Is your opinion that there is something non-material about Humans?

Humans are nearly defined by their access to the abstract. The abstract is definitionally non-material.

I dunno about that, latent spaces are looking pretty material these days. I've got several variants saved to my local disk.

	▲	svnt 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Map meets territory.

▲

unicorn_cowboy 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Materialism is not fundamental; consciousness is. This assumes materialism as fundamental.

▲

AndrewKemendo 6 hours ago | parent [-]

> Materialism is not fundamental; consciousness is

What is your epistemological basis for this claim? Any proof of this?

And just for extreme clarity note: at no point have I made a claim yet

▲

strogonoff 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Whether monastic materialism or idealism is correct would be an unfalsifiable claim within the framework of natural scientific method. (That method is designed to help us make predictions; interpreting experimental outcome for a statement of objective truth is a misapplication of scientific method.) An existing natural-scientific model can be referenced in a philosophical argument, but the argument remains a philosophical statement. A philosophical argument can still be debated on other merits—e.g., which alternative grants magical objective existence to more arbitrary entities, or such.

▲

svnt 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The human concept of materialism appears to have been produced by historical humans who were also conscious, which at least sets an order. To call this into question is to render logical debate incoherent.

Materialism is a theory, not a reality, but its adherents can't tell the difference.

▲

fc417fc802 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> To call this into question is to render logical debate incoherent.

Unfortunately there are quite a few things of that nature. In no case does it justify blindly picking one of the options and then following up with bold claims based on an arbitrary assumption.

	▲	svnt 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Where did I make the case that it does?

▲

AndrewKemendo 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

So your epistemology is historicism?

	▲	svnt 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Did you recently discover the idea of epistemology or does your line of questioning have a purpose?

▲

houllan633 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Are you interchangeable with a few mounds containing the exact same amount of the same molecules as your body?

	▲	patch_cable 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		In the exact same configuration? Yes.

▲

throw36745 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Reducing sociology to physics is a category error?

	▲	unicorn_cowboy 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		It's missing the forest for the trees.