/lit/ - Literature

>>21609844
>Why isn't there a single philosopher of mind who approaches the topic from an evolutionary perspective?
Bernardo Kastrup did that and came to the conclusion that consciousness couldn't have evolved.

https://mindmatters.ai/2020/02/bernardo-kastrup-consciousness-cannot-have-evolved/

>>21307392

>>20600973
No

What does /lit/ think about the filtering hypothesis? Essentially that the brain filters consciousness activity which is in reality unbound and goes beyond space and time. The brain is like a radio that is tuned to a certain channel, namely your personal consciousness, so that brain activity and consciousness are not the same.

I'm not an atheist but none of the religious books I've read have convinced me of the truth of any specific religion. I spent a lot of time on the Bible and on prayer but could never shake the feeling that it was man-made bullshit. Same for Hinduism when I read the Bhagavad Gita. I admittedly got filtered by the Enneads because I'm just not swayed at all by supposedly rational expositions of the divine, I feel like it lacks something and misses the point. I preferred reading Plato's dialogues though I don't think I'd call myself a Platonist either.
What would you advise me to read at this point? I've seen pic related recommended, is it good?

>>19916547
>is fundamentally incompatible with the modern worldview, that reality is absolutely lawful at a material level
I agree. But since physical reductionism is silly we can simply reject the modern worldview as being erroneous.

>The knowledge that there's no room for supernaturalism in the world we moderns know we inhabit is still as unshakeable as it as when Carl Sagan wrote The Demon-Haunted World
Carl Sagan was a pop scientist, not a philosophy and it's unsurprising to say the least that he never bothered to explore or identify the holes in materialism. I highly recommend reading Why Materialism is Baloney by Bernado Kastrup since it does a pretty good job of outlining why materialism might initially seem sensible at a superficial level it requires concessions that ultimately make it irrational.

The division of reality into nature and supernature (above nature, or above the sensible) is not only rational it is necessary for rationality.

>>19652529
Read Kastrup

>>19629796
Read Kastrup

>>19597131
Read Bernardo Kastrup

https://www.youtube.com/c/bernardokastrup/videos

I'm reading pic related and enjoying it. What other books challenge materialism while being fairly accessible?

>>19250600
Bernardo Kastrup is worth reading

Is pic related good?