/lit/ - Literature

>>22830972
I like science as much as the next guy but it isn't philosophy. Aside from checking philosophy when it gets outside itself I honestly fail to see the relevance of some obscure biological or physical result to philosophical questions. In the future there will perhaps be the possibility of a synthetic metaphysics that includes scientific results but philosophy is not even close to that stage yet, and frankly neither is science. We still don't have the fundamentals worked out.

>>22830981
If you can't see how semiotics is philosophy I don't know what to tell you, read any book on the subject and it's very blatant. You could say my entire post boils down to - in the 21st century we finally have a bit of an ability to merge abstract philosophy with scientific fact and it's disappointing to see it ignored.

>>22830981
we definitely know enough to start theorizing as the book I posted shows. Scientific fact is simply the basis to start theorizing new abstractions for Wheeler.

>>22830972
All those things are as useless as what you described. What do any of those things have to do with the root if reality?

>>22830985
>merge abstract philosophy with scientific fact
Guys come through with this idea every few decades. Generally it ends with a genocidal catastrophe.

>>22830994
what does attempting to merge biology, cultural studies and the nature of thought have to do with the root of reality? Really?
>Biosemiotic research is concerned with the study of signs and meaning in living organisms and systems. Its main challenge is to naturalize biological meaning and information by building on the belief that signs are fundamental, constitutive components of the living world.

I feel like you guys don't understand what semiotics actually involves. It's an incredibly abstract subject.

>>22830997
that sounds like an even better reason to read about it. If your reason for not thinking about something is fear of the outcome of such thought...you're a bitch.

>>22830999
What does materialism have to do with understanding the root of reality?
You are like a child that walks into a museum and starts smearing shit on fine art. It's not your fault, you don't know what you're doing.

>>22830972
I didn't realize the OP picture was so small here is the full title.
"The Whole Creature: Complexity, Biosemiotics and the Evolution of Culture"
It attempts to draw a line between biology, meaning and human culture.

>>22830999
Also, I know what semiotics is. Lol. Trust me.
It's an interesting concept, it is NOT and could never be a science.
Do you know what Magick is?

>>22831008
you guys spend all day discussing to death ideas that have been discussed to death for nearly a century. Move on, think of something new, there are countless ideas to contemplate today that weren't possible even 50 years ago.

>>22831003
Oh, I'm not afraid of anything. You're misunderstanding. I'd prefer it if a genocide didn't happen because idealistic dorks decide to fuck the soul out of reality once again by accident. But I don't fear it. Humans will do what they do, I'll put my two cents in and pray to our God, but I'm very aware that I'm going to die someday, so I'm not afraid of much.
Snakes freak me out.

>>22831012
So if something new that means it's good, or better, than what's old?
Sound logic.
BTW, do you think these ideas you're presenting are actually new? Lol. There's nothing new under the sun.

>>22831011
just like philosophy isn't a science, thanks for proving my point? Although again, biosemiotics is a relatively new attempt to merge science with semiotics, thats the whole point of my post.

>>22831018
if all you ever read is mainstream stuff I can see how you'd come to think there is nothing new most of the works I'm talking about are incredibly obscure. The reason they're so interesting is also part of the reason they're so obscure. It's clearly daunting to most to try and tackle ideas so far from established norms.

>>22831020
Semiotics is an inherently flawed concept in that, while it's generally true that signs inform most of humans subjective hallucinations of reality, any attempt to interpret or taxonomize these signs will always boil down to subjectivity on the part of the observer, by necessity.
So it's meaningless.
Bio-semiotics is therefore even more meaningless. It's just material reductionism.
Which leads to genocide. No question. It's a simple matter of the chain of logic.

>>22831030
lol

>>22831029
I read very, very obscure stuff.
The reason I say there's nothing new is because it's true. Every idea you can conceive has been thought of by someone else in the past.

>>22831032
Laugh all you want, you'll sleepwalk into mass murder and won't even realize it.

>>22830999
How is "biosemiotics" the same as semiotics? What real metaphysical or philosophical content has been added to semiotics after Peirce?

None of these are interesting. None of these are even philosophy. These are just social sciences. Everything is just social sciences now. That’s why everything sucks.

>>22830999
If you can’t find the flaw in this you have no business engaging with philosophy

>>22831043
Social sciences are fake and lead to genocide

>>22831034
I used to think that. It's almost like there was a wall between the mainstream and the obscure. I kept thinking most books were bland and boring and just revisions of better works and then eventually after searching for a long while I managed to find actually unique works and after that they started pouring in more and more.

>>22831051
I'm more into the study of the individual than the group.

>>22831054
You are making the mistake of thinking I'm simply ignorant of all the concepts you're talking about.
I used to study neuro-ethics, bio-ethics, I've known about transhumanism since 2011.
The books might be interesting to you, that's great. They're not presenting anything new, people were thinking about these concepts in ancient Greece.
And these concepts reduce humans to inputs in a machine and eventually lead to justifying murdering some portion of people.

>>22831066
>And these concepts reduce humans to inputs in a machine and eventually lead to justifying murdering some portion of people.
to be honest if you haven't reached the point of thinking we have way too many useless people and it's causing most problems in society you need to go outside more.

>>22831076
Bingo. We have a winner. See how fast that happened? See how infinitely correct I am about this? Thank you for your beautiful illustration. Hopefully you can reclaim your soul before you cause harm to many innocent people.

>>22831051
I agree, but that’s what these are. Think about what semiotics in a world stripped of religious reality really means.

>>22831076
> “this line of thinking leads to mass murder”
> “no, it doesn’t…mass murder is totally justified by the way”
Most self aware social scientist

>>22831082
we're already deep in a Behavioral Sink if we don't at least make it so you need a license to give birth civilization is bound to collapse this century.

>>22831083
I was agreeing with you. Just adding to your point.
>think about what semiotics in a world stopped of religiosity really means
I'm well aware. Genocidal horror. That's what I'm trying to explain to the OP.

>>22831097
if your morality leads to the death of billions how is it moral at all?

>>22831091
Behavioral sink is a fake concept. The majority of scientific concepts that have been taught to you, especially when they're applied to models designed to study humans, are entirely made up and fake.
They're made up, BTW, either by well intentioned dummies like you; or very, very evil people who know exactly what they're doing, and whom you would not believe actually exist were I to tell you what they believe in.

>>22831100
Mine doesn't. You're confusing me. My morality is against genocide and things that lead to it. I have been explaining this throughout the thread.

>>22830972
IDK how to break this to you anon but perhaps a lot of us simply find empirical science and its technological offspring to be extremely boring. I use technology every day, but it is a tool. A means. Not an end. It evokes the same level of interest in me as plumbing does, which is to say, none.

>>22831101
bullshit. you're completely detached from reality if you believe we're not seeing a behavioral sink near IDENTICAL to the rats. Ask any teacher that's been teaching for more than a decade. You will live to regret your willful ignorance.

https://www.palladiummag.com/2023/06/01/complex-systems-wont-survive-the-competence-crisis/

https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a43469569/american-iq-scores-decline-reverse-flynn-effect/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2z8XTBm_UM

>>22831097
Well, ethical ramifications aside: what you’re really talking about is some quasi-psychological social science just as a matter of fact. It’s ridiculous to talk about semiotics or anything having to do with semiotics if you exclude the possibility of religious meaning because it means you’re by default not doing philosophy. What you’re actually doing is analyzing human behaviors and thinking along strictly scientific lines. That’s a social science. Everything is social science now. And I agree with you that there are major ethical problems with the social sciences. That’s partly why everything is so fucked up now. The whole of civilization is being directed by principles of human management that are quite literally designed for social engineering and in fact not even correct. We’re engineering people to be as people would otherwise not be. Hence, fucked yo.

>>22831105
if you're not in favor of some kind of population control than we will continue down our current trajectory which is blatantly leading to extreme cultural decline and the inevitable death of billions and complete erasure of all human achievement.
Again the only way to not think this is with extreme detachment from the realities of the world.

>>22831109
That rat utopia experiment only proves that when you take a living organism and put it in a man made prison structure, as a form of torture, it has an adverse reaction.
Had he changed the conditions of the enclosure, he could have altered the course of the rats trajectory.
Big surprise.

IQ is not real BTW, it's a fake concept. Lol.

>>22831115
*at least in the western world. At this point the only hope left for humanity is Asia, Western society is crumbling.

>>22831115
If this is truly what you believe, then kill yourself.
Oh wait, you meant the other people, right?
Shameful. Shameful, shameful.
I'm aware that people are suffering from a lot of dysfunction due to the way they've been abused. Thats why i believe in helping to heal and educate them about how they've been bamboozled, as I'm attempting to do with you.

>>22831118
>IQ is not real BTW, it's a fake concept
lmao
https://hechingerreport.org/americas-reading-problem-scores-were-dropping-even-before-the-pandemic/
https://www.edweek.org/leadership/two-decades-of-progress-nearly-gone-national-math-reading-scores-hit-historic-lows/2022/10

this is just getting sad, unironically where do you live. You must avoid the public like a plague to be this unaware of these issues.

>>22831120
Where in Asia? You mean the chinks? Lol.

>>22831114
It's this simple
Men are created in the image of God, and this can never be changed. Men attempt to recreate other men in the image of themselves. The systems of pressure and control they develop, can create, for a time, the illusion that they've been successful.
But God is completely unstoppable.
:)

>>22831126
It is.
>do some puzzles
>this is your score of intelligence
How did you ever fall for this?

>>22831124
its incredibly obvious that you haven't actually tried being around or teaching these people you claim to care so much about. Everyone that has comes to conclusions similar to mine, see - literally every single public school teacher.

Ahhh sweet... an /x/ vs /sci/ schizo thread...

>>22831018
it has an aura of humility to not discuss mainstream philosophy, meaning of life, religion, will and all that. The understanding that no one has ever figured it out, people 10times smarter than you, so why would you think that you can do it.

>>22831133
I've been intimately involved with trying to do this my entire life. At one point, I was exactly like you. Then I almost killed myself based on sheer hatred. I realized then that I am human and no better or worse than anyone else, and I am capable of equivalent horrors, I am not God. You think you are God. You're not.
I am, once again, well aware that people are incredibly dysfunctional right now. I wouldn't take a stroll through Compton and start trying to hug and kiss people, bc I'll probably get killed. That doesn't change the truth about anything I've said. Just because a direct approach would not work, does not mean people are inherently bad, or suffering from "IQ deficit" or "behavioral sink," fake concepts created by people who worship Satan.
You think you're smart, and you want to get smarter. What was the apple offered to Eve, what tree did it come from?
You are not smart, you are a fool. If you accepted it, you would then be a little bit smarter.
People are not hopeless or bad or stupid. They are victims of a global system of torture. You too.
It's ironic because you describe the "other people" as being hopeless for their bad behavior, their violence, their dysfunction; but you, from my vantage point, are just like they are.
People who don't realize what's been done to them, and why.

>>22831146
If you realize you can never figure it out; then you figured something out. You figured out the only thing that matters. You dig

>>22831129
I’m not going to debate whether man is or isn’t made in the image of God, but I will 100% agree that a conception of what man is contains certain implications for everything else. The problem so to speak of strictly scientific thinking is that there’s no angle with which one can take where man has inherent dignity which can and must be respected. Hence, the problem you’re talking about. The view of the social scientist is one where some men are more perfected (via education) animals and the rest are less perfected. There’s no logical reason for them why the less perfected should not simply be exterminated should they be unable to be educated into perfection. And we’re starting to see that sort of thinking leak more and more into bourgeois political discourse, and it’s also why attempts have shifted from socially engineering, for example, blacks into people obey the law and into socially engineering the law and the society that constructs itself. Once you see this, it’s impossible to unsee. Augusto del Noce was unironically right and the results are an unmitigated disaster.

>>22831115
Define “human achievement”.

>>22831148
the only reason I think this way is because I once thought like you and spent many years trying to help people be better. I spent years trying to befriend everyone I possibly could and ended up with so many relationships I could barely take a nap without multiple people trying to talk to me. Thats how I know there's no hope for the average man of today. The majority are selfish beyond measure, immoral to the extreme and quite literally pride themselves on their ignorance. I've had a group of STEM degreed individuals including one with a PhD in chemistry dismiss all philosophy as "pointless drivel for burnouts" and they're on the better side of the spectrum.
I'm not saying it's not possible to have a functional society but there needs to be some sort of control, in history that was religion and the fact that mistakes lead to early death.

>>22831160
The impulse for control always leads to disaster precisely because it confuses leadership for control. Leaders don’t control. They don’t even have to control. You’re literally the underground man and you don’t even realize it.

>>22831157
technology, we're already rapidly losing abilities we had in the middle of the 20th century. Most systems today are maintained by old men and are failing more and more. When those men die there won't be anyone left to actually fix these issues.
https://www.palladiummag.com/2023/06/01/complex-systems-wont-survive-the-competence-crisis/

>>22831169
you can easily draw a connection between mid 20th century academic thought and the problems of today. Of course thought leaders shape the world. If you don't agree with that I don't even know what to say.

>>22831155
>I’m not going to debate whether man is or isn’t made in the image of God, but I will 100% agree that a conception of what man is contains certain implications for everything else. The problem so to speak of strictly scientific thinking is that there’s no angle with which one can take where man has inherent dignity which can and must be respected.
Yes, exactly, causes generate effects. But I'll put it this way. If we follow your logic here, the only way to promote human dignity, and the sanctity of each life, is to believe it has a connection to a power higher than ourselves. Every child is born wanting to live, and with no desire to harm. People never actually lose this; they can convince themselves that they have, through resentment, but they never actually do, which is why people who decide to kill, always suffer deeply and basically go insane.
Since that's all the case, if there is only one conception of reality that promotes the most universally sought after Good, it means that's the truth. Life really does have sanctity, because it really was created by God. If it weren't true, then alternative frameworks would produce the Good result, but they don't.

>>22831170
Good, I can't wait for the system to collapse.

>>22831170
Why should technology be considered a human achievement? In my mind, it’s just a tool that can be used for good or used for bad and even when used for good cause negative externalities and is not necessarily an achievement in itself. So go ahead and justify that for me.

>>22831181
then you can't wait for most of human achievement to be wiped clean.

>>22831174
Actually, I’m drawing the connection between today’s problems and the enlightenment. If you actually go and read the more well-known thinkers like Locke, Bacon, Hume, Roussea, eventually you find bits and pieces that just shock you because you think “Oh, here it is. Here is the seed of our problems.” The real problem with the enlightenment is not just that it refused to grapple with religious questions. It’s that it tried to construct a cosmology in place of religion, and that’s had disastrous results for human life as it’s been lived out through the centuries. So in my mind, 20th century though it mainly a natural proceeding from or reaction to what preceded that. But the thing is, I don’t actually agree that thought leaders change the world. Actions change the world. But actions are guided by will and if what is willed aligns more or less with said thought, well then thought may as well guide the world.

>>22831160
You gave up and gave in. Thats all. I'm nit judging you for it. I've been there.
Then I came back.

No control is necessary. Control is the root of the cancer.
What is needed, is wisdom, and then love. I would have just said love, but you'd say "you can't just love people and have them suddenly be good," which is true. Like I said, if I try to hug and kiss people in Compton today, I'll probably get shot.
People need to realize the truth first, which then allows love to spread itself, naturally. Our natural state is love.
The opposite of control, is love.
As for promoting wisdom; God is the one who ultimately makes people wake up, each in their own way. You and I cannot force anyone awake. But we can tell the truth as it has been revealed to us, and thus through us. Some will hear and others won't, because again, God changes their hearts, not me or you. But it is incumbent upon men who God has helped, to try and pay it forward. Humility enables you to accept their sins, with mercy, and avoid forcing ideas on to anyone. Forcing, just makes people reject you, and reject the truth. If you say the truth to someone whom God has deemed ready to hear it, you help to spread wisdom and thus love. This is the only real good you can do on Earth.
Help others, whenever possible, and if they seem receptive, tell them this truth. If they don't seem receptive or give hostile resistance, smile and silence yourself. God is not done with them.

>>22831176
I don’t consider myself a Christian of any denomination but I agree completely with the Christian take on this so I don’t disagree with anything you said. A world where man is made in God’s image does imbue man with dignity that is necessarily lived out. I personally think the Middle Ages was a high point.

>>22831187
What human achievement? Mass industrialization? Get a grip.

>>22831187
Look around you, my friend. The world is filled with People of Wal-Mart. Has the human ever suffered so much as it does right now? I think not.

>>22831196
idealism isn't going to fix the problems of today. You can love a group of mentally ill people all you want but if you don't control them they will harm themselves and others.
Again if you think you can spread wisdom in Western society today I have to question if you're even engaging with reality.

Tell me right now what you think we should do about the reverse Flynn effect and the problems that arise from what every public school teacher is seeing on a daily basis - extreme decline in intelligence.

If you let the mentally ill do whatever they want then you're being cruel.

>>22831192
Earlier, I asked OP if he knew what Magick was. He did not answer.
What you've written here...
Magick is very simple, all true philosophy leads to Magick, Magick is the root of reality. Love Healing God Magick.
It's very simple: you have an unconscious mind that competes for the attention of your conscious mind. You try to use your will to consciously direct your attention, and are constantly fighting your unconscious minds attempts to redirect your will toward something else. This means that parts of yourself come from a part of you that you cannot, will not and do not understand or know a single thing about. The abyss of yourself. This means reality is a mystery that cannot be comprehended.
The more conscious you are, of your unconsciousness's attempts to hijack your mind, the more power you have to consciously direct your will.
In other words, there's a part of you that is always trying drive you away from what you intend or wish to be, and if you take hold of it and intervene; you'll never eliminate it, but you can't avoid its most evil manifestations, and be less deceived by external influences.
This is Magick. The thing that helps you avoid caving to the abyss, is God, the rightful King of your Mind.

>>22831215
>idealism isn't going to fix the problems of today.
Idealism is all there is. Your OP is promoting a form of idealism.

>>22831187
You know, technology has done a great many things. It’s also done more to reduce the human to a creature plagued by obesity, unthinkingness, chronic illness, and general uselessness. This man knows nothing, thinks about nothing, does nothing, not of any real significance anyway. The most industrialized nations of the world are filled with people that spend their days mindlessly operating software and mindlessly watching or listening to content. Their fuel for it is a combination literally not real food and psychoactive drugs. Furthermore, we are constantly teetering on the edge of economic precarity, not to mention precarity of industrial warfare. The threat of nuclear annihilation, uncontrollable biological apocalypse, immense suffering as the result of chemical attacks, obviously mass killing events , all of these are constantly lurking in the background producing immense anxiety and possibly the real threat of extinction.

The world that technology has produced is mostly a horror show…

>>22831224
you're defending letting the mentally ill roam free without restrictions. This is cruelty.

>>22831217
I mean, I agree. This is what brought me to accept a religious viewpoint more or less. I went from science to what could be called the occult to religion. You’re right. I totally agree.

>>22831215
>Tell me right now what you think we should do about the reverse Flynn effect and the problems that arise from what every public school teacher is seeing on a daily basis - extreme decline in intelligence.
First, we should think about what intelligence even is. As defined by IQ, it's the ability to meaningfully interface with technologically advanced society. Is that really intelligence? A matter of debate, but for my part, no, I think it's something else entirely.
Secondly, how would I "fix" people, reverse the "Flynn effect" and all that? By doing my part to redirect people's attention back to God, which then redirects it back to being conscious vs unconscious, and thus redirects it back toward love. Love covers all wrongs.
The reason the schools are a mess isn't due to lack of ability. It's lack of meaningful incentive. I am extremely intelligent, according to your own definition of intelligence, and achieved a 1.5 GPA by the time I graduated. Do you know why? Because I had no interest in participating in bullshit, and neither do today's kids, especially the descendants of the African-American slaves, and the descendants of the indigenous colonial chattel from around the world. They're REALLY not interested. Can you guess why?
Do you think it's because they're stupid?

>>22831230
I know I'm right but not because I'm so smart and figured anything out. It's because God slapped the fuck out of me, then kissed it better because he loves me.
Thats probably what happened to you too, if you think deeply enough about it.

>>22831229
What causes mental illness?
And why are there no cures?

>>22831232
Big mistake. These people consider academic achievement the gold standard for human intellectual performance (because Denoso Cortes was right). Your admission of getting a low GPA totally destroyed your credibility in his eyes.

>>22831232
you're blatantly denying the realities of today. I see no reason to keep talking to you if you're going to deny reality and substitute your own. You've clearly never actually engaged with the average person and explicitly deny the experiences of teachers - those with the most knowledge on the subject.
You will live to regret your denial.

>>22831241
I do not care. I am trying to destroy his eyes so God can open them back up.

>>22831237
Maybe. But sometimes I think Calvin was really right…

That’s a different conversation though.

>>22831232
Yea I graduated with a 1.5 GPA too after skipping 50% of my classes senior year because there was no reason to sit in class when passing the test required nothing more than flipping through a study guide the night before.
Now I'm a heroin addict lol. You're still wrong.

>>22831244
My mother is a teacher.
Throughout this thread, you have assumed so many things about me, that wound up being the opposite, in truth, of my experience. This is because to keep justifying what you believe in, you NEED to believe I'm simply ignorant. Otherwise, your perspective collapses.
And even if I were wrong, I'd still say all this. I don't care about being correct (correct? Lmao what?), I care about maintaining the integrity of what's left of my soul.
If you ever see them killing people because of what you believe in, you'll be horrified. Because you are human.

Muh science is good:

https://youtu.be/Ipbc-6IvMQI?si=-DZAoEMkHvfrnJLg

Btw that one scientist defending DDT sounds like a literal vampire. Makes Vincent Price sound angelic.

>>22831253
I'm not a heroin addict. I'm sorry you made such a terrible mistake and I hope you can find a way to stop.
Do not project your mistakes on to me, I've made plenty of my own.

>>22831254
>>22831258
you've made it quite clear that you see no problem with leaving people to their own devices when that ensures extreme amounts of suffering.

>>22831217
>>22831230
Magick is trash, and there is no God.
However, priority cosmopsychism may be true.
>>22831249
>Calvin was really righ
Kys.

>>22831249
I think Calvin was wrong; but here's why this reply >>22831244
Is so foolish.
Anon thinks if the result of your beliefs is that people misunderstand and kill you, it means they are wrong, or you've denied reality, or you failed.
The world killed Jesus Christ. I'm well aware that loving the world as hard as you can often means you get killed by it. That doesn't change truth. Jesus was no less correct because he was murdered; and he was definitely no less effective.
Perfection is impossible, unless God wills it, but balance always is.

All of you are retarded pseudointellectual garbage trash.

>>22831263
Where did I say that? I said I believe in actively loving people. Emphasis on the active part.
>>22831267
Magick is the closest thing to objective truth that exists in reality, and God is more real than reality is.

>>22831258
don't be sorry. I spent half a decade in so much pain I never slept more than an hour a night from the pain of a birth defect and doctors refused any treatment besides unproven surgeries like shoving a metal rod in my back.
Heroin improved my quality of life drastically but I've always been a drug nerd so I use it in a more calculated way than the average person.

>>22831274
Stfu, Freemasonic edgelord faggot.
Magick is precisely why the modern world is trash.
You can't separate genuine metaphysical discussion from your mental illness induced by theistic upbringing.

>>22831274
I asked you what you want to do about the extreme intelligence decline and you started spewing sophistry about how we're just not measuring it right. This bullshit ensure extreme suffering for the common man.

>>22831280
Heroin is not good for you even if you believe it is. You do you, but I hope you can get off of it, as it is killing you. However, it's not my role to be your father. I simply wish you the best.

>>22831282
I am not a freemason, freemasons believe in waging a war against God.
Magick isn't why the world is trash, Magick is entirely neutral. It is how it is used, or misused; and since most people don't even know what it is, they misuse it.

>>22831288
opioids are one of the least toxic substances ever. Having a few beers during the week is dramatically more harmful than diamorphine.

>>22831287
I did not say that, not exactly. I did say that the way we define intelligence has serious problems, that's true. But my point to you was that the people you think lack intelligence, actually dont; they lack motivation. And rightfully so.
What is in supposed decline, is "IQ," which I'll remind you, is not intelligence, and is not even a real concept.
Once again
>do some puzzles
>I will time you
>here is your smart person score
How did you ever fall for this?

>>22831292
That's not true in the slightest, but again, I'm not your father and i cant control you. I wish you the best, and send you my love.

>>22831298
IQ is literally a measurement of your ability to think abstractly. You sound like a teenage atheist who just learned about critique.

>>22831304
lol, now I know you're dumb. All those chronic pain patients suffering from the consequences of decades of opioid use should have just drank alcohol to dull the pain like we used to do they'd be much better off...

>>22830972
>bio-semiotics and linguistics and media theory and narratology, ethnography and transhumanist theory, cybernetics, and all the interesting things
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>>22831290
Freemasons also practice magick as delineated in the Kaballah. America was established based on such magickal principles, hence Clark's expedition had 33 members. Lots of subtle hints like that. Kaballah is the main text of Freemason and directly led to modern magick practices.
>Magick isn't why the world is trash, Magick is entirely neutral.
I disagree.

I consider something like "Shikantaza" or mudita as directly opposed to magick and better overall. Magick is based on the blackness of ambition and also led to the creation of empirical science.

Also, I think this ties into the fine distinction between philosophical idealism and panpsychism. The latter is primary whereas the former is supplemental, I would argue. Magick makes man the Heraclitean center of the Universe whereas mindfulness meditation makes a man a part of the Universe, not superior or inferior to it.

For example, I was able to easily deduce Leibniz was a Freemason just now based on the complex topic I am trying to convey.

>>22831307
No it isn't. You've been bamboozled. It's a measure of your ability to interact effectively with concepts necessary to engaging with technology. Thats not intelligence.
Homeless, illiterate bums, spend most of their day thinking abstractly about things. Some of the most aware men I've ever met, were missing teeth and couldn't stop drinking.
Awareness doesn't necessarily mean one applies any of it, and the ability to interact with technology at a high level, isn't a measure of capacity for abstract thought, or of intelligence.

>>22830972
Read this anon

>>22831313
However, magick does ultimately self-destroy itself in that it will wind up giving rise to something that renders man obsolete.

>>22830972
>woman
and into the thrash it goed

>>22831322
autistic women are just as capable as autistic men.

>>22831318
looks cool, I will.

>>22831310
They're both bad. Sobriety is king.
I meant that opioids are extremely addictive and harmful, you're wrong about that. But then again, it's not worth arguing: you won't listen, I already realize that.
Once again, I love you and wish you the best.
>>22831313
You are preaching to the choir in the sense that you're not telling me things I don't know, but here's the difference: they practice a form of Magick, that's true. When I said Magick, conceptually, is neutral, I meant its inescapable. You are constantly doing Magick. You are doing Magick right now, as you speak with me. You have no other option.
What masons do, is dark Magick; conscious application of the will towards total control of others, and of the external world. They will destroy themselves in the process.
Light Magick is about giving people greater agency through healing, love, and wisdom, if they are willing and able to receive it; that last part is tricky because again, you cannot force it, God chooses the timing.

>>22830972
I can't even find this book on Amazon, but I did read a nice book detailing biosemiotics recently.

>>22831329
yea I had to get it off Abe Books, the best books are the most obscure. I found it relatively cheap but it looks like all they have for it now used is going for around $20 with everything included.

>>22830972
NEUROESTHETICS! MICHAEL TOMASELLOOOOOO!

I do fucking read this shit, but I can't talk about it because I've only just started and I'm still too fucking retarded okay?!?!?!??!?

>>22831327
I wish you and those like you just enough suffering to realize the error of your ways before its too late for humanity.

>>22831327
>What masons do, is dark Magick; conscious application of the will towards total control of others, and of the external world. They will destroy themselves in the process.
is this actually all this "mason" shit ever was? A more sophisticated form of manifestation?

>>22830972
I've been deeply engaged in exploring the dichotomy between life and mechanism, pondering their potential convergence or divergence. This exploration was sparked by Predrag Slijepčević's compelling arguments in "Biocivilizations," where he posits life as an emergent, distinct entity, separate from mechanical processes. In stark contrast, David Skrbina's "Metaphysics of Technology" advocates a panpsychist viewpoint, suggesting that everything, including mechanisms, is part of a universal 'Logos.' These differing perspectives have left me pondering: which viewpoint resonates more with you? Do you see life as a unique emergence beyond mechanism, or as an integral part of a panpsychist universe?

I find this present question more pressing than Traditionalist LARPing.

>>22831160
I just reread this. I am not trying to agitate you or be too verbose, but I care about you and am invested in this conversation.
This part:
> I spent years trying to befriend everyone I possibly could and ended up with so many relationships I could barely take a nap without multiple people trying to talk to me. Thats how I know there's no hope for the average man of today. The majority are selfish beyond measure, immoral to the extreme and quite literally pride themselves on their ignorance.
I understand what you mean about this type of burnout, in my youth, I was similar. It causes resentment as you see what people are, but you must realize, you were trying to be God, and once you realized you could not be, could not force a reality upon people, it broke your heart and made you think it's impossible, or that people are shit, or whatever.
But the truth is, you are in some ways, and have the capacity to be in others, this same way as everyone else. You are selfish, you are ignorant. You do some things that have annoyed the people who care about you, for years, shitty traits embedded in your personality that others may have even hinted to you about and you did not even notice. This is true for all people. Even the people you love the most, I guarantee you you can think of one thing they do that irritates you. But because you love them, you take the good with the bad and nurture the good.
I'm not saying it to insult you, it's true for me too and for everyone else. It's part of the condition of being human. The point being; you probably do have a lot of potential and are very aware, and were/are well-intentioned, but you went about it the wrong way, and God is the missing piece. I am not saying get down on your knees and start praising Jesus and holy water etc. If it helps, do it, but God is real beyond religion and the point of acknowledging him is to keep you patient, humble, accepting, forgiving and thus loving. I'm not saying be so loving you get killed, that's what got you into trouble in the first place. I'm saying always keep your mind on God so you don't endorse harmful concepts, or go about your good intentions in the wrong way. Because you don't, you've been goosestepped into searching for the answers in ideas that elevate your narcissism, and reduce your empathy for your fellow man.
Every one of whom is just like you at their core, the same things that broke you, broke them, we break one another, so who's to blame?

>>22830972
My problem with modern philosophy is that its very dificult to select the diamond from the trash
Not only because there are so much philosophers alive so the output is volumous, but because after Marxism and post modernism confusion has multiplied
Post modern bullshit with sprinkles of class struggle became the de facto language of academia (outside of analytic philo which is just the autistic containment field)
Most of the philosophy post WWII that Ive read, and increasingly so as the years pass, sounds to me like a failed poet using philosophy as pretext to push it down our throats their bullshit ideas and metaphors. It comes off as masturbatory and sterile. No regard for anything
The original post modernists at least had a classical foundation, but as generations go by it seems like it trickled down in a very diluted form

>>22831340
I will bite. Can you explain what it is in the concepts I've written that make you feel as though I am promoting harmful ideas?
>>22831354
In his letters to Mazzini, Albert Pike said the goal of Masonry's project is to destroy the various religions and reveal the pure doctrine of Lucifer to the public for the first time.
In various other writings, I have seen them talk about Adonai, as a sort of enemy. Adonai is God from the Bible.
Now, I believe in the real God, the Creator. The Bible is a very great book, but even if I'd never read it I would believe in the Creator, and I'd have a conscience. The reason various religions exist is because men have been dwelling on this for thousands of years, all over the world as it is a universal concept. Even the polytheistic doctrines had reference back to an essential realm from which even the gods sprang.
So it appears their goal is to manifest the will of Lucifer in the collective spirit of man.

>>22831363
finally people showing up to discuss my actual topic, yay. The classic discussion of vitalism is indeed one of most interesting questions and today we finally have the ability to study it in a physical way.
I don't have a definite idea of how it works because there seems to be evidence for both being true. At the very least there is a tipping point in intelligence where gains sentience.
I don't have a picture of it saved but there is a reddit post that shows up every now and then in discussions on NPCs. It's someone posting about waking up, I believe they started seeing people talk about the NPC meme and suddenly they "awoke". They describe an incredibly visceral feeling of going from living life on "auto-pilot" to suddenly gaining an internal monologue and with it self-awareness. They go on to describe how they cannot help but consider every moment in their life up to that point as if they were in a dream, going through the motions and completely unconscious in a way.
Personally I am acutely of my own existence and I cannot help but attribute it to trauma. My childhood experiences made me very quickly adapt a hyper-awareness of my own thought and relationship with the world because if I didn't I would keep getting hurt.
But this clearly isn't the only way to develop consciousness. At the very least it seems as if it's a spectrum. I wonder if there is a greater level beyond the internal monologue. If you there is a spectrum from living on auto-pilot all the way up to presumably being so hyper aware that you have clinical anxiety (or is social anxiety possible on auto-pilot?) it makes me wonder if there is a further state beyond this, some kind of Hyper-Consciousness?

>>22831389
everything you've said disagrees with the idea that humans are degenerating. If you disagree with that then we can't even begin fixing the problem. If we don't fix the problem there will be untold suffering.

>>22831363
Panpsychism.

>>22831392
I was asking an actual philosophical question. Not that BS about memes, NPCs, etc.
I honestly am starting to 4chan and Reddit are worse than heroin.

>>22831384
>It comes off as masturbatory and sterile.
exactly thats why I got into what the others in this thread refer to social science thought but as I said earlier I think it's much more interesting when these "social" sciences study the self more than the group. Science and thought on the individual and it's possibilities.

>>22831396
I don't believe they're degenerating, because it implies a standard of perfection or quality. I DO believe they are suffering deeply, and that this makes life increasingly gloomy. If I believe they're degenerating, I believe they need to fixed or solved. And I'm petrified, afraid. If I believe they are suffering, I instead feel empathy, and if I apply reason to my empathy; I can think more about the root of all of our unnecessary suffering, and less about how to whip people into shape.
I would argue to you that your perception will not enable you to even begin fixing the problem, so to speak.
Although, I suspect you do love people and are again, confused or afraid, so by degenerating, you probably, somewhere in there, actually meant something closer to suffering.
You will not fix them that way, I guarantee it. It will be a catastrophe.

>>22831400
If you don't see the relevance of a case report of someone gaining sentience and waking up from a life without it to your question you're not as bright as you think. It's pretty fucking blatant. Vitalism is an idea that goes back thousands of years

>>22831392
That's called narcissism. You really are a very silly goose, you know it my friend?
He was simply asking you what your perspective on how matter that can be called "alive" differs from matter that we don't call alive, and if there is a difference at all, whether it emerged as part of an essential system of wholly interrelated processes, or if it evolved as distinct from the set of processes that generate matter which we do not call living. Basically, whether there is a difference in the phenomenological essence of how beings like you and I originated versus, say, sticks and stones, or if it is all part of the same essential system of processes.
Although, I don't want to put words in his mouth.
>>22831400
Am I hitting the mark?

>>22831423
>>22831392
read this

>>22831429
OK I will check it out.

>>22831423
>>22831363
so Vitalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitalism..
At some point you have to consider consciousness in the equation though and also the intention of life. A post-Darwinism if you will.

>>22831415
Literal bees are fucking sentient. New research is revealing they have remarkable cognitive abilities: "[They] are profoundly smart, have distinct personalities, can recognize flowers and human faces, exhibit basic emotions, count, use simple tools, solve problems, and learn by observing others."

Having an internal monologue is not a prerequisite for having a rich umwelt, of thinking and feeling. Qualia is not dependent on endlessly narrating to oneself.

Just like your retarded Christcuck abomination of a tradition, you can only think in terms of a humanist lens.

At this point, I'm willing to embrace the evolution of advanced cyborgs and robots if it means the death of Abrahamism. You may have an internal monologue, but it's like the Voynich manuscript and a "hunting after the snark". Nonsense. It would have been better if your mind were silent and relied moreso on images, so you wouldn't spew your nonsensical babble everywhere.

4chan and Reddit are worse than heroin.

>>22831429
OK I am about two pages in. At the risk of projection, I am feeling now like, if I'm correct about where the author is going with this; then this author is brilliant, and this is a mighty, mighty book.
I'll keep reading. But the part about "all those ifs," brilliant.

>>22831440
Are you also aiming this at me, because I'm the one who's been talking about Magick and God, and I'm not the anon you're replying to here. I'm pretty sure that's the OP.
My belief in God is not based explicitly in Abrahamism; but I believe that the animals are also sentient, so why are you aiming that at me, you're not telling me something I don't realize.
Albeit, I eat meat, so perhaps I am hypocritical in some way, but I acknowledge this reality. I know animals are not scripted beings.

>>22831453
yea it's probably the most relevant work to the question asked, I haven't started reading it yet but it's next on my list of non-fiction. It's exactly the kind of incredibly interesting yet incredibly obscure work I made this thread to promote. We finally have the tools to start merging science and philosophy and I wish this board would acknowledge this more.

>>22831474
>>22831453
actually, I'm gonna start it right now. We can read it together, in spirit.

>>22831466
Yeah, I apologize for getting you two confused. You're smarter than that moron.

>>22831488
you read this too
>>22831429

>>22831318
I used to think Jay Dyer was smart, but I think he’s a clown now. The guy basically destroyed his reputation with his own YouTube channel. He probably could’ve been a serious philosopher and apologist and actually led Westerners to Orthodoxy if he had taken a different path. Instead, he’s just a kind of minor YouTube eCeleb debater and conspiracy theorist.

>>22831290
Magick can’t be neutral. Either you’re working with the will of God or yourself. Neither are ever neutral. You will, just as a matter of fact.

>>22831269
This reminds of the dialogue between Jesus and Pilate where Jesus says he is the Truth and Pilate asks what truth even is. The point, I guess, is that Pilate, who ultimately killed Christ, doesn’t have some alternative truth. He doesn’t have any truth at all.

>>22831488
My friend, I am no smarter than a box of rocks! But I understand what you mean and I appreciate the sentiment. Thank you.
I do believe I know where this book is heading, and again, the author is brilliant. Thank you for recommending it to me.
Do be nice to our buddy here. He's not evil. He's just very heartbroken and confused by things he concepts he thinks are real, but aren't. I used to too, and I was a monster. An absolute monster. When I'm not careful, I still am. If there is hope for me, there is hope for him; that's really all there is. My love to you

>>22831504
When I say neutral, I mean inevitable. What Magick actually is, separated from humanity, is totally neutral. What does Magick know about good and evil? Magick is a logic that informs a process, abstractions like this are neutral. We aren't neutral, you're damn right about that; but it's not the Magick, it's how we use it. It's us.

>>22830985
>in the 21st century we finally have a bit of an ability to merge abstract philosophy with scientific fact and it's disappointing to see it ignored
Define merge. Typically whenever there’s an intersection of science and philosophy, it’s always as a relation of dependence, eg. philosophy of science or philosophy as first science, but never in a way which allows each mode of enquiry its own distinct identity. >>22830997 isn’t wrong - submission of philosophy to science leads to things like eugenics, and submission of science to philosophy leads to a totalitarian regime. I agree that we should be talking about these things however.

>>22831511
that's not the person who recommended it to you. OP is (me)

>>22831522
I agree that we should talk about them too; just because I'm challenging him doesn't mean I don't think he shouldn't speak. I'm glad he did

>>22831527
It seems like a strange book for you to recommend given your framing of ideas throughout this conversation, and your characterization of mankind as needing...quality control

>>22831495
Yeah, I've always found crystals interesting. The idea that crystals in mud may have been the precursor to life is interesting.
I think cellular life originated from endosymbiosis between a bacteria devouring another bacteria or virus though (endosymbiosis), but before then, I can believe it was some kind of unique mineral process.

>>22831535
I think life emerged as a thought. And I think this book will wind up saying that, or better yet, implying it. I'll see though. I've been wrong many times in my life.

>>22831522
again - this board discusses philosophy from over a century ago, a time where the mechanics of the universe and life and humanity weren't even 1% as understood as they are today. Philosophy is about taking what you know is true and extrapolating to the extreme and abstract on it but we know so much more than we did when Kant and Hegel and all the other commonly discussed authors here knew. It seems like a massive waste to not want to take all that we've gained in the last ~50 years and contemplate on it and discover new avenues of thought. like biosemiotics and
>>22831429
this book do. there is so much room for new ideas in philosophy that stem from new scientific understanding yet most here are content to never move past thought centuries ago. if everyone was like many on /lit/ we never would have gotten Kant and Hegel to begin with. They too were thinking on the newest information and joining it with older ideas to produce new avenues of thought

>>22831502
>conspiracy theorist
Everything he talks about is true though.

>>22831574
Anyone using conspiracy theorist in a derogatory way is pretty dumb. you gotta be a special kind of stupid to not theorize on conspiracies in a world where Jeffrey Epstein exists and the Gulf of Tonkin incident happened. imagine not wanting to theorize conspiracies because a government that conspires new tragedies every decade told you not to.

>>22831502
>He probably could’ve been a serious
This board's obsession with being seen as "serious" (in other words, going along with whatever the establishment says and never questioning anything) is why you are so insufferable and boring.

>>22830972
Science doesn't explain shite, it's a tool in the toolbox, just a one way to describe things.

>>22831540
>I think life emerged as a thought.
That doesn't make a lick of sense... and the book is obviously not arguing that. The book you recommended is a theory of angiogenesis rooted in clay crystals.

Anyways, I am starting to feel more convicted in panpsychism. Philosophical idealism is baloney. Most of the older Greek philosophers were panpsychists, not idealists. This is a good book but a tough read.

*dance through this thread while stupid plebs busy with their stuff*

>>22831601
lol, it's funny you both think the other posted the book OP actually did.

>>22831601
You said you haven't finished the book either yet, right? I am talking about Seven Clues to the Origin of Life.

>>22831618
Yeah that is pretty funny. Lol

>>22831592
OP here, I agree completely. the extreme subservience to traditional norms here has become exhausting to try and converse with. God forbid someone try to talk about something new without couching it in the same endlessly discussed framework as everyone else.

>>22831627
Nothing is new

>>22831619
The Seven Clues to the Origin of Life presents a theory of abiogenesis rooted in clay crystals. I did some research about it. It is a theoretical science book. It's not going to argue "life emerged as a thought". That's a bit more reminiscent of German idealism. You are obviously not going to come across such claims in that book.

>>22831630
But you haven't finished it yet right?

>>22831634
You get a sense for these things after reading a bit.
If you think "life emerged as a thought", then you're better off reading the German idealists or other similar idealists. You are in all likelihood not going to find such a claim from that book, since it begins from a set of different assumptions. It's a book arguing a theory of abiogenesis from clay crystals.

>>22831643
OK glad to know you haven't finished it yet. I'll reconvene later :)

"Life emerged as a thought" is philosophical idealism. I don't agree with it, but it is a respectable position. I am a panpsychist. Panpsychists argue mind or experiential content is concurrent with material processes; that is, "mind permeates all phenomena". Of course, more complex cognitive faculties like metacognition are a consequence of greater complexification of various processes.

I think Alfred Whitehead was closer to the truth than, say, Immanuel Kant or Schelling.

Whitehead was a panexperientialist, which is a type of panpsychism.

>>22831215
>school teachers see intelligence in decline
>dont think it is because they are bad teachers

>>22831672
I fail to see a qualitative difference between the two positions.

>>22831674
it's getting really disturbing just how much people would rather deny reality than try to address issues. Teachers who've been teaching for decades are all saying the same thing.
How is it this difficult to accept that children being parented by iPads and living in a world thats increasingly designed for the lowest common denominator and nothing more will see intelligence decline. It should be obvious even without all the empirical data proving it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2z8XTBm_UM
you can't raise a generation on videos like this and not see consequences.

>>22831574
That’s besides the point because we all know conspiracy YouTube is low brow trash. The guy has the keys to the kingdom apparently and he uses it to…talk to comedians and Alex Jones. I mean, what would the Church Fathers think? It’s one thing to acknowledge these things. It’s another to build this online grift centered around them and it is a grift. Don’t make a mistake. He openly talks about it being a business. It’s not a calling of faith.

>>22831592
You only think that because you’re young. When you’re older, you realize that if you don’t take things seriously then you’re just a joke. Life is serious. The guy is a Christian. What could be more serious that apologetics? Instead, he reduces himself to jokey little performances. Serious people doing serious things that actually matter don’t do that, or shouldn’t do that. Not saying the guy has to become a priest and be all stern all the time, but if you’re doing more comedy and conspiracy stuff that philosophy and theology stuff, you’re a joke that succumbed to clown world. That’s all. Eventually you get to a point where if you believe in something for real, you have to take it seriously and your life seriously in relation to that and pursue it seriously with rigor.

>>22831689
There is a qualitative difference.

Panpsychism asserts that mind or consciousness is a fundamental feature of all physical entities, coexisting with material processes, while idealism posits that reality is fundamentally mental or experiential, with the material world being a manifestation or by-product of the mind.

>>22831702
I never denied to you that they're observing effects that seem bad. I was disagreeing with you on the nature of their origin.

>>22831709
which is why I pointed out the most conclusive evidence of this is the overwhelming reports from teachers that have been teaching for decades. We didn't see a decline start until ~2013 - when internet connected phones became common
So your wrong. But again this already so blatant that even needing this explained to you is incredibly troubling. The amount of denial it must take to ignore the massive systemic issues of everything and everyone being dumbed down is extraordinary.

>>22831559
>this board discusses philosophy from over a century ago
Where do you think you are? This is a website for weebs, not academics. Of course the majority of people aren’t going to be reading the most cutting-edge philosophy. I’ve made a couple threads about pic related (modern phil written by a physicist) to little or no attention, but what can you do? Let people gain a foundational knowledge first.

>>22831708
Again, what is the difference?

>>22831728
That's not true. There's been a general decline in educational standards and performance going on since the 1960s, in the aggregate. In the 1980s it really picked up steam.

>>22831559
If you think we understand anything without grappling with fundamental conceptions of knowledge, language, etc. then you’re so far out in left field that it’s actually sad. We don’t understand anything. We assume we understand a lot about the natural world and ourselves, without even really know what it means to understand or how you can do it.

>>22831731
I just told you in one sentence.
Reality is not a manifestation, projection, or byproduct of the mind.

>>22831734
I already linked multiple studies and articles showing a massive drop off in the last decade but here they are again, just for you. Why are you so against the idea that we have a problem with declining intelligence. This shouldn't be a controversial topic we need to fix this shit ASAP.

https://www.edweek.org/leadership/two-decades-of-progress-nearly-gone-national-math-reading-scores-hit-historic-lows/2022/10

https://www.edweek.org/leadership/two-decades-of-progress-nearly-gone-national-math-reading-scores-hit-historic-lows/2022/10

https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a43469569/american-iq-scores-decline-reverse-flynn-effect/

>>22831736
Sophistry and not just sophistry but sophistry with the intent to silence discourse. How disgusting.

>>22831747
I have never disputed the notion that what you perceive as markers of intelligence have been on precipitous decline for decades and its accelerated as time has gone on. What I am disagreeing with you about is the source. So at this point, you're just talking to yourself dawg.

>>22831734
>>22831747
meant to link this one too
https://hechingerreport.org/americas-reading-problem-scores-were-dropping-even-before-the-pandemic/
you will live to regret ignoring this

>>22831754
Intellectually cowardly reply honestly. I expected better but shouldn’t have. Also an ironic reply as well, but I expected that.

>>22831771
Who's ignoring anything man? For the 900th time: I acknowledge all this. We disagree about the root cause.

>>22831766
you tried to argue it's been dropping since the 60's/80's, I linked empirical data proving the most egregious drop off began much more recently than that. It's clear you're just being willfully ignorant of the facts at this point.

>>22831780
I said it's been dropping, which is not only true but well known, and that the rate has accelerated as time has gone on. If you look at the data, you'll see that. Again, you're talking to yourself.
It has been dropping. First at a slow pace, got faster and faster and more severe, from 2000-2010 was worse than 1990-2000, and from 2010-now has been very severe.
What are you even arguing about

>>22830972
Because a lot of that stuff comes with leftist baggage after the “long march through the institutions”

>>22831788
I agree, that's why I mostly read books written before ~2013 or ones that ignore woke altogether. anything like what you're describing is easy to spot

>>22831702
teachers are so dumb they are ignorant about their part as actual agents of dumbification,
which is in itself pretty consistent and logical. (when you are stupid you dont know you are stupid...)

>>22831787
career teachers are quite clear that children in the last ~10 years have problems never before seen and no the problem was no accelerating until recently. You haven't even shown that the numbers were dropping since 60's.
Everything you've posted is trying to claim that the massive shift in society caused by every child having internet connected devices hasn't done anything despite all available evidence to the contrary. It's false and it's dangerous to ignore this.

>>22831817
you have no clue what you're saying. You're making stuff up on the spot and acting like it proves actual science wrong.

>>22831835
Yeah and my grandmother who was a teacher said her kids were far worse than when she started. This was in the 1990s.
This is the point where I'd normally say something very sarcastic and mean to you, but I'm trying not to do that.

>>22831837
there is a science who prove that actual systemic education didnt have any glance of responsability in that numbers?.

>>22831032
It’s not like he’s wrong, reality to some degree is based on a person’s perception. Pol pot included people with glasses in the list of undesirables to be killed just because they appeared smart.

>>22830972
>Pic-related is the philosophy book I'm reading right now, we can only discuss such topics because of the relatively deep understanding science has come to on biology and psychology. It just seems so much cooler than discussing to death ideas from hundreds of years ago.
Philosophy has been solved for millennia. Trying to put a new spin on it just shows a complete misunderstanding of it.

>actually reading words produced by the ductile mind of the fair sex, AND recommending them to fellow anons
Begone poser

>>22830972
Could Wolfram's computational universe/cellular automata be relevant to semiotics?

>>22832218
well semiotics is the study of symbols and what you're talking about is a theory of the fundamental rules of the universe so I'm not sure I follow how they would be related

>>22831232
why do people try so damn hard to ignore the most pressing issues of society? "Intelligence is dropping at an exponential rate and we're on a course for billions to suffer and die from our complex systems collapsing - what do you think we should do?"
>well first of all I don't think we're measuring intelligence correctly and second of all we just need to make everyone Christcucks so they love more.

The extreme willful ignorance and dismissal of all responsibility regarding these issues combined with the adamant belief that if everyone became Christcucks we would avoid the coming suffering and death through starvation of billions is straight up insane. Why do people act like this?

>>22830972
>Why aren't there threads discussing bio-semiotics and linguistics and media theory and narratology, ethnography and transhumanist theory, cybernetics, and all the interesting things to discuss philosophically that are only possible today?
I've yet to see a good argument come from realms beyond pure semiotics and linguistics, and a lot of this modern "philosophy" borders on pure media critique. By which I actually mean complete bullshit and fantasizing that would be better left to the realm of real narratives, since otherwise I can write my own critiques and analyses thank you very much. In fact who even needs someone else to tell them about the class dynamics in the narratives of pop culture peddled by ennuic capitalists and slaves neither of which gave a single fuck about any of it? Who cares about transhumanism or cybernetics when they're all a pipe dream and you can have those conversations while playing tabletop games and integrating them into your own stories? It's all bullshit. Creative fantasies and bizarre observations better left to stories cooked up by the type of person too lazy to take a creative writing course, or too fragile to actually put effort into anything. Most of which is also predated by, ironically enough, works in the canon that do explore these issues...through narratives. Themselves inspired by the same Hegelian cookbook these assholes peddle and preach. I hope coddled academics starve to death, I cannot think of a single more useless and parasitic species.
On the actual topic of philosophy: it's in a dark age. You can't ignore scientific development but it hardly paints the whole picture, which leaves you able only to theorize about the incomprehensible or shut up, be someone useful and maybe find God. This is the age of explorers and poets, though it hardly feels that way.

>>22832805
no matter what there is no excuse for refusing to philosophize with the newfound scientific knowledge of the last century. Kant and Hegel and the rest of this board's heroes would undoubtedly be using this new information in their ideas and the fact that people today refuse to even try is sad.

>>22830972
>I don't get why so many people on here talk about philosophy in the most, for lack of a better term, surface-level way. Kantian this, Dialectics that, empiricism, mind-body relations, thats all fine and good
It's because they're fond of the continental tradition which treats engaging with the history of philosophy the same as engaging with philosophy itself.

>>22831041
Pierce's whole model had already been done by Saint Augustine 1,500 years earlier. And the Cognito. And dialectical triads. Philosophy has only backslid since 1450.

>>22832769
Your entire "competency crisis" article is based off a handful of anecdotes and "reee the kids don't know how to do anything. We Boomers built this world and it will die without us. Now why the fuck are their darkies in my office!!"

Nevermind the Boomers still run everything and set up all th policies they rail against, or the whole voting themselves 3+ trillion and growing in wealth transfers a year for their UBI and free healthcare while also passing off trillions in debt.

If they want a solution, it's The Day of th Pillow. Offing everyon over 55 would instantly solve the problem with lack of investment in the future.

>>22830972
>everything we know today
lol

>>22832936
another one openly denying scientific fact and substituting their own reality as a valid reason to deny facts. What a shit show this place is.
Again if you haven't seen the extreme collapse in competency you need to touch grass.....a lot of grass.

>>22830972
This isn't philosophy, it's English department "theory" based on terrible shallow readings of already crappy continental philosophy. If you attend a reputable university you will find philosophers of mind collaborating with neuroscientists, environmental ethicists working with climate scientists, and the like. I have a degree in contemporary analytic philosophy, but its really to arcane to be of interest to a layperson which is why this isn't a great place to discuss it.

>>22833639
ANAL-licker philosophy is the worst. Nowhere is a good forum to discuss it

>>22830972
>because of the relatively deep understanding science
>science
fuck science. Science is the big lie of the modern world.

>>22831146
It’s not even that it’s that most anons have thought about it themselves to death and they still beat the same dead horse that again thousands of people (to the layman to elite) before them already beat into dust. Just look at /his/ and the 1000 low tier religion threads on literally the same EXACT arguments being made daily. It gets to a point where it’s just insanity and >>22830972 is right why not talk about something new? I do agree that it isn’t “inherent to reality” but that doesn’t mean it isn’t important (and of course more practical). Also >>22831018 is being disingenuous of course he didn’t mean it’s inherently better just because it’s new. It’s just something different and even useful.

>>22834119
>why not talk about something new?
Because there isn't anything new.
Also, we talked about it and the thread is still up and now you're talking about it. Who stopped anyone from talking about it?

>>22831132
Problem solving doesn't represent the intelligence of the solver? You dumb nigger. Look at Africa btw.

I read a lot of that sort of thing. Springer Frontiers is a really good series. I particularly like The Reality of Becoming: Time Flow in Modern Physics and Asymmetry: The Foundations of Information. The Particle Metaphysics, and It From Bit or Bit From It book is good too. But it's all quite technical so I can see why people aren't that interested in it.

Information theoretic approaches to the sciences are neat in that they can unify physics to social sciences.

The Great Courses The Science of Information course is a really good intro. The anthology Information and the Nature of Reality is really good too.

For biosemiotics, Terrance Deacon is good. I really liked Incomplete Nature, although "Towards a Science of Biosemiotics," is a better short/free intro.

The North Holland Handbook of the Philosophy of Science volume on Complexity has some good stuff, especially the article on process metaphysics (second).

Why does every philosophical thread in this board reduce to boring ethics and morality? Can't we talk about free will, induction, materialism, idealism without resorting to the hubris that humans need to act a certain way in order that their lives may be 'better'?

>>22834338
No, because the whole of modern philosophy is predicated on setting up yellow tape around those topics and the implications are mainly ethical. Ethics are the only thing you can really examine.

>>22833639
> this isn’t real philosophy
> this other non-philosophy is real philosophy
Neuroscience isn’t philosophy, genius. And if you don’t understand how neuroscience can’t possibly validate or invalidate philosophical arguments, then you have absolutely no business engaging with any of this stuff.

>>22832769
One day you’ll realize that you can’t engineer your way out of the crises that engineering caused and that all of your problems arise from choosing to ignore fundamental questions while obsessing about ones of less consequence.

>>22832809
When it comes to philosophical arguments, science is quite literally irrelevant. It cannot conceivably validate or invalidate any one philosophy considering the validity of science itself relies on sound philosophy and without it is useless. It’s almost shocking that this needs to be explained.

>>22834341
We could as well assume that there's no prescriptive way for the lives of humans to be 'better' and still have productive discourse on philosophy.

>>22830972
I have a few theories as to why but mostly they have to do with the splintering of certain studies and consolidation of others by both academia, the public, and by our existing categorical systems at play.
Logic is not really much of a theoretical discipline like it was during Husserl's time. A cult developed around boolean logic because it was able to be easily adapted into computing and no one has really questioned it since, it's just the standard now and it's splintered into computer science. You see something similar with a select group of psychologists and the larger discipline of psychology.
Philosophy has always loved the classics but for the most part our systems of categorization have booted philosophy out of the conversation on certain topics. I understand why in many arenas, to be able to speak on a topic, such as behavioral epigenetics, does require a level of knowledge on the subject that really isn't common if you were a philosophy professor. By tying these subjects to the training of doctors, psychologists, bioengineers, the world of "who gets to comment and who doesnt" shrinks to people of certain mindsets and kicks out philosophy for the most part. This is both great and terrible.
The conversation is biased towards those who have training in an area and more often than not that training is biased by a certain pragmatism towards, say, the ability to make that discipline pragmatically useful or profitable. A therapist doesn't care if a treatment method's philosophical basis is on shoddy ground if it can do right by their patients. A doctor should question whether the treatment's development was built around perpetual treatment of symptoms or an actual cure.
That's at least my take on why philosophy is nessesary but limited at least. The other reason is because we're idiots who will over focus and argue to the death over something we already have opinions over rather than branch into new topics because they make us uncomfortable as we settle into our old age.
For example we've found that cocaine use in pregnant mothers can cause a number of problems, but currently we're just scratching the surface of what drug use in fathers during the time of fertilization can do https://www.biotechniques.com/news/sins-of-the-father/

>>22831051
Oh cool we're back to jamming words together based on a few examples are we?
Nietzsche leads to genocide
Marx leads to genocide
Liking dogs leads to genocide
Being itallian leads to genocide
Barely a handful of examples constitutes a direct link

>>22831076
The idea that people are only worth it based on use, business major detected. I don't have the energy or time to go over why you should care about others in the abstract or personal sense.
>>22831066
You I just plain disagree with. The "nothing is new under the sun" argument is just lazy and generalizing. Yeah you could argue Greek notions of desire and happiness correspond to today's notions and you'd be right to some degree but you'd also be neglecting stuff the Greeks did not cover or know about that very much factors into the conversation like learning behavior change and societal pressures.

>>22831214
I have friends and family that would have died were it not for technologies developed for childbirth, blood transfusion, etc. Can you say the same if I were some peasant in 1300?

>>22831239
This is an excellent question I wish this thread had the maturity for. It does not. For an intro https://openpress.usask.ca/abnormalpsychology/chapter/self-test-defining-classifying-abnormal-behaviour/

wow this thread blew up on the weekend that's nice to see.

>>22834235
these all look great, thank you

>>22834473
No, but I don’t have to and appeal to emotion is not an argument. Unpleasant things happened then and unpleasant things happen now. So what?

>>22834351
I addressed directly in the OP. science has always been the starting point of philosophy and with new science should come new philosophy

>>22834371
You could, but like I said, modern thinking is predicated on making those topics off bounds. So ethics is all that’s left. I’m not sure what I’m being unclear about.

>>22834345
Just like most scientists without philosophical training, you are also unskilled at thinking. Philosophy of Mind is essential to guide the work of neuroscientists, not the other way around. Without a philosophical definition of consciousness, the scientist has nothing to look for besides the way neurons interact with each other.

>>22830972
What predictive power does semiotics have?
>>22835187
What predictive power does philosophy of mind have?

I'm still just so confused how so many here honestly believe science and philosophy should stay separate. I'm 99% sure all the great philosophers would disagree with that. Philsophy has always stemmed from science, especially the newest science. To disagree is to deny empiricism. What philosophy does not begin with truth and with an expansion of truth should come an expansion of philosophy.

>>22835396
>I'm still just so confused how so many here honestly believe science and philosophy should stay separate.
Thats because you lack the mental faculties to understand clearly. Your post is evidence enough to make that conclusion :^)

From a publication without ideas, no real artists come out.

what are your favorite modern philosophy works /lit/?

>>22835763
the tweets of caveman44

>>22834431
I explained in an ironclad way throughout the thread in 50+ posts why the internal logic of social sciences (soft, non empirical bullshit "sciences" chalk full of baseless auxiliary assumptions) will always lead to genocide.
So no I didn't just jam random words together. This was probably my best argument I've ever made on 4chan about anything.
But sure you can walk into the room and start throwing poo around and call yourself a genius.

>>22834453
The Greeks were already thinking in an abstract way about atoms (corpuscle theory), about simulated beings designed through technology, about technological enhancements to the human body and the ethical implications, etc. Our powers of empirical research have enhanced to the point we can make these things a reality; but in terms of the abstractions, yes, there is literally nothing new under the sun and every idea and it's implications have been thought through a million times.
So no, it's not lazy. What's lazy is you not having a full breadth of knowledge about the ideas people held in the past and the arguing against my notion without any support for the counterclaim.

>>22834453
>societal pressures
Platos Cave
Again Boi don't step into the ring with a champ til you beat the elite 4

>>22830972
because everyone on /lit/ is far more concerned with appearing intelligent than they are with actually understanding

The trouble with trying to derive wisdom from science, is that science is literally a pile of schizophrenic gibberish to the untrained (and maybe to the trained, because it's not like there's a big unification of science in the horizon, science is not a coherent whole), and your reward for being trained, is that you miss the forest for the trees and are unable to translate your 'insight' into something intelligible to laymen, which is why I put it in quotes, as a true insight is something that shines like the sun, not a pile of esotericism that is only for the initiated.

Basically, this stuff fails the KISS test. Something like 'turn the other cheek' passes, and this is why there is no such thing as secular wisdom.

>>22836601
All true, but the reality is even more dire; science reflects the wisdom found in philosophical tenets. "Unity among opposites," every macrophenomenon that we see as opposite to another, shares the same subatomic material

>>22836607
Not consciousness though, which muddies the waters when the macrophenomenon involves consciousness, but I think I see what you mean.

I have this theory that the physical is the mirror of consciousness, that is, you're seeing consciousness in a way, but you're also seeing it inverted. Some philosopher likely has said this, but I wouldn't know.

>>22836998
You're more correct than you realize.

>>22836601
this is just getting insane. I'll be the first person to attack academia for being complete garbage and filled with lies but to attack the idea of testing a hypothesis is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. you're wrong by default because of the way you posted this comment. how the fuck did so many people on /lit/ come to such an insane conclusion while posting on the fucking Internet

>>22837664
Because scientism has caused a reaction on the other end. I was the one who was most critical ITT and I disagree with everything the anon you're replying to said lol.
Scientism is bad and a lot of what we call science either isn't, or is half complete. Ppl are right to hate scientism and reject Neil degrasse Tyson style shit but science is legit and philosophy and science both feed into one another.

>>22837684
I literally just said I'll be the first to attack scientism/academia but you guys are attacking science IE empiricism. you made it blatantly clear that you don't think science offers truths and so it's pointless to philosophize on it. Nothing said before was a critique of scientism.

>>22837741
Where'd I say that

>>22837664
I feel like not every hypothesis can be tried, and that there are places where no test can be made, such as with consciousness.

I mean, come on, is there a scientific experiment that can tell you whether it was a good or bad idea for the US to declare independence? Whether something that isn't democracy should be tried? Hell, whether it is wise for scientific progress to continue, even in the face of existential threats being generated by science (I do feel science came too early, we don't really have the wisdom to handle the power it unleashes). These things run into the is-ought problem: science is all about is's, so there is a whole host of important questions out there that can't be scientifically settled.

>>22837741
Science offers truths, but it also cannot offer the whole truth. I worry when people take a scientific result, then speculate on it, then act like the speculation is somehow scientific, when it is just speculation in the end.

>>22838934
the point is you can should be taking the knowns of science and philosophizing on the unknowns just like every great philosopher in history. For the third time - new science should spur new philosophy, it always did in history.
I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall here, I've said this over and over. Science isn't philosophy but it is the starting point of it.

>>22831217
What if your unconscious is trying to help your misdirected consciousness? Your consciousness is easily influenced by the outside world, how do you know that your wishes and intents have not been corrupted? Who knows, maybe somewhere in that ineffable abyss is God.

>>22831226
Nuclear weapons are a meme. If you don't have them, you get hit with a revolution (funded by Uncle Sam and co.). If you do, you're in the safe zone. I can't see them ever being used again.

>>22831273
great argument

>>22831337
I'm a brainlet to anon, feel free to give me a summary. I've never heard of neuroesthetics before.

>>22834184
Why are you here?

>>22834341
Explain like I'm five. How are those topics different from ethics? And why is there yellow tape around them?

>>22835419
What's the difference then?