807564
Haven't even posted so I can't possibly be who you are replying to, but I guess I'd respond to that with "dark matter and multi dimensions". Physics will eventually be able to explain all natural occurances though, on a plateau beyond the rule of laws though, it will always need some form of intellect sustracted from our rules of nature, so another answer could be "love, meaning, etc.." which can't be simply answered with "thats only chemicals bro", yeah, thats an answer that isn't enough for someone who has actually experienced love for a long lasting couple, a son, etc..
>>807603
In all seriousness, though, love isn't anything more than a chemical reaction that alters the structure of your brain in order to make you care more for the safety of others than yourself. It's a physiological phenomenon created by evolutionary pressures which promotes the formation of stable societies.
Just because in your eyes that somehow degrades your idea of love doesn't make it wrong.
>>807477
Why must a god think?
I'm not that anon, but in my case, I use the word "God" to simply refer to the being/event that created and may still sustain existence. It does not necessarily have to be a conscious, "living" entity, although it may very well be.
>>807815
Why call it a god if it doesn't think or make decisions??
>>807876
muh god needs to kiss me and love me and burp me when i hiccup waaahhhhhhh
>>807564
Metaphysics can't definitely prove anything, but the mere fact that regular physics outlook is increasingly being proven to not be sufficient to explain phenomena, the only logical conclusion is that there's aspects to reality that aren't simply material interactions.
>>807876
Because, for all intents and purposes, what anon is positing is more or less how "God" is usually described.
I can't know for sure, but I assume the anon you're talking to believes that "God" is the uncreated source of all being, the primordial aspect of nature from which all existence emanates. It is, by definition, beyond creation and non-creation, thoughts and perceptions, existence and non-existence. It is sublime in its totality, and can never be grasped by the human intellect.
Take note of how similar this description is classical religious views of God.
>>807957
>regular physics outlook is increasingly being proven to not be sufficient to explain phenomena
Any examples, there?
>>807946
>>807966
My point is that a god with no intelligence or capacity to think or act really doesn't seem like it should be called one. It has less sense of being than Azathoth. At that point, it's just a natural fixture like gravity or electrical charge.
I feel like these descriptions of God arise mostly because people want to be able to say that they believe in God without feeling dumb for saying it.
We are in heaven.
Collective conscious is God.
>>807983
This video is a pretty good outline of it. Ignore the conclusion about there having to be a creator god, the rest of the argument is pretty solid.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4C5pq7W5yRM
>>807991
Why does the definition of God means it has to have intelligence or agency? That's just a hangover from Abrahamic ideas of God, which most idealists wouldn't necessarily by into.
>>808005
>That's just a hangover from Abrahamic ideas of God
Are you fucking kidding me? That's a hangover from the first stories spoken in the first languages.
Gods have been big angry powerful people and animals for almost all of the time we've had a concept of them.
>>808005
Ain't having that shit at three in the morning.
Articulate your position with your own words.
>>807946
god's love is the reason why you bring about your own ruin, m8. it isn't all kisses and booboos. god is the love in the demon that haunts your memories and the glory in triumph. god is the sun blighting your insolent white ass with skin cancer while it nourishes all plant life. you cannot possibly understand if you stay as immature as you are now.
>>808017
>Gods have been big angry powerful people and animals for almost all of the time we've had a concept of them.
>What is the Tao
>>808020
The double slit experiment puts serious doubt to the idea that consciousness is a chemical non-actor, and has no influence on the functioning of reality. Sure, you could say "we just don't know how to explain it yet!", but you could also go down the road of questioning whether our assumptions of consciousness are incorrect and instead pursuing it from a metaphysics, not material, framework.
>>808005
That video is trash based on pure popsci. Fucking hell philosophers open a QM texbook.
>>808041
Observing something in physics is independent of the conscious being. This double slit meme has truly generated more quantum mysticism than Deepak Chopra.
>>808047
>Observing something in physics is independent of the conscious being
.. but doesn't the double slit experiment completely discredit that, though?
>>808050
The observer is literally the device used to measure shit.
>>808041
>What is the Tao
Barely older than Yaweh, anthropologically speaking
>The rest of your bullshit
Baked shit on toast, you seriously don't understand what you're talking about. You're intelligent enough to understand what the words you're using mean, on a base level, but you haven't actually gone beyond a stoner-depth examination of your own opinions.
>>808060
That's like saying that when a birdwatcher watches a bird through binoculars, it's the binoculars that are the observer, not the birdwatcher.
>>808067
The photons reflecting from the birds atoms and coming into your eyes are the ones interacting with the object. It is not like if you leave the room, the interference pattern will stop occurring.
>>808065
>Barely older than Yaweh, anthropologically speaking
That's not the point we're making here. You were saying that you shouldn't call impersonal universal forces "God" and instead just call them "nature" or whatever because the concept of impersonal universal forces has traditionally not be called anything. I said that they have, as is the case with Taoism.
>Baked shit on toast, you seriously don't understand what you're talking about. You're intelligent enough to understand what the words you're using mean, on a base level, but you haven't actually gone beyond a stoner-depth examination of your own opinions.
You're absolutely right. From a purely intellectual understanding I am quite lacking, I did HS physics but couldn't pursue it further than that. THere are far more intelligent people who understand the subtleties better than I do, so from that regard I'm not qualified to talk about it.
However, I can speak from complete, 100% personal empirical experience. I have had experiences where time was not "mechanically operating" forward but was instead "flowing" infinitely. I have experienced constant moments of unreality which continue to linger with me to this day. And no, these were not derealization or depersonalization, I have experienced those too and these were nothing like it. And no, these weren't drug induced, they occurred completely sober.
So the basis of my argument comes from direct, experiential evidence, which my base level understanding of quantum physics has only reinforced. I understand it's not a popular stance taken by most materialist-minded scientists in this day and age, but I literally cannot ignore what I have felt. If someone woke up and saw the sky as orange (and I mean, actually saw it), would you argue that they are wrong because it's "scientifically" blue?
>>808067
Do you understand what an observer is?
The Sun is an observer. A laser pointer is an observer. An x-ray machine is an observer. Observers are things which exert energy on a system or object in such a way that the energy is altered by its interaction with that system or object. This alteration is what we measure and use as data to draw conclusions about things.
>>808093
>However, I can speak from complete, 100% personal empirical experience. I have had experiences where time was not "mechanically operating" forward but was instead "flowing" infinitely. I have experienced constant moments of unreality which continue to linger with me to this day. And no, these were not derealization or depersonalization, I have experienced those too and these were nothing like it. And no, these weren't drug induced, they occurred completely sober.
>So the basis of my argument comes from direct, experiential evidence
Again, you have almost no understanding of the details or requirements of the actual scientific process, and you've definitely got some physiological abnormalities.
>>808117
>Again, you have almost no understanding of the details or requirements of the actual scientific process
No, I do, and I'm absolutely not advocating we should stop traditional methods of research into these phenomena. I can however argue that these efforts will continue to deliver increasingly diminishing returns, and that science will have to go through one of the many complete axiom shifts that it has gone through in the past if it wants to delve even deeper into these mysteries. Of course, I am totally open to my ideas being proven completely wrong too, but I find that increasingly less likely.
>and you've definitely got some physiological abnormalities.
Absolutely. But the thing is, these abnormalities occurred to me without drugs, without brain damage, without any sort of normal necessitating factor that usually results in such a change. My consciousness - read - my entire consciousness has been radically altered for seemingly no reason, so to me the idea that there's a static, inherent quality to it that can be concluded through material science alone has been all but destroyed.
>>808151
Just so you know, drugs and brain damage have been known to resemble naturally-occurring abnormalities, and vice versa. Drugs aren't some special thing that introduce wholly new structures or capabilities to the brain, they just make the brain do things that it can do anyway, with greater or lesser intensity at times when it normally doesn't.
How do you define metaphysics?
I only believe what has evidence for it. I'm a dirty evidentist.
>>808414
personal experience.
it must be lived. praxis is the development of wisdom. philosophy... and by extension ontology... these are not things merely to be thought about. the wise were wise and called philo sofia because they lived by it
>>808454
>personal experience.
>metaphysics
Nice definition. Gonna try again or is this babble your best attempt?
>>808467
any discussion relating to metaphysics culninates in the question of the existence of an objective reality, which leads to talk to an essential experiencer apart from physical man -META -physic - which may as well be called god or the soul
personal experience is the only way to percieve such things.
>>808467
>personal experience is the only way to percieve such things.
Personal experience is personal experience. Define metaphysics, or abandon the word if it's just "personal experience". There is already a term for it.
>>807477
>azathoth
Wow bro epic reference Cthulhu flagn XD
>>808117
>muh scientific progress
>if you're not a dead inside autist like me you must have brain problems
Give me a break
>>808503
M8, what metaphysics is is only accessible through personal experience because it posits consciousness as a first principle of reality. You cannot know what your consciousness is and how it is connected to the rest of the universe without deep introspection, meditation, contemplation, etc. culminating in self-knowledge
Literally stop trying so hard to be obtuse
>>808151
>but I find that increasingly less likely.
Mostly because you don't understand what you are talking about when it comes to physics, as shown from the whole "observer" conversation.
There will probably be paradigm shifts within physics in the future. But none of them are going to resemble half-baked mysticism plagiarized from many non-compatible sources.
>>809132
>physics isn't mysticism
Wow ya think
>>809134
>>physics isn't mysticism
Yes, I do think. As opposed to the anon I was replying to, who seems to think physics is a stepping stone to the True Understanding of the Universe, mysticism.
>>809139
It is? Science can't tell us what nature is, you really think models of behavior penetrate to the essence of reality? Fuckin lel
>>809099
>what metaphysics is is only accessible through personal experience
Yes, just like everything else.
You don't seem to get it. "An apple" isn't JUST "personal experience" because that term is COMPLETELY devoid of information, it's a roughly round green/red sweet food item that grows on apple trees. Yet it can only be experienced through "personal experience".
Big whoop, simply saying "personal experience" isn't a definition. Fuck off.
Love, the Good. That which cannot be contained in any one form.
>>809177
>you really think models of behavior penetrate to the essence of reality?
Yes? Tho I would question your use of "essence" as being inherently mystical, modern science models reality more accurately than any previous attempt has done.
>>810233
If testing reality doesn't tell us what reality is, how does not testing reality tell us what it is?
>>810249
>he thinks smashing atoms together tells us what they are
Ayyyy
>>810251
Smashing atoms together does not tell us what atoms are. Okay, great. So how does not smashing atoms together tell us what atoms are? How does doing nothing but sitting in a room and imagining things tell us what atom's are?
>>810255
>metaphysics has the same goals as science
Metaphysics is the understanding of first principles through holistically-mindef phenomological experience. It does not seek to provide predictable models of behavior for physical phenomena
>>810263
Do atoms exist? Are they a component of reality?
>>810270
Of course. But what determined atoms as atoms, their composition cannot tell us
>>810277
Does the composition of a rock tell us anything about how it formed?
>>810286
The rock itself, sure, but what determined those causes can be traced back to other causes, and so forth until we reach the first cause
>>810310
So then, you are saying the product of a set of processes does contain information about said processes?
>>810325
Only insofar as those processes are determined within the system itself. That's what science is for. But as for how the system is determined in the first place, that's metaphysics
>>810334
So, then, if we agree that the composition of a product contains information about the processes that formed it, the composition of atoms (as learned by "smashing them") tells us about the processes that formed them, and the composition of sub-atomic particles tells us about the processes that formed them, and so on until we have the simplest possible particles (or whatever they turn out to be) as the simplest possible product, or the universe at t=0. That, as a product, will tell us about whatever the "first principle" happens to be. At no point do we need to step outside of physics to understand this, and certainly do not need to elevate personal feelings to the status of "fabric of reality."
>>807564
>what do you think regular physics can't explain that metaphysics can?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A04RhtR0imY
Watch this and return to the thread.
>>810360
What it's made of =/= the mechanism of its creation/determination
Even if we find particles on the Planck scale it will only tell us what atoms are at the bottom, not how they exist in the first place and why they exist in the form that they do. Besides, even though we know the 'systemic' first cause, the big bang, we don't know how this cause even happened the way it did.
Metaphysics answers these questions quite handily, but only if we assume consciousness has access to these principles through intuition. If not, metaphysics has ramifications for the nature of consciousness but doesn't say anything about the ultimate nature of reality which is divorced in its essence from the nature of the mind.
>>810389
>What it's made of =/= the mechanism of its creation/determination
Knowing what it's made of gives us insights into how it could have been created.
>Metaphysics answers these questions quite handily
lol wut
>but only if we assume consciousness has access to these principles through intuition
Why would you assume this when there is no indication whatsoever that this is true? Physics has revealed that nature is more baffling than a human mind can grok, our intuitions invariably lead us astray.
>If not, metaphysics has ramifications for the nature of consciousness
Do tell. Scientists working on the consciousness problem would love some fresh insights into a field bogged down by the extreme complexity of the phenomena it studies.
>but doesn't say anything about the ultimate nature of reality which is divorced in its essence from the nature of the mind.
The mind is a physical process running inside a physical universe, there is no divorce just a limited perspective. I don't know what you're talking about when you say "essence", please define this term for me as you understand it.
>>810389
>What it's made of =/= the mechanism of its creation/determination
They are not equivalent, but the former gives information about the latter. Return to the example of the rock, which we agreed to in >>810286 >>810310. The minerals and orientation of a rock, its composition, gives us information about its formation. A small-grained quartz sandstone was formed by a long-flowing river. A more arkosic sandstone was formed by a less protracted transportation process. If a similar analysis can be performed on the singularity, we should get similar information about the processes that produced it. It's a question of figuring out how to infer and measure things, not whether it is the right thing to do.
>only if we assume consciousness has access to these principles through intuition.
The problem here is that everyone's personal intuition is different and there can only be one correct answer. And once you start trying to verify any of these intuitions, you've fallen right back into regular physics.
>>810433
As I said, science tells us inter-systemic causes, metaphysics is pre-systemic
Intuition as in self-knowledge, self-mastery, contemplation, meditation etc. There is a science of the external and there is a science of the inner life.
>>810471
But if metaphysics is the "science of the internal" why apply it to the external universe?
>>810471
>Intuition as in self-knowledge, self-mastery, contemplation, meditation etc.
Why do you assume intuition is sufficient to know anything about the universe? Beyond the really trivial "I can prove I exist" kind of thing? Intuition didn't tell us what matter is made of, that took actually going out in the world and examining it in as close a detail as we could. And in the process of examining the world as it is, it was discovered that not only is the world more peculiar than anyone had guessed, it was more peculiar than anyone could even visualise. What does a quark "look like"? What, exactly, IS a gravitational field? Fuck if I know, these and related concepts flatly contradict our intuitions at every step to the extent that professionals in these fields don't even try to visualse any of it, they just follow the data and the math where they lead.
>>810500
>Intuition didn't tell us what matter is made of
Not him but it kind of did tbqh, since the first people who postulated atoms in the first place were people who lived 2400 years before they were ever positively proven to exist.
>>810530
A perfect example of intuitions misleading us. Atoms works nothing at all like Democritus imagined, and no amount of speculation by later thinkers got us any closer to a more accurate picture until modern science threw the whole picture out of the window and started revealing what is actually there, rather than what our intuitions suggest OUGHT TO BE there.
>>810530
A definition with no reference to neutrons, electrons, protons or the nuclei, of gluons or quarks or nuclear forces anything else that "actually" makes up an atom. You could argue that our definition of atom isn't actually the "atom" they were referring to and we still are looking for it in collides, but again their definition holds very little in common with whatever that particle ends up being aside from the symbolic.
>>810546
Sure, empirical evidence helps in determining the exactness, but it's still impressive that someone could be right about a physical fact of reality by mere reasoning.
And tbqh, a lot of what science later threw out the window, wasn't from the atomists like Democritus and Lucretius, it was from Aristotle.
>>810559
>but it's still impressive that someone could be right about a physical fact of reality by mere reasoning.
They weren't right, tho. Nothing they wrote helped early atomic physicists "map out" the atom, the name was used as a tribute to them but really it's a huge stretch to say they were right. You may as well say the Bible prefigured all of modern cosmology because it states the Universe has a beginning in time.
>>810570
RIGHT.
So using reasoning, and dialectical discussion to reach conclusions is identical to accepting revealed truth from a fucking religious text?
Fucking positivists. Literally kill yourself.
>>810581
Where do you think religious texts come from?
>>810581
>So using reasoning, and dialectical discussion to reach conclusions is identical to accepting revealed truth from a fucking religious text?
Yeah, pretty much. I mean religion is a lot more of a commitment than philosophy, and it tends to be up-front about it's non-rational nature, but yes the outcome is much the same.
Also, all of these things are in fact part of the scientific process, scientists are not p-zombies they are humans and often philosophically inclined. They do not reject philosophy (or theology, for that matter) out of ignorance but out of a realisation of it's ultimate uselessness for understanding reality.
>>810593
>Where do you think religious texts come from?
Certainly not from reason and dialectics that's for fucking sure.
But I'm guessing you're one of those people who doesn't believe love exists, because you can't prove it empirically.
>>810600
Define "love". Then I'll tell you whether or not it exists.
>>810599
>They do not reject philosophy (or theology, for that matter) out of ignorance but out of a realisation of it's ultimate uselessness for understanding reality.
Yes they do most of them, or they are by and large not interested, because they believe, just like you that there is nothing to be said about reality if you don't reduce it to it's atomic and sub-atomic parts.
I mean, I half expect scientists to come out and say that they don't believe in the rule of law, liberalism, or democracy these days, because there's no reason for them to do it, since the entire universe and humans themselves are just made of atoms, and an atom clearly doesn't have morality or feelings.
>>810600
>Certainly not from reason and dialectics that's for fucking sure.
Don't be so sure. For example, the Talmud is chock full of reason and dialectics.
Besides, we can prove love empirically. It's a mixture of seratonin, oxytocin, endorphins, dopamine etc.
>>810611
>an atom clearly doesn't have morality or feelings.
Atoms don't but people do. This is not a difficult concept unless you have autism, or are a sociopath or something.
Having a materialistic worldview does not mean having a reductionist one, it is entirely consistent for a materialist to feel awed by the majesty of creation even while he understands it, at one level, to be "nothing more" than the mystifying intricate and obtuse dance of physical processes far beyond human comprehension.
>>810628
>Atoms don't but people do.
But people are just a collection of atoms.
>>810637
An "emergent property" is something that exists from an organization of component parts that would not arise from those same parts in isolation. Similarly to how a house is not simply a pile of concrete, metal, glass etc. but those components organized in a specific way.
Atoms do not have feelings, not do molecules. But molecules interacting in specific, organized ways produces feelings in human organisms. There is nothing inherently mystical about it.
>>810653
Yes, but why should you care about that specific molecular interaction?
What is your materialistic grounding for giving value to a collection of atoms that can feel or have morality, as opposed to a rock?
>>810665
>Yes, but why should you care about that specific molecular interaction?
Because I am that specific molecular interaction.
>>810667
>Because I am that specific molecular interaction.
And? There's still nothing in reality that you can give any empirical or logical accounting for, that stops you from applying a negative value to your life, and thus committing suicide.
>>810672
Because I don't want to. This could be measured from, for example, cortisol levels rising during dangerous situations.
>>810681
>Because I don't want to
I know you don't want to. But you can't prove empirically why you don't want to, you can just assume some bullshit physical fact, like that cortisol bullshit you mentioned.
>>810686
wew lad, not that anon, but inferring that humans share an aversion to death which is seen in closely related species, doesn't seem unlikely due to our evolutionary history (and just how the process operates in general).
>>810686
Are you unaware of what cortisol is? It is a hormone that is released in elevated concentrations during stressful situations. You always have a bit of it, and it's tuned up when you're stressed and turned down when you're relaxed. If I were to think about suicide and we were to measure it, my cortisol levels would almost certainly rise, meaning I find the situation stressful and undesirable.
This would be a verifiable, physical, materialist fact.
I'll be honest, I don't really understand the concept of metaphysics, or see any reason I should hold a metaphysical system. I'm sure some of the things I believe are metaphysical, but I feel that's of little consequence. The whole thing looks to me like pointless naval-gazing.
>>810693
How can a collection of atoms have an aversion to death? They just change form into other molecules and formations.
>>810703
Because the way they are organized allows for the concept of death to exist, and an aversion to it. Again, emergent properties.
>>810695
I know what cortisol is, but you need to prove to me that cortisol has anything to do with the subjective experience of having suicidal thoughts, else you should shove your scientism up your asshole.
>>810714
>but you need to prove to me that cortisol has anything to do with the subjective experience of having suicidal thoughts
Okay.
http://www.news-medical.net/news/20101129/Depressed-and-suicidal-individuals-linked-to-low-levels-of-stress-hormone-cortisol.aspx
>>810703
Because the form these atoms take has been heavily influenced by evolution, which can only occur if you don't immediately go extinct.
>>810713
>Because the way they are organized
So, if you hypothetically organized atoms into a human body it would automatically have aversion to death?
>>810719
>Depressed and suicidal individuals have low levels of the stress hormone cortisol in their blood and saliva.
Depressed and suicidal people have low levels of cortisol in their blood and saliva = This means that cortisol *causes* you to have continuous thoughts of putting a rope around your neck.
Seems legit.
>>810500
Dude I literally told you twice science is what you need to figure that shit out, metaphysics is for what all this shit is even doing here in the first place. Read what I'm saying.
By the way, the Buddha intuited no-self and impermanence thousands of years before philosophy of mind and physics were a thing
>>810725
Depends on exactly what you mean by human body. Assuming you mean take a bunch of atoms and organize them into an organism indistinguishable from a genetically-plausible natural human, then the answer is "maybe" since some death-aversion is probably linked to childhood experience. But in general, this theoretical person would get out of the way of large moving objects, become stressed if they heard an unidentifiable noise, have some amoint of natural fear snakes and spiders etc.
>>810728
Read the article. It says that suicidal people have abormally low levels of cortisol. I said that, as I am not suicidal, the thought of killing myself would cause me to have elevated cortisol, as it would be a stressful situation. You asked me to prove cortisol has "anything to do" with suicidal thoughts, which I did.
>>810744
No, you did not do such a thing.
You're just assuming the causal link between them.
I wonder if you think that dopamine is why you're on the internet right now shitposting, or ephedrine is why you drive a car to work.
>>810760
>You're just assuming the causal link between them.
You didn't ask for a causal link, you asked for "anything to do with." The cortisol example for proving that I do not want to commit suicide was extrapolated from general stressful situations.
And yes, the reason I am on the internet now, why you are, why we do things we love and things we hate, are all ultimately a function of neurotransmitter and hormone activity functioning within a neuronal context.
>>810769
>neuronal
And gilial context, I guess. Those have been revealed as increasingly important.
>>810769
>why we do things we love and things we hate, are all ultimately a function of neurotransmitter and hormone activity functioning within a neuronal context.
Okay, in other words, you're essentially admitting that you actually have a personal worldview apart from being a positivist, because that sentence illustrates a form of sentimentalism.
So, you are a metaphysicist after all.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_sense_theory
Read and weep mortal.
>>810794
>Moral sense theory typically holds that distinctions between morality and immorality are discovered by emotional responses to experience.
I'm not sure where I ever made any statement abut moral truths. Merely that human action is based on neurotransmitters (material) and hormones (material) acting upon neurons (material) and gilial cells (material.) So I'm not sure where the metaphysics is coming in.
>>810806
>loving and hating
>not emotional responses
>>810808
Where is the moral truth? Love and hate are both a function of metal activity that is entirely physical, by the way.
>>810821
>Where is the moral truth?
That's what I've been asking you for the last hour, but you still haven't answered, and I'm not going to answer it for you.
If everything about us is material after material cause, then what is right or wrong is simply what we love, or what we hate. Hence why I linked the article.
If this is hard to understand than too bad for you.
>>810833
>a serial killers predelictions are just as valid as a wise man's
Spot the undergrad.
And if you reply with some hackneyed shit like "what is... wise anyways?" IIl laugh
>>810833
Okay, so let me get this straight. I have revealed myself as actually a believer in metaphysics, because I have proposed some moral truth based on emotion. Simultaneously, you have been asking me for a moral truth I have been refusing to give you?
Or material physics suddenly becomes non-material because emotions are involved, despite the fact that emotions are the material acting upon the material?
>>810850
If you can give an answer to why a serial killers predilections aren't as valid as anyone else's without appealing to your emotions, I'll be impressed.
> I have revealed myself as actually a believer in metaphysics, because I have proposed some moral truth based on emotion.
Clearly, because those emotions are metaphysical in and of themselves. If you hate someone, you can literally make an entire system of government based on that(slavery), so it's not so simple as to reduce something to it's mere material qualities to explain a phenomenon.
Holy shit the bad philosophy in this thread.
Metaphysics is not some kind of voodoo shit.
Here are some examples to distuinguish metaphysics from physics.
Physics goals:
>How to provide mechanical models for natural phenomena, explain the mechanics of how things happen
Metaphysics goals/questons:
>What ultimately exists?
>Is the world purely physical, purely ideal, or a mix of both? Is it something else entirely?
Physics and Metaphysics don't remotely have the same goals, or even really overlap much at all.
Physics cannot explain phenomenological experiences because you cannot know a Thing-in-itself as determined by Metaphysics.
Physics cannot provide an answer to The Ship of Theseus.
They are different fields with different goals.
>But I only believe in what I can see or what can be confirmed by science
1. that's a metaphysical position you twat
2. You can't do an experiment proving the scientific method to be true
Enough with the science vs philosophy they are different shit.
>>810871
>metaphysical
They are actually very explicitly physical. People can take drugs to cause certain specific emotions because they mimic the neurotransmitters or hormones enough to cause those emotions.
I'm not sure where this whole "emotions influence behaviour, therefore metaphysics" comes from.
>>810883
So your consciousness *is* a physical entity?
Or are you saying the brain is identical to consciousness, and that hate, love, ambition, intuition, religious faith, and all manner of subjective experience is *identical* to a chemical?
>>810894
Conciousness is an emergent property of the organization of the brain, in that there are cognitions availiable to the self-report ("I'm cold") as opposed to cognitions unavailable to the self-report. No emotion is identical to a single chemical, rather they are mixtures of chemicals acting within the context of a particular brain.
I see a lot of plebs that haven't read their Guenon in this thread...
