itt we absolutely devastate materialism
>Atoms can't be conscious
>The brain is made of atoms
>Therefore the brain cannot be conscious
QED faggots
>atoms are tiny
>objects are made of atoms
>therefore all objects are tiny
atomic theory BTFO
>>7477602
>objects are made of atoms
who claimed this?
>>7477602
If you tell a physicist that something is small or large, they'll answer "compared to what?" Atoms are minuscule compared to the awesomeness of our God, so I'd say atomic theory has at least one gaping hole in it.
>>7477608
>Atoms are minuscule compared to the awesomeness of our God
Top smile.
>>7477592
>Atoms can't be conscious
You're not conscious?
>>7477592
>water is liquid
>ice is made of water
>therefore ice is liquid
SCIENCE BTFO
>>7477607
>ATOMIC FAGGOTS BACKPEDALING SO HARD THEY'RE DENYING OBJECTS EVEN EXIST
IF OBJECTS AREN'T MADE OF MATERIAL CONSTITUENTS, PERHAPS THEY ARE SIMPLE REFLECTIONS OF THE PLATONIC IDEALS OF OUR GODLY FATHER
B T F O
T
F
O
>>7477612
fucking rekt
It's fucking science dude. Atoms when put together make conciousness, like how putting together a computer makes it all work.
>>7477641
>It's le fuqgin sighense xD
So you're trusting what your brain tells you about your brain?
>>7477641
>responding to this thread seriously
lit is deteriorating boyz
>>7477592
SHUT UP SHUT UP OR I'LL CRY!
>>7477641
>mental events don't exist, you're just imagining them
nice one
>>7477646
RIGHT? They're trying to trick us. That's why I always do the exact opposite what my brain tells me to do.
I've walked into a lot of walls.
>>7477646
Why not? It's better than trusting what some bible-thumper's brain tells me about my brain.
>>7477641
>>7477592
Computer processors are made up of transistors
Transistors cannot compute anything
Processors CAN compute
OP BTFO
None of the arguments presented so far have refuted OP.
There is nothing in existence that is solely material. For a thing to exist it cannot just be matter, it must also have form. There is no "pure matter" (prima materia) in existence. Look at a table. The table is not just its matter but also its form. The form of a thing is that which is perceived by the intellect. Matter is never directly perceived by the intellect, although material things are revealed to us through the senses.
>>7477758
you can't refute nonsense
unrelated
How the fuck could we possibly have free will?
I mean everything we do has a causal reason somewhere, so where would the free will come from?
>>7477789
Irrefutable nonsense is fact.refute this
>>7477795
>I mean everything we do has a causal reason somewhere
Not true btw
>>7477641
A Computer is not an assemblage of atoms. I a studying computers. Computer architecture includes things like a Central Processing Unit and Memory. No where in computing are "atoms" referred to. You are confusing material cause with formal cause.
>>7477817
>A Computer is not an assemblage of atoms
>>7477592
Define "atom".
Define "brain".
Define "conscious".
>>7477798
wat do u mean?
>>7477822
Computers, like, have a soul. You can't measure it in physical terms. Just you point to the part of the computer where the computing happens, I challenge you.
>>7477797
https://youtu.be/XREnvJRkif0
your move
>>7477835
A computer doesn't have a soul but it does have a form, and that is "where the computer happens".
>>7477873
Just because you don't understand the fine details behind how a computer works doesn't mean you should just make shit up
>>7477822
Atomists are literally blind.
What is a guitar? A six-stringed instrument? No, it's an assemblage of atoms.
What is a house? A human dwelling place? No, it's an assemblage of atoms.
What is a word? A vocal or written sign? No, it's an assemblage of atoms.
What is a human? A rational animal? No, it's an assemblage of atoms.
There is literally no difference in your understanding between an animal, a colour, a shape, a number, an idea, a building, a contract, etc.
You are deaf, dumb, and blind.
>>7477895
>What is a guitar? A six-stringed instrument? No, it's an assemblage of atoms.
>What is a house? A human dwelling place? No, it's an assemblage of atoms.
>What is a word? A vocal or written sign? No, it's an assemblage of atoms.
>What is a human? A rational animal? No, it's an assemblage of atoms.
It's not like a guitar is either an instrument or an assemblage of atoms. it's obviously both.
>>7477795
>>7477795
??? Free will supplants where you're placing causality. The idea is that we are not rocks falling down a mountainside because the combination of wind and erosion and the physics of it all dictated it. There is an interlocutor between the cause and the effect where we exercise our will.
>>7477902
Agreed, a guitar is an intelligible object as well as a material object.
>>7477686
Then proceed to doubt every single proposition you've ever made and will make. Also negate every single proposition anyone has made. Realise then that science goes too. Back on square one. Better luck next time, buddy.
>>7477921
wrong. psychological constructs would ofcourse be reducible to specific experiential neuronal patternings within the brain which once standardized in a common form of communication becomes intelligible. This intelligibility however is only another illusion, and supervenes from the atomic level. There are nothing but atoms.
I really fucking hate all of you
>>7477953
Atoms have different chemical properties from one another and the orientation of them in space is also relevant.
>>7477592
>A brain is identical to a rock
Never mind the billions of years of natural selection and evolution, that made your brain extremely complex.
>>7477993
that's not the argument tho
>>7478006
It kind of is.
It is a meaningless reductionism to say "Atoms can't have consciousness" because a brain is a collection of atoms in an extremely complex form.
The correct statement would be, "Only atoms in certain complex states can have consciousness".
>>7477592
what's wrong with this argument exactly.
isn't consciousness just an illusion?
>>7478021
>atoms can have consciousness
Get a load of this guy
>itt we absolutely devastate OP
>>7478075
>mental events? there are no mental events, you are only imagining them!
>>7477592
Epistemic fallacy'd hard
>>7477592
Lets debunk this using the most purest of sciences, pure mathematics.
Single numbers that belong in R space (or 1 tall column vectors if you will) cannot expand any space beyond R itself.
N-tall column vector and nxm matrices are made of single numbers. Therefore nothing can expand spaces beyond R.
That means there is no R 3. We live in 3 dimensions but because we cannot construct vectors in R 3 that means that we don't exist or at least that we cannot ever predict anything in R 3 like say, projectiles.
Therefore nothing exist and the universe is a lie.
QED.
Do you now see your mistake?
>>7478120
>le cocky undergrad meme
You learn more math than that in a first year physics course
>>7478123
Well, yeah. You don't need more than that to debunk OP. What where you expecting you faggot?
Also, define a vector space.
>>7478135
>defining things
>not just knowing how to use them
Math is such a meme
>>7477592
>>7477622
That's fucking retarded, that kind of reductive reasoning can cause ANYTHING to be refuted.
>A plane wing can't fly
>A plane has two wings
>Therefore a plane can't fly!
The sum of the whole is greater than its parts individually.
I dont even need to agree with the conclusion to see how dumb that is. Is this a troll thread?
>>7477953
> psychological constructs would ofcourse be reducible to specific experiential neuronal patternings
No they can't. This is as dumb as saying that a painting can be reduced to an analysis of pigments.
>>7478111
right, eliminative materialism
have you read the work of daniel dennett?
>>7478164
That's what I was referencing
>>7478107
You are conscious
You are made of atoms
Atoms exhibit consciousness
It is more reasonable to assume consciousness is a physical phenomenon than it is to posit some unseen untouchable nonphysical consciousness-ether that you just like totally know about maannn feel it bro, as responsible for whatever we haven't happened to have properly understood already in this year of our Lord two thousand and fifteen.
>>7478193
>You are conscious
Prove it
>>7477592
>atoms cannot be wet
>water is made of atoms
>therefore water cannot be wet
stemfags BTFO lib arts 4ever
>>7478318
>implying hydrogen atoms aren't wet
>>7477772
Holy shit I know it's just Greeks (Aristotle I guess) but that is such a good answer.
>>7478318
But what is wetness? Wetness is just when atoms arranged into elements in a nonsolid substance cling so a dry, solid substance. Of course a Custer of atoms can't cling to a single atom like that. What are you, retarded?
>>7478341
That's the point, you dense fuck.
What a terrible thread.
>a brain scan of someone in love reveals love is just electrical activity in the brain!! Look, I'm pointing at love right now!!!
>a phenomenal expression of a subjective experience is the experience itself!!!!
>ugh, I can't believe it's 2015 and you still believe in things like meaning an art, ugh, we're nothing but neurons maaan
>ugh, I can't believe it's 2015 and you still enjoy music, ugh, it's nothing but tones maaan
>the emergence of the experience of an inner life in a physical system explains the nature of consciousness itself, and doesn't just describe the conditions in which it arises
>>7478120
Someone just took linear alg. @ their cc
>>7478413
>I don't know or understand how it works, so it's magic
>>7478429
>I can't admit the limitations of my epistemic assumptions or how the dynamics of certain complex physical systems is necessarily accompanied by an inner experience of those dynamics, I guess the other guy must think consciousness is just fairy dust or something lol!
>>7477592
Alternatively, the opposite
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will_theorem
emergent properties
>>7478156
a plane wing can fly though you fucking goof, there's a whole category of planes called "flying wings"
>>7477987
>Atoms have different chemical properties from one another
stop posting
go to bed
>idealism come from humans
>humans are atomic beings
>therefore idealism is actually materialism
>>7478164
The funniest thing is that Dennett pushes this shit while simultaneously claiming that it's "dangerous" knowledge that must be kept from the public so that society doesn't collapse.
One might wonder why the fuck he would care whether or not a society of "p zombies" would collapse?
>>7478735
this, and /thread. sounds like opie here hasn't read pic related...
>matter is infinitely divisible
>there are composite things so there must be simply unities that make these things up
>these simple unities cannot be matter or extension because the latter are defined by their infinite divisibility
>therefore the simplest units of reality or immaterial
>>7478847
>>matter is infinitely divisible
wot
>>7478847
>even ancient greeks were smarter than me: the post
>what is συνεργία
>>7478827
That book is the biggest pile of wank I have ever read.
>Therefore the brain cannot be conscious
I see no problems here.
>>7477592
this /lit/ thread was discussed on /sci/ kek
>>7478932
herp derp derp derp herp
>>7478736
Not without a god damn propeller and engine. That's the point,
A plan wing as you now it on a plane cannot fly without its constituent parts, the analogy holds true.
>>7478118
wrong fallacy
not even that similar
