/lit/ - Literature

>>16311987
i am that
sri nisargadatta maharaj

>>16311987
The Hindu school of philosophy Advaita Vedanta is the one school that gets consciousness absolutely correct IMO, the best way to understand it is to read through Shankara's works, but this is an undertaking on par with reading through all of Plato or Aristotle, so unless you want to spend a while doing so maybe you can just read a book about Advaita and what they say about consciousness. Here are some pages from an encyclopedia of Indian philosophy which talk about the Advaita position on consciousness

https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/a-history-of-indian-philosophy-volume-2/d/doc209863.html
https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/a-history-of-indian-philosophy-volume-2/d/doc209866.html

This book >>16312034 posted by this poster while not "classic Advaita" is pretty representative of the Advaita position on consciousness

>>16312050
What's the TL,DR?

>>16312050
Ok I checked out the link and
>I may be conscious, but I can't be conscious of consciousness.
Your pajeet system doesn't even handle apperception.

>>16311987
>feel utterly unsatisfied with all explanations
What did you expect, an explanation of consciousness? Best you'll be able to do is get some useful terminological distinctions and a couple of good arguments that disprove the dumbest positions. There are some classic articles if you want to continue going down that road, like quining qualia (of course qualia exist, but they ain't what you think they are son). On a confusion about a function of consciousness is another one. Then there's the whole hard problem + commentaries, edited by shear.

There are some bold, but dumb theories if you're into that (Penrose, Hofstadter, bicameral mind, bright air brilliant fire). It's nice food for thought, but don't expect a genius solution that stands up to scrutiny.

If you want to check out how far science has penetrated the mystery, read Dehaene's Consciousness and the Brain and Bernard Baars, but don't expect them to not dismiss the hard problem / explanatory gap.

Getting into phenomenology might expand your understanding in a useful way too. First read Descartes Meditations and jump straight into Merleau Ponty (Landes translations), with the help of MMP reader.

Definitely do not waste your time with buddhist and pajeet garbage. Just don't.

>>16312050
Redditors, give this guy some pie

>>16312055
>>/lit/thread/S14967012
>>16312072
You are confusing mind or cognition with the pure awareness/conciousness which observes them, the mind can think of itself as its own object, but the unchanging awareness which witnesses the mind and its thoughts cannot directly perceive itself as the immediate object of that very awareness, just as the eye cannot perceive itself without an external accesory.

>>16312152
>There are some bold, but dumb theories if you're into that (Penrose, Hofstadter, bicameral mind, bright air brilliant fire). It's nice food for thought, but don't expect a genius solution that stands up to scrutiny.
These were funnily enough the only ones worth reading. At I felt like getting something out of it, stimulation or whatever. Academic philosophy of mind is dry as shit while also being totally useless in answering the question.

>>16311987
Have you read Feser's?

This subject is a complete waste of time.

Also panpsychism is correct.

>>16312313
why is it a waste of time? how is it any different to all philosophical subjects?

>>16312574
Panpsychists typically spent a lot of time thinking about the topic, just to eventually give up and adopt their inane view as an admission of defeat.

>>16311987
Read continental philosophy, analytic philosophy is a waste of your time due to this sort of approach.

>>16312658
Can you elaborate? Why is rigour a bad thing? If I wanted vague but nice prose I'd just read a novel.

>>16311987
Read Jean Gebser.

>>16311987
Look into integrated information theory.

>>16312870
AIfags shall get the rope

>>16312728
Is this some psychoanalyst?

>>16311987
has anyone else read this? seriously one of the most interesting books i've read

>>16314466
It's interesting but it only discusses development of consciousness, not consciousness itself.

>>16311987
>page after page of pedantic arguments on language and metaphysics
ngmi

>>16312658
Retard detected.

>>16314490
>thinking that arguing over made up semantic problems is 'making it'
the ultimate cope
read wittgenstein asshole

>>16314509
Oh, the irony.

James is based, he writes in unparalleled style and is ever relevant. Read James. keep the thread afloat anons, I need to piss off for a day

>>16312178
Pure consciousness can be conscious of itself though, see Husserl on this.

>>16315623
Where exactly and how does one get into Husserl?

>>16312669
Rigor is only possible when the inner mechanics or language of the issue as well as its fundamental elements are identifiable and to some extent well understood. Pretending to be rigorous and clear about a subject nobody understands well is bound to lead either to silence or to misleading pseudomathematical jargon.

Even in mathematics and logic, all great rigorous pioneers could only work thanks to the material built up by generations of previous, not-so-rigorous thinkers. Rigor is a process and a result, not something you can declare from the get-go. You can try your best, but there's no guarantee it'll produce anything.

>>16316608
If you can't write clearly and rigorously about a topic in philosophy, your best bet is to pass over it in silence. (There's your Wittgenstein reference, tranny).

>>16316668
Wittgenstein is an overrated turboautist. No piece of writing is ever sufficiently rigorous, and if people had followed this advice there would never have been any philosophy, nor any science for that matter.

Early positivists and analytical philosophers often made the mistake of confusing the most achieved result of the philosophical tradition (the late scientific development of the 19 and 20th century) for the model of how philosophy should be done. But this is nonsense, you can't reverse the order of the investigative process just because you like it. Rigor and clarity come at a price, that price is lots of time dedicated to working in obscurity and relative unrigorousness. That's true even in mathematics.

The problem of early Wittgenstein is that he ultimately had a strong aesthetic and moral attraction to silence, hence the focus on rigor which is the closest thing when you still want to write. I'm not sure late Wittgenstein really overcame this instinct. He should have become a monk and spent his time meditating instead of being fellated by Russell at Cambridge.

I try not to bother thinking about consciousness in the sense of phenomenal consciousness. Not sure how to back this up tho.
I like the start of 'philosophy and the mirror of nature' by richard rorty where he talks about philosophy of mind, descartes and stuff, and you might enjoy it especially if you find that textbook pedantic. More historical/synoptic approach

>>16316725
I'm not the one who brought him up, spermburper.

Kind of like what Fodor says here about consciousness stuff
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hs82SsczIpE

>>16311987
Maurice Merleau-Ponty will give you the answers

>>16312050
is this one of the guenonfag guys

>>16316769
not at all, but it's still good stuff

Philosophical Foundations of Neuroscience gives a Wittgenstein influenced account of consciousness as well as other areas within neuroscience/psychology. This has been the most satisfying explanation I've read

>>16311987

This book is the best introduction to analytic/scientific theories of consciousness strictly. It doesn't go into concepts unrelated to consciousness.

The book is less than 200 pages and is up to date with the latest theories. It explains the theories and also gives critiques of the various theories.

It's very easy to read, unpretentious and great for finding your feet in the field without getting lost in complex specifics.

Blackwell Companion to Consciousness, 2nd ed.

54 chapters written by everyone who matters, newest and most relevant information in the field. You won't find better.

>>16317529
History of Cognitive Neuroscience by the same authors is good if a bit dogmatically wittgensteinian at times

>>16311987
Origin and history of consciousness

What exactly is the argument against physicalism?

>>16316608
>>16316725
Some really bizarre takes on rigor in this post. I don't even know how to respond to the arguments because they're simply assertions, 'rigor is a process', 'rigor leads to misleading jargon'.

>>16318009
It's very simple. I'll save you 300 pages of reading because literally anti-physicalist arguments are fundamentally the same: all the neuroscience in the world can't explain the way coffee subjectively tastes to you, and all the computing power in the world can't make a computer understand why you found something funny.

>>16311987
I'm sure there are but when asked I can't quite seem to put my finger on it. Maybe try Ulysses or Faulkner.

William James had some critical insights into consciousness. I would read his famous chapter on the stream of consciousness in Principles of Psychology. The phenomenologists like Husserl couldn't see the forest for the trees. I remain skeptical about most contemporary scientific stabs (Hoffman, Penrose) at consciousness. It's silly to try to reduce consciousness to quantum physics when we don't even fully understand that.
David Chalmers is one of my personal favorites who I studied. Dennett has some good individual observations but ultimately doesn't untie the knot/

>>16318009
That there is just something that it's like to be some pattern of matter/energy as a brute fact is untenable. It's all to avoid a sense that you're being spooked by a superstition, as if that was more important than sufficient reverence for the greatest mystery in the universe.

>>16319179
>David Chalmers is one of my personal favorites who I studied
Is a conscious mind a good start from him?

>>16317730
Seriously though, this, it's on libgen. It's accessible and comprehensive and if you think you don't need a bird's eye interdisciplinary view of the field, you're wrong. Also, keep posting them books.

>>16314466
It is an interesting premise and I do love it but obviously Jaynes did not have access to the knowledge we do now.
That said some experimental results show that even if he was not right in the big picture, his ideas on the brain are similar to some brain functions we have discovered.

>>16317529
I've got that on my shelf and been meaning to crack it open, thanks for the info on it, the book sounds great.

>>16320106
>That said some experimental results show that even if he was not right in the big picture, his ideas on the brain are similar to some brain functions we have discovered.
I have no idea what you're talking about and I suspect you're full of shit, but if you can prove me wrong, that would also be fine.

>>16320118
Split brain patients exhibit symptoms showing how each side of the brain does their tasks and thinks they are the entirety of the brain and then the "person" confabulates reasons why they are the true master.
So when a person who has had a corpus callosotomy (splitting the lobes apart to a degree) the right half of the body is controlled by the left half of the brain and vice-versa. Both sides of the brain possess language processing powers but only one has the ability to actually speak, so when a doctor asks a patient to do something, either side of the body can respond and do something, but only one side can talk about it. The side controlled by the side of the brain that can talk can reasonably speak for the side it controls, but the other side it is not actually in control of. So when a "person" is given instructions to the side that cannot speak for itself, the side of the body it controls will act, but when the part with the speech capabilities is asked about why they did it they will confabulate an answer and think it to be the case.
Keep in mind this all happens while the person themself feels to be one person, I believe. Like the issues are they might lose access to one side of their vision, but possibly its just a form of blindsight cause the other side still gets it.
I would recommend reading Commissurotomy Consciousness & Unity of Mind by Charles E. Marks

>>16320183
Other experiments done include anesthetizing a single side of the brain and then performing cognitive tests. This is performed by injecting the anesthesia into artery that only leads to one lobe. The results are similar to split brain patients if I recall correctly.

>>16312034
>sri nisargadatta maharaj
This is good

Also adding Itzhak Bentov - Stalking the Wild Pendulum On the Mechanics of Consciousness

>>16320183
Well first of all, your information is too far fetched, you should read some Gazzaniga to get a more levelheaded account straight from the source, a life in neuroscience is a good read, a bit too much autobiography if you're just looking for science, but there's plenty of science too.

Secondly, I've been actually trying to pirate that exact book for ages, but I can't find it anywhere. If you have a pdf, do upload it to libgen pretty please.

>>16316570
Just read everything before Husserl if you want to 'get' Husserl. XD

>>16319160
>all the neuroscience in the world can't explain the way coffee subjectively tastes to you
>all the computing power in the world can't make a computer understand why you found something funny

hmm, i dont agree with these, having worked in machine learning and neural networks

>>16312279
>Feser

>>16320369
I don't agree with them either but I don't think you even understand them. Support vector machines and artificial neural networks have nothing to do with this problem.

>>16320481
He clearly doesn't even understand the things he LARPs as having worked on. SVM is just one method of ML, not a synonym btw.

>>16320481
That's pretty presumptuous.
Please tell me what else I do and do not understand.

>>16320535
The issues here are qualia and intentionality.

>>16312055
All things are actually God, you aren't conscious, you're just sharing a tiny part of God's consciousness.

Guenonfag and his cultists take this skewed view of this, because they don't want to actually become religious, as anon points out up thread, tat requires a construction of "awareness", which as the Buddhists, neuroscientists, Platonists, and basically everyone else points out, is really dumb. This would mean that you're aware of what's going on while asleep and aware of everything going on across all space and time, ever. It's also a problem because drugs, meditation, and electrical impulses can actually get rid of this "Awareness". The actual Vedantin answer is "Yes", because only God is actually conscious, not you. There is no you. "You" are just an illusion. This is part of why Hindus and Buddhists call Advaita Vedanta nihilism, by the way.

There's a reason that people who actually study the brain adhere to some kind of Physicalism.

>>16320568
I don't think they're ultimately beyond measurement.
Certainly not with current means but eventually.

>>16320280
These are not far fetched, these are similar findings replicated across multiple patients.
From a cursory googling, Gazzaniga doesn't say anything that conflicts heavily with this, just that some level of language processing is available in the right hemisphere. I am not denying anything like neuroplasticity. Additionally, I don't know the situation of his patient in his studies but there are also differing levels of loss of acumen from various depths of incisions during a corpus callosotomy.
But, can you please specify what exactly you have issue with, other than it being "far-fetched".
I did say Jaynes was not entirely correct but that he was remarkably accurate in some things given the lack of data during his time.

>>16311987
i find Joscha Bach pretty entertaining on the subject.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-2P3MSZrBM

>>16320805
It's correct, but exaggerated in the way that many neuropsychological get overblown. Blindsight isn't literally blindsight, you get some recognition and some visual control of motor actions, but it's messy and full of caveats. Same thing with stories about one hand preventing the other from doing something or both hemispheres posessing full language capacity and even personhood.

>>16320369
>having worked in machine learning and neural networks
stinky!

anons, I'm not in college but I want to start into philosophy. /lit/ sticky didn't have a lot and I don't want to start a whole thread but how do you get started on your own. I got Meditations by Marcus Aurelius but I don't know what path to take. Do I read all the old classics like Socrates and Plato since that's around the same era? Do I read the stoics? When and how do I get to reading the french and the russians. I'm very interested in the russians but I like stoicism. I'm just not very well educated and don't know how to get off the ground.

>>16322614
Read a history of philosophy book to get a big picture overview. I'm currently a philosophy masters student and if I could go back to when I was 16 I'd read something like A.C. Grayling The History of Philosophy. It's not that long and covers almost everything. You won't regret it.

>>16322653
thanks anon! any chance you'd want to talk on discord?

>>16322705
Uh I'm too anxious to talk to people online but if you need help I can post here

>>16320872
While I see where you are coming from I don't know that I am completely convinced, I would like to see some specific items to read on this. I think it is probably a lot more of a continuum thanks to neural plasticity and having what amount to backups for brain regions thanks to having two lobes in the brain, and each patient will present differently. Though I suppose I am trying to say I think it is full of caveats as well lol.
Also, sorry I do not have a pdf of the book, I lucked out and found a copy at my local used book store for cheap.

>>16317534
>>16317730
High quality posts

>>16316757
Who cares, if you didn't want anyone to mention him you shouldn't have included his name in your post.

>>16319160
>Some really bizarre takes on rigor in this post.
It's pretty simple though. Say you're faced with a new problem in mathematics, not a variation of something already solved, but something still poorly understood. Do you start with writing a perfectly clear explanation of what is going on? You can't yet. There's no established frame of reference to work on. Instead to tinker, you try stuff in various directions, and in the process you will write many incomplete, unrigorous or outright false things. It's only after having struggled with the difficulty specific to the problem that, hopefully, you can come to a clearer picture of the issue and provide people with a rigorous account of how to proceed. However this often doesn't go smoothly and that state of obscurity can last more than the length of a man's career. You can't just say "I have arrived at clarity because I like to be clear', you have to do the required work to attain clarity and there is typically no estimate of how long that takes.

In the word of one of my maths professor "you have to start by writing horrors". Doesn't mean that any sloppy shit qualifies as good work, but it's delusional to pretend you can hop on any issue and start expounding on the subject in a succession of neat dichotomies like you see in many analytic philosophy papers.

This is also why dismissing people outright for lacking rigor or not following some predetermined standard of writing leads you to losing valuable insight. At some point you have to be able to put in the effort and tell the crank from the insightful precursor even if both appear identical in their refusal or failure to write clearly. This of course requires work, understanding and a healthy degree of distance from the habits of your own field.
Of course many of those neat analytic writers are not in the business of providing new insight, they're often simply second-rate researcher churning out papers on the semi-obvious consequences of already well-understood theories. There are plenty of people like that in mathematics and physics too. It's part of the way modern science function, but you shouldn't take the second-rate paper-churning researcher as a model of how to conduct actual new research.

>>16324381
Take your meds.

>>16324381
lurker here just want to say
>>16324486
is the one who needs to stop taking his meds

>>16324486
t. loaded with antidepressants

>>16324691
Thanks anon, nice to see I haven't posted for nothing.

>>16324486
Just in case you're not merely in for the memes, know that most of the post you quote has been inspired by a conversation a friend of mine had with Stéphane Nonnemacher who currently workd in hyperbolic geometry among others thing.

>>16311987
>get recommended Dennett
you what
how the fuck did this not get rebuked?
or did you ignore the rest of the thread?

>>16325031
Dennett is one of the greats.

https://discord.gg/EpZ49Cr

>>16325044
He never claims that consciousness doesn't exist tho.

>thinly veiled guenon thread
fuck this fag is getting smart
will guenonposting save /lit/?

>>16312669
the rigor of inane thought experiments, handmaidening to science, and appeals to "intuition" i.e. cultural bias

>>16319160
>t. failed cognitive scientist

>>16311987


>page after page of pedantic arguments on language and metaphysics
>read Chalmers
>page after page of arguments against physicalism and what the problems are

Maybe it just went over your head. Given the scope and the strenght of Chalmers' refutation of physicalism, defining his work as "pedantic arguments on language" is ridicolous.

>>16327214
attacking physicalism is like beating up a kid in a wheelchair

it's easy to look like you're winning when you have nothing interesting to say

>>16312050
I've looked into this quite seriously and it's pretty good stuff. That said, in my view there's a huge lacuna in the whole Hindu tradition in that there's very little emphasis on pooing in loo.

I am, however, very open to hearing other ppl's perspectives on the matter

>>16327367
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/supervenience/
This doesn't look like kid on a wheelchair

>>16327983
Supervenience is gay. It's all about metaphysical grounding nowadays keep up man!

>>16327779
they were too busy developing complex philosophical traditions to develop loos

>>16328820
Counterpoint: they apparently weren't too busy to build complex networks of shitting-streets

>>16328851
you can think better outdoors

>>16329095
guess that explains why all of them are homeless

>>16329353
Material possessions get in the way of enlightenment, and do not allow for proper squatting posture. You'll be stuck in materialism AND constipated.

>>16329362
Siddhartha Gautama squatting hard under dat Bodhi tree

ignore everything else in this thread

>>16329883
>including OP's question apparently

>>16327367
You might have this impression because you're a pseud who gets most of his info wbout what philosopher thinks from 4chan. The truth of the matter is that physicalism is still huge, and that before Chalmers eliminative/reductive physicalism was the standard position in Anglophone academia. If you too think that these positions are untenable, then you should thank Chalmers for his service.

>>16330327
Okay let me be more specific. Eliminative materialism, reductive materialism, type physicalism etc. are just naive positions within the physicalism class. They were refuted (or at least virtually discredited) in the 70s and 80s by Putnam et al when David Chalmers was still in high school. Modern successors to physicalism have solved those problems but there's a group of boisterous pseuds on the internet who keep attacking 'materialism' because of Chinese room-tier bullshit. Chalmers isn't a pseud, but he's beating a dead horse, and everyone else who happens to beating this dead horse is a moron.

>>16311987
just read blindsight, it's all you need.