/lit/ - Literature

>>22646565
Josh Sutter and his gf got outed as FBI informants helping entrapment ops, which is big because they're behind the publishing of O9A's vile books ircc.

https://patriotssoapbox.com/editors-picks/eric-striker-is-joshua-sutter-a-cia-asset/
This article speculates that this op goes international (with the thanks of the CIA) due to these satanist groups having cells overseas.

Should be said that given Himmler's autistic obsession with the occult, I would bet money these fucks are being prepped for a post-collapse/systemic crisis nazi movement, that will have an esoteric satanist core just like the Third Reich did. Either way they all deserve to be shot for the common good.

I'll make another attempt at explaining this, in the vain hope that at least one anon will benefit from this.

First of all, your *beliefs* about your conscious experience aren't given in a way that your conscious experience is (veritably). Hammer that distinction into your skull before proceeding.

In other words, it's not about claiming that your conscious experience doesn't exist. It's about accepting the possibility that your beliefs about the explanatory mechanisms behind the contents of your conscious experience, its sources and consequences may be wrong. The illusion in illusionism is not about conscious experience not existing, but conscious experience not being what it *seems to be*.

If you have no problem entertaining the idea that free will might be an illusion, then you should be able to wrap your head around eliminativism too. Unless, like Searle, you hold that the existence of free will is obviously given, because "I decide to raise my hand and the damn thing goes up!". Bullshit, your belief that you have free will is no proof that you have free will. Your strongly held belief that representations of consciousness are qualitative, ineffable, continuous and, most importantly, unexplainable in physical terms is no unshakable proof that they actually are so. Again, your conscious experience is one thing and what you believe about it is another.

One aim of illusionism is to remove an intermediary step that's not only theoretically extraneous, but logically inconsistent: the phenomenal fallacy. Again, phenomenological fallacy is NOT the view that phenomenality exists at all. The paper (Illusionism as the Obvious Default Theory of Consciousness) clearly defines what it is and it amounts to the cartesian theater.

I believe that I'm a spectator in a cartesian theater, so the damn thing must work exactly as I think it does! That's the intuition that's challenged here. There is no place and time in the mind where "it all comes together for the observer." This one is easy, because it's a straightforward infinite regress of observers. It's not even physicalism vs. intuition, it's logic vs. intuition.

>>22622107
Another point is brought up by the visual illusion of reverse color afterimage. The false intuition attacked here is that you believe that you see a red stripe because you have a conscious experience of a red stripe. In fact the causality is exactly reversed: you have a conscious experience of a red stripe because you believe there is a red stripe.

Because there is no real, physical red stripe to influence your brain, the illusion helps to highlight this. The conscious experience of the red stripe is there, but it cannot be what you think it is, it must be constructed by your mind. Same in normal perception.

From there you can begin to see how "qualia" can be understood as a special kind of beliefs (even if your intuitions stubbornly remain).

>>22623464
>The paper says that there is no phenomenality
Are you the philosophy PhD?

>>19827535
>Of course epistemic justification is infallible.
What a nonstarter, you really expose yourself for being clueless here. You deny the premise while thinking that you have shown the argument to be invalid. It's really as simple as that, you missed the entire point. Less writing, more thinking anon. Your ego is an obstacle in your philosophical education, this happens to everyone too, you're not special in case you were wondering. And of course nearly nobody maintains foundationalism like you do, because it's ridiculously naive and/or restrictive. Look it up and see if you like the implications of your view.

>>19681694
>>19682512
Ok, I thing I can help you out, I'm the anon who asked.

Let's first look at what the Cartesian Theatre is. It's basically an umbrella term for
the kind of cryptodualist talk that many philosophically unsophisticated brain/mind scientists are guilty of. It shows up whenever they speak of the mind interfacing with the brain in various ways, e.g. in perception: the various stages of vision "come together" and the "mind" "perceives" the "percept". This kind of language is fundamentally cartesian and doesn't really explain perception. Descartes would say something about the animal spirits going through certain pores in the brain and acting on the pineal gland in a certain way, therefore imposing an image onto the soul. Different details, same fundamental understanding that maintains the body/mind divide. If you're a materialist you need to reduce the mind to the body, leave no residual "observer" looking at the percept in some cartesian theater. No matter if you call it "soul" or, in your confusion, talk about the "mind" interfacing with the brain. You need to shit of get off the pot. There's no "mind" to interface with, so leave out any mention of it in your explanations.

Now here's the crucial thing: just because something is reducible to more fundamental parts does not mean that it's not real. A dedicated materialist would say that there's fundamentally no such thing as "sitting", but it's still a very useful term. You don't spout nonsense when you speak of a monkey sitting on a tree, this is still a proposition that can be true or false. In a similar way a proposition like "Johny decided to eat a muffin" basically means that Johny as an agent (an agent that's reducible to brain events doing their thing) chose an action from options available the agent. Of course "truly" free will that breaks the laws of physics is incoherent to a materialist. But even if fundamentally we're deterministic machines, there is still a very meaningful way in which "we" "make choices". Even if our selves and choice making processes are reducible to physical phenomena.

>But if there's no Theatre or Meaner what is there that possesses free will and makes decision?
Additionally just make sure to remember that the Meaner is a fiction that the ("objective") Agent creates for itself in introspection, a confabulation.

Get this distinction straight together with the above and you should be able to figure out your answer.

>>15608673
Crime and Punishment
I’ve slept with a lot of escorts and have no real desire for regular women

Is there a fantasy writing general in this board somewhere? I couldn't even find a "writing general".

I’m writing a grimoire that I intend to publish. What would be the best digital platform for that unironically? Also help me come up with an occult pen name I guess. Pic unrelated

>>5259457
>I wasn't even the Anon who first replied to you, mate.
I wasn't even the anon you thought you were replying to.
kek.