Why can't materialists prove even a SINGLE THING (ONE) exists independent of human perception?
>>391952
Because noumenal experience is definitionally impossible.
>>391952
Why can't anti-materialists explain what experience and perception are?
>>391952
theories that are untestable and unprovable like the idea that all is within the mind are not worth discussing because they hold no basis
>>391972
then so is physicalism/materialism
>>391977
All the evidence we have so far, about us and the world, is best explained by Metaphysical Naturalism. Naturalism is therefore probably true. For there are no miracles, no infallible scriptures, but instead only a blind, mechanical universe.
>Not realising that the human experience is a solipsist/realist hybrid
stay pleb
>Solipsism
>>391952
1: you can only imagine something based on things you have prior experience with
2: either you are born with knowledge to build on, or you get your original ideas from an external world
3: assuming there is no external world and you are born with knowledge to build on, this knowledge was created before you existed
so in any eventuality there must be an external world
>>391982
>All the evidence we have so far, about us and the world, is best explained by Metaphysical Naturalism. Naturalism is therefore probably true.
wew lad that's not really how it works. You're justified into beliving it but it's not "probably true".
Never the less, it's circular reasoning since I'm fairly sure you're assuming that only things that can be explained trough a scientific method is "the best".
>>391982
you understand neither science nor philosophy
>>392051
Your assumption is wrong, though the scientific method is very good method for its domain.
>>392017
>2: either you are born with knowledge to build on, or you get your original ideas from an external world
false dilemma
>>392051
>it's circular reasoning since I'm fairly sure you're assuming that only things that can be explained trough a scientific method is "the best".
What other way is there other than the making up bollocks method?
>>392067
and it's domain doesn't extend into ontology, right?
