The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
Has the physicalist argument been extremely weakened?
| useless base | 02/11/26 |
| painfully honest bat-shit-crazy stag film | 02/11/26 |
| Adventurous Godawful Set | 02/11/26 |
| painfully honest bat-shit-crazy stag film | 02/11/26 |
| Adventurous Godawful Set | 02/11/26 |
| Mischievous Indirect Expression | 02/11/26 |
| Exhilarant Crystalline Address Stain | 02/11/26 |
| Adventurous Godawful Set | 02/11/26 |
Poast new message in this thread
Date: February 11th, 2026 9:37 PM Author: useless base Many people are saying it (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5833893&forum_id=2Firm#49664559) |
Date: February 11th, 2026 9:39 PM Author: painfully honest bat-shit-crazy stag film Jaegeon Kim nationalism (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5833893&forum_id=2Firm#49664566) |
|
Date: February 11th, 2026 9:45 PM Author: Adventurous Godawful Set naive physicalism has been done here for a while. it is clearly too narrow and fails to accommodate information, observer dependence and emergent structural complexity. but there is nothing wrong with non-reductionist types of physicalism if they admit that things like quantum fields and informational constraints can still be "physical".
if you think there is an extra-physical layer or non-physical ontological substance thats just retarded. every time something like that has been proposed in the past it always turned out to be a placeholder for extra complexity that hadn't been described yet |
 |
Date: February 11th, 2026 9:49 PM Author: painfully honest bat-shit-crazy stag film You're retarded and shamefully so (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5833893&forum_id=2Firm#49664611) |
|
Date: February 11th, 2026 9:58 PM Author: Adventurous Godawful Set (henri bergson) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5833893&forum_id=2Firm#49664648) |
|
Date: February 11th, 2026 9:55 PM Author: Mischievous Indirect Expression (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5833893&forum_id=2Firm#49664636) |
|
Date: February 11th, 2026 10:44 PM Author: Exhilarant Crystalline Address Stain cr and basically my view for as long as i can remember
but people get so faggy trying to express what your second sentence is saying that i usually want to reject it lol |
|
Date: February 11th, 2026 11:48 PM Author: Adventurous Godawful Set yeah I agree it sounds cringe, especially nowadays, I agree but unfortunately it's correct. I think it depends on how its expressed. Like if you get into it hard with "oh so you believe in some magic essence, kind of like how people used to believe in vitalism or people thought "caloric" was a magic substance called heat? what kinds of other folk science and woo do you also feel the need to reify. guess it looks like superstition isn't dead" -- if you say some shit like that it sounds faggy. But also it's actually true that humans like to use placeholder metaphors to explain things that haven't fully been explained yet. not because they are dumb but because the underlying system is insanely rich and complex a human knowledge is local and will always be incomplete (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5833893&forum_id=2Firm#49664969) |