Materialism vs Idealism: Matt Dillahunty (Brain First); Claudio Soprano (No... Mind First) 

Watch the second video on my channel all about it. If you don't wanna check it out, try the Nobel Prize winners who tested Bell's theorem and proved local realism to be false: John Clauser, Anton Zeilinger and Alain Aspect. Einstein was wrong. There are no hidden variables and all these physicists abandoned materialism in favour of idealism. Subsequent papers were also written in its favour. Materialism doesn't even make any intuitive sense and has been wrestling with the hard problem of consciousness for decades now, and this year, the leading theory of integration fell through. Then you have the LHC high-energy physicists who uncovered new symmetries and geometries beyond the Planck scale and the maths to describe the trajectories from hadron collisions got simpler once they dropped the erroneous assumption that space-time is fundamental. Even Federico Faggin, the inventor of the microprocessor, is an idealist now. If you can't be bothered with scientific papers, you may start with a Scientific American article authored by Bernardo Kastrup about the mind. Do a simple Google search. Yes, we should all provide evidence. So I also ask those physicalists who think the brain generates consciousness: How? So far, I see talk of activity between non-conscious elements but no cogent explanation to bridge that gap between that and felt sensations of qualia. Why should the 'lights' go on at all? Their leading theory, Tononi's integrated information, was tested by Christoff Koch and it fell through. They are still scratching their heads about their precious neural correlates. Time to wake up.

The claim that a brain is the product of a mind has zero evidence to back it up.@@ArlindoPhilosophicalArtist

Buckethead tunes from the Colma album 👌

Thank you!

Matt Dillahunty is arrogant, ignorant and rude. His mind is also still religious even though he doesn't realise it. He's traded in a religion for another: Christianity for Wokism. The virtue-signalling and holier-than-thou attitude from him is incredible. You will be demonised if you disagree with him politically speaking and is all for cancel culture-and yet he claims to be a secular humanist and for democracy.

My thoughts exactly. Daniel Dennett once said that if we are going to have an explanation for consciousness, we must start from non-conscious elements (in order for that to be an explanation). But the same can be said about the physical world! If we are going to have an explanation for material reality, surely we must start with something non-physical or immaterial? Consciousness is that thing that we know about most intimately which cannot be found objectively. It has to be fundamental and crucial if anything is to be said to exist.

Hahahhahahahahhahaha. What? No. That is not the case, at all. Cite me a single paper from a recognized journal... Prediction, you can't.

@@Multi_Purpose_Weirdo Watch the second video on my channel. And while you are at it, check out the trio of scientists who won the Nobel Prize in physics last year for proving local realism to be false. Names: John Clauser; Anton Zeilinger; Alain Aspect. All of them abandoned materialism in favour of metaphysical idealism. So much for your prediction! 🤔

@@ArlindoPhilosophicalArtist Stop pretending to be a theoretical physicist, it's embarrassing. You started with your conclusion and you're trying to make the science fit. That is not how knowledge works.

@@Multi_Purpose_Weirdo Nobody's pretending to be a theoretical physicist here. Ad hominems are the hallmark of a debate loser. You're not even addressing the subject now-even though I just provided you with the citations you requested! I just pointed at NOBEL PRIZE winners! If you are not happy with me pointing out this information, why don't you read their scientific papers and then come back to me instead of being your dishonest self in this exchange? Otherwise, ta-ta! How old are you? If you don't have anything to bring to the table of adults, go back to your Playstation. 😆

Thank you for your post and the elucidating link. I will check it out.

@@ArlindoPhilosophicalArtist The scientific solution to the problem of free will might reside within the unification of the sciences of the large and the small. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-mEnyLhmOB2E.htmlsi=bA0-t43qHdHm9Oh_ I believe that the Penrose explanation for the evolution of quantum wave collapse is the hypothesis that the quantum wave can travel both fowards and backwards, so when a quantum measurement is made, the wave travels back in time to its previous interaction with the physical world, and from that past event collapses so that the measured particle in the future acts as like a classical particle, waiting to be measured in the future (which in the future is our present). Thus when you make a quantum measurement, the quantum wave does not collapse in the present, it collapses in the past, thus avoiding conservation issues when the many infinite worlds and simultaneous dead and alive Schrödinger's cats disappear in the quantum wave.😁😆😅😂🤣 ....Thus for free will and subjective collapse to occur, it must occur before the timeframe given by the Penrose objective collapse equation.

Yeah. They need to understand it! 😎👍

Everyone with ten seconds and an internet connection knows what idealism means, ya silly goofs. It's just that most of them don't think that physical reality arises from the activities of minds. Because that is actual crazy-talk.

@@Multi_Purpose_Weirdo There was a time when the thought of knowing the chemical compositions of stars was 'crazy talk'. Until Fraunhofer invented the telescope and we saw that stellar light comes with 'barcodes' that inform us about their atomic source. You know jack and you still haven't even looked at the Nobel Prize winners I cited for you as a starting point. If anyone is goofing around here, it is YOU-the very epitome of ignorance because you don't care about the truth. You just want to hold on to your flawed paradigm in order to preserve the inflation of an already bruised ego. 😁 Why don't you do your homework first, child? You might just have a paradigm shift! Not everyone knows what idealism entails. In fact, the very people from that show (The Line) don't even know what it entails because one strawmanned it and the other said he couldn't think and admitted to not knowing. You don't even know what it entails! You know what's crazy? Believing in the miracle that the interactive dance between non-conscious elements somehow beget conscious experience! I'll give you another source which might be easier for you to understand since you are so afraid of reading actual scientific papers. Try the article in the Scientific American authored by Kastrup about the mind. Do a Google search and stop playing on your PlayStation or ogling porn on X-rated sites. 😀

@@Multi_Purpose_Weirdo Do you know what idealism is? A lot of people don't. The activities of the mind of Putin cause changes in the physical reality.

@@ArlindoPhilosophicalArtist Re-reading my message and your response here, I realize I've acted childishly and thrown out insults when no one here has remotely done anything to deserve that. That carried over into the message I posted in another thread on this video a minute ago, which I regret. I apologize for my crappy attitude and insulting language. I'll keep trying to do better in the future.