/lit/ - Literature

One can not question why 'meaning' is more more important than the lack of it, for such a truism can not be rationalized in a world where there is no inherent meaning. The meaning is the means, the purpose and a product. It is the means to forward the gift of sentience. It is the purpose that sentience craves. It is the product of sentient thought.

Still, it is unresolved as to what makes a path superior to another. Or even what makes some paths worthy of being ignored completely as opposed to others. That, as one may see constitutes the origin of Morality. What one ought to do as opposed to what one can do. I would state now, that for all intent and purposes Morality in its most fundamental form is no derivative of worldly religion. Rather religions are a clustering of ideas of Morality and other substances which are not the scope of the discussion. Morality is by definition here, the means and the criterion of choice. Since it is an ought, it has to be realized and not discovered. I see two essential tenets emerging cleanly at the very beginning:

· The sanctity of life
· The sanctity of sentience

>>1817031

Without these ideals there is no man and thus no choice and no morality. Thus they are apical to any further investigation. This is also one of the reasons of why a choice must be made. Others will follow of course. To deliberate further, we need to understand constraints on morality. What restricts ought is of course can. It is appropriate to point out at this juncture that given enough time and resource a Man principally can learn to overcome many barriers on his abilities. But it is a given that this time is limited and the resource not always aplenty. Thus every constraint on morality is a function of experience and congenital ability. Trivializing this at this moment to focus on the central morale of the discussion, it is intuitively clear that one should recognize his ability first to make an informed decision. This practice places at his disposal the means to comprehend the lacunae between his wants and his talents. It is then appropriate to say that the simplest means to choice is doing what one does best. This is hardly a necessity! It is a guiding principle that allows minimizing pain. And by pain I do not mean hardship or effort. By pain I mean the diseases of regret and self-pity that are the products of mistakes. Even above the natural constraints there are other more artificial ones. They are created by us according to what we desire. One can chose a lavish life over one strewn with constant effort, for he requires to derive only pleasure from it. Others may chose to derive knowledge of the world before they perish as it may be the only elixir that slakes their thirst. There is in fact nobility in the latter. For there is more meaning to a life that seeks and dies than a life that only dies. Either is worthy but the persuers of are worthier than the slackers for the residue of their life is more than the ash and dust of their bone, however evanescent their persuit be.

How does one end as essay? This is how.

Oh yeah, I've seen things like this:
http://rubberducky.org/cgi-bin/chomsky.pl

What program did you use?

>>1817035
That was fun. Are there similar simulators?

well, consciousness/soul/spiritual presence/intelligence etc are all given value as representations. i can perfectly attribute sentience to a worm, or even, a piece of rock. or, i can not do it. attribution of intelligence, given the notion already exists, is done by the body, much like recognizing a pile of sand from the particulates, or knowing a rough texture from a smooth one is done by the body. there is no greater mystery than this.

>>1817060
explain to me. I am not a lit major or philosophy major.

Please.

>>1817056
Yeah, loads. Another good one:
http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo/
There used to be the political babble generator too, but no more...

>>1817064
they are what we call "creature consciousness," consciousness as a _property of a physical being/object_

consciousness as phenomena and consciousness as mental events/instances of activity are disjointed things from the above.

>>1817066
how can you disjoin them from the material where they originate?

>>1817068
Abstraction. In the conceptual sense.

>>1817071
Ok. I am hoping that this does not go beyond that. Then it would be mysticism.

>>1817068
different logical spaces, "united" by instantiation of the attributive property on a physical object, but this instantiation is incidental.

for example, you smell a cake, that's sensory. but you also say, the cake smells sweet.
these two are linked together by a physical, causal nexus of the cake as well as your nose/olfactory system. the composition of the cake as an object with the property of smell is a part of your brain function, but there is no necessary relationship between the concepts.

absolutely no mysticism, which is probably a priori bad thinking.

>>1817068
You don't, you just perceive objects as having a quality of consciousness similar to as you possess.

>>1817075
Got it. Thanks.

>>1817075
loads of brackets and stuff needed in this post to avoid confusion. but hey, tread with care.

>>1817075
Anyway the cake lacks the olfactory nexus (function <= Form). So the body has 'more'. Same with consciousness. Rocks lack the form that generates consciousness. I could safely ignore them.

>>1817084
well. it is no less or more mystical to attribute a soul to a rock vs a body.

reserving the attribution of consciousness/intelligence to some sufficiently complex problem solving system, i'm not sure the human brain is to be modeled as a problem solving system (represented as a logical program). there is nothing right or wrong with the brain, it just is. right are wrong, t/f are matters of logic.

anyway, problem with saying "generates consciousness" is that the 'content' of what constitutes conscious is developed quite unconsciously. there is just this primitive notion of a living thing existing in the mind, much like deontic ethics exists. it may be functional in a more primitive society/environment, but there is no assurance of their continued 'consistency' once new discoveries are made.

>>1817089
I am not associating a special (mystical) place to consciousness. I take it as it is. Just the ability to know that one exists (actually sentience, if you please).

To me there is nothing mystical about the brain either. How could there be? I see it as a means (not a unique one either). I just don't see the same property evolving out of rocks or worms, for I approximately know wherefrom can sentience arise.

>>1817089
Information theory models everything as a problem solving system, it gives no special wossname to the brain.

>>1817095
>Just the ability to know that one exists (actually sentience, if you please).
That asks more questions than it answers. Well, more pretends to ask different questions when it doesn't.

Jumping for bustice.

jump

>>1817159
justice bump?

FUcking Onionring and JamesBond! Fucking talk!

bump

>>1817096
setting up the problem is in itself a significant move. much like representing the PA in a system with logical consequences is a significant move.

w/e it's probably toooooooooo complicated

james, consciousness as object and [consciousness] the sum total of experience are totally distinct. i mean, one takes itself to be the representation of the other, but the existence of this very representational system is contingent on us having this brain function of self representation.

>>1817394
i mean, represneting the brain as a problem solving system actually involves recognizing the problems. and that involves using the brain, or at any rate presenting things into a logical system.

>>1817394
Of course they are distinct. One is a real (well virtual) emergent property and the other is an abstraction of the process.

I think we need to talk. As in talk talk. I find it extremely hard to understand at times. This is most probably because our lexicons are different (I hate that).

>>1817394
we can discuss self referential arti-intelligence systems in more detail by the halting machine problem, but that for now is secret secret.

>>1817408
well, you are treating conscious experience as a thing, and also consciousness, the subject i suppose, as a thing as well. the problem is, these two things belong to different spaces, much like smell and sound

>>1817408
>>1817410

Can I be the godfather of the spawn of your sordid union?

*snores epically*

>>1817430
what.

>>1817422
Actually no. That is what I would like to explain: There is something called emergent phenomena to which you are familiar I am sure. Consciousness is an emergent property (though not necessarily so, I guess). At least human consciousness is.

>>1817447
well, i know about emergence etc but the philosophical understanding of emergence isn't all that well ordered. see sorites problem. of course, creature consciousness and its attendant 'mentalese' such as belief etc run on a distinct mental routine handling 'life-like situations.' the philosophical task here is to naturalize the operation of this system without taking away too much or adding too much mystical metaphysics.

>>1817442
In my on-going /lit/ fanfic, there's a lot of speculation that you and James Bond will have a babby!!!!

>>1817464
let me read it

actually forget it knowing the kind of puerile bile you are into

>>1817469
teehee!
It's not finiiiiiiiished!
Also it's steampunk

>>1817474
>steampunk
welllllll, if you make jamesbond a girl i can consider it

>>1817478
>if you make jamesbond a girl
shouldn't be too hard

>>1817461
Well becuase how computer science has progressed in the area of modelling intelligence and consciousness is perhaps vital to your understanding of sentience. i have a faint idea because i had the opportunity to study neural networks (nothing hardcore, just as a part of machine learning course) and some swarming behavior. It might interest you greatly. Try to get some good popular books.

>>1817479
nobody talking to you

>>1817481
okay.

>>1817478
I can go as far as tranny. I think what the story lacks is a character with a corset AND a dick.
>>1817479
I lol'd at that.
>>1817482
hey stop it.

>>1817495
meh, if i don't like your story i can just rewrite it ya know.

and don't tell me what to do

I would appreciate more discussion though about the OP than my possible love life and gender, which let me assure you is more masculine than D&E's and Vdubs combined (and that's not saying much).

>>1817535
don't get your knickers in a twist jaybee

well, for starters, can you expand on how you came to say


2) Being in a state of sentient consciousness.

>>1817541
Because just alive is not enough (philo. zombies).

>>1817542
zombies and nonzombies are equally problematic conceptions, don't you think

>>1817545
in other words...attribution of creature consciousness seems arbitrary when we have in view only the physical processes

>>1817504
Don't tell me not to tell you what to do.
>>1817535
>more masculine than Vdubby
LOL BULLSHIT

>>1817552
you can say whatever, i'm not listening

>>1817545
No. I would not if they are defined in way that distinguishes them distinctly. And they are: lack of sentience. Zombies are not conscious in terms of sentience. Which to me is not an abstract concept. I would define them as creatures the brains of which are simply performing regulation of musculature and 5 senses but not doing 'data processing' beyond a level of complexity. This is the central idea: The level of complexity. It is a numerical and real object that can be empirically determined.

>>1817559
well, complexity of processing is clearly physical. your zombie has to replicate perfectly the physical function and behavior of the 'sentient' being, remember.

>philosophical zombies

sure is platonic thinking in here btw

>>1817561
>platonic
what's the matter learned a new word

>>1817562
Except the sentience. And I claim that it is possible. Think of a person in coma except that they are able to move around. Now be careful. I am not claiming that there is such a person. But there can be.

>>1817565
What are you guys talking about in here. Dynamical, Embodied approaches to the mind and a.i. are the best approaches also

>>1817566
well, comatose seems like a physical event.

if we are talking about hypothetical worlds, as it is clearly the case with zombies, we are simply not applying this creature conscious 'fit' to zombies.


w/e too complicated

>>1817568
w/e. i'm not really interested in discovering what are the correct situations for calling something a mind.

>>1817574
Too bad. That was what I was interested in before I found out that it was trivial.

>>1817581
well, at least you realize it's trivial.

>>1817585
i mean, triviality (no fact of the matter based on what the object is) also means you can be creative with it. have imaginary friends, be childlike, enjoy fantasy but safely

>>1817585
So was fucking protein folding problem before people realized it. And I spent a fucking year on it in my undergrads.

>>1817588
i have my copy of russian fairy tales for that. No need of science.

>>1817593
tell some stories.

>>1817595
read them.

>>1817593
well, the idea is that science can only tell us how ordinary people or at any rate a control group of people under controlled conditions attribute sentience to stuffs. sentience as a property is not a real "stuff" beyond whatever physical process that goes on.

>>1817610
Are softwares real? if they are so is sentience. its almost the same thing. Not even joking.

>>1817614
well, i mean, i'm only against treating sentience as a real thing rather than a placeholder entity that may be necessary to engage with other people and systems in a particular way (such as ascribing them with feelings and so forth)

let's call this, living a human life, but then again, you don't need to learn how to live like a human, you just learn about its limits and freedoms.

>>1817627
I wouldn't using the words like Sanctity if you are thinking what I think you are thinking.

>>1817631
idk. i'm pretty tired adn need a nap. don't know what i'm thinking

>>1817648
Feelings are not any less real no matter what. In fact they are more real in the framework where sentience is physical.

But just get that nap.

>>1817650
sure sure zzzzzzz

btw of course, never said feelings are less real or illusionary, in themselves.

but i'm having a hard time coming up with a rule against this "disenchanting" move, while at the same time preserving naturalism.

i'll remember how to express it eventually.

>>1817655
It won't be difficult. Its the truth that sets us free anyway.

you were already free

(after realizing the truth)

anyway this is basically another self reference 'paradox'

>>1817664
Doubt is a terrible friend.

>>1817667
I definitely hear about it sometime soon.

bamp

MY FUCKING COCK IS HUGE. WELCOME TO COCK FANTASY WHERE THE FAGGOTS ARE LIVING IN THE LAKE.

>>1817410
I hate the halting machine problem. And that fucking omega number.

self-bump