Physicalism or materialism. The idea that everything there is arises from physical matter. If true would mean there is no God or Free Will, no immortal soul either.
Seems to be what most of academia bases their world view on and the frame work in which most Science is done.
Often challenged by Dualism and Idealism but only by a loud fringe minority.
I’ve heard pan-psychicism is proving quite the challenge, but I hear that from people who believe crystals can cure autism
I hear that “Oh actually the science is moving away from materialism” as well, but that seems to be more crystal talk as well.
So lemme ask science instead of google.
Any reason to doubt physicalism? Is there anything in science that says “Huh well that seems to not have any basis in the physical at all and yet it exists”
Edit: I have heard of the Essentia Foundation and Bernado Kastrup but since it’s endorsed by Deepak Chopra I’m not sure I can trust it
You’re worse.
Two conversations with you, and both times you:
Misunderstood me
Refused to listen when I tried to explain
Blamed me for your inability to read, and became hostile for no reason, except a narcissistic urge to deflect.
The first time it pissed me off, but this time, I know it’s just who you are, and I knew exactly what I was in for when I unblocked you.
Bye.
How did you know to unblock them if you couldn’t read their answers?
When someone I’ve blocked replies to me, it gives me a notification and shows, “1 more reply” but if I click it it just keeps loading indefinitely. I logged out to check who it was and decided to give them a second chance that they definitely didn’t deserve.
Here is my previous interaction with them which demonstrates that their toxic, narcissistic behavior is a trend, not a one-off.
I’ve never blocked anyone, I’ve only ever blocked communities, and I assumed it just silenced them completely from your perspective. Strange that it instead gives you an unusable notification instead!
In terms of toxicity, I’ve had unpleasant interactions with both them and you in the past.
I’m not surprised that you both blew it out of proportion, you both failed to listen to each other, you both refused to back down and you both prolonged the argument longer than necessary. Par for the course.
What did they say that I didn’t listen to, exactly?
I’m not going to get embroiled in specifics or join in your argument or your previous argument with the other argumentative user today, I’m afraid.
I don’t think you’re seeking information, I think you’re seeking argument.
And if you’re seeking information, you’re better of going on the introspective journey on your own, you don’t want me as your guide.
I’ll answer your question with a question: If you don’t believe you’re more argumentative than the average lemmy user, why would you pick OBJECTION! as your username?
It’s funny how people told me I had said something misleading and couldn’t point to what it was, and now you’re claiming I refused to listen and can’t point to anything I refused to listen to. Somehow, people keep assigning blame to me without being able to substantiate it in any way.
I presented a rather thoughtful line of philosophical reasoning, and expected people to either agree with it or critique it. As one does.
Instead, people started critiquing an idea utterly unrelated to anything I said. Which you are now blaming me for. And now you’re saying that I just came here “seeking argument,” really? Did you read my initial comment? Do you really, genuinely believe that I was trolling and not looking for an intellectual discussion?
Quite simply, because I find that people say things all the time without providing any sort of evidence, and I believe in calling that out and keeping things more evidence focused.
Whatever problems I might have with people being unable to substantiate or defend their beliefs with evidence, I have much more disdain for people throwing around accusations without evidence. Which people on here do, all the time, constantly.
If you want to say I’m “argumentative,” that’s fine with me. There’s nothing wrong with arguments. What’s more wrong is to talk shit about people without being able to substantiate it. Lots of people, not just on here, but on the internet in general, will make up bullshit about a person or group they don’t like, and if you call out their bullshit, they use that against you too. “Crybullying” is the term I use for it.
I think everyone ought to have the chance to defend themselves and nobody should be going around talking shit if they can’t back it up. I won’t claim to be perfect, but if you don’t go around saying things you can’t back up, then you will find me much easier to get along with.
You appear to be attempting to prove to the world that I’m wrong to assert that you and the other user unnecessarily blow out of proportion and prolong arguments without truly listening, by strongly emotive argument and taking what I said as a series of unconnected assertions for to destroy, taking on board nothing of what I said and instead turning my reluctance to join in your preexisting arguments into some sort of proof that my conclusions are wrong.
You seem to be unable to see the wood for the trees. The irony is strong.
Did it not occur to you that arguing so strongly that I’m wrong, accompanied by name-calling no less, might instead show that I’m right? It wasn’t meant as a trap, but you twisted it around until you ensnared yourself.
Ask yourself if you really do demand as much evidence from people or points with which you instinctively agree, and you’ll see that your self-perceived intellectual integrity of believing only what people can prove to you is merely double standards and a sham: I accused you of being innecessarily argumentative and you shouted that I had provided no evidence!!!
This is one of your favourite forms of disagreement, I suspect because it makes you feel you have logic on your side, but the asymmetry in the demand for proof is bias, and concluding that people who you disagree with are wrong because they failed in your one-person prosecution, judge & jury court is naive.
Your court was not constituted to discover truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. You should be surprised every time it finds it.
Oh hey, look, I called it.
What I actually said, by the way, was that I don’t mind if you call me argumentative. The thing that you don’t have evidence for is when you assigned fault to me in my conversation with the other person.
This is such typical crybully behavior. Talks mad shit, can’t back up anything, and then whines about it. What do you imagine you’re accomplishing here?
You came in here just to talk shit. Literally, you saw two people you didn’t like in an argument and you loved it, because it gave you the opportunity to gloat and act all self-righteous.
You don’t even recognize your own behavior when I specifically call it out. I don’t know what I’m supposed to do with that. Are you even aware of what you’re doing, or is it just second-nature?
Literally what would I have to say to make you happy? You want me to just take all the blame and prostrate myself before your superiority, and anything short of that, any attempt to stand up for myself, or to explain my actions, is just further proof of my wrongdoing to you. This is exactly why I picked the name I did, because I completely reject your whole way of doing things and of approaching conflict.
You’re arguing with a subset of people who likely believe there is no such thing as objective reality. I’ve learned the hard way that it’s like arguing with fundamentalist religious types.
Not even close, learn to read
Cool story