/lit/ - Literature

i disagree

>>2303293

>be 2012
>still not defending points with some actual support

that's what arts for

Damn man, this book gets me every time.

I don't let it get me down.

i know that feel OP, i just stopped telling friends things because i can just tell noone wants to hear it anymore, everyone has their own problems nowadays...

I can't remember what book it was

but it was about the fundamental inability of humans to really communicate their deepest feelings or the inadequacy of words (or art in general I think) in portraying a state of mind, a thought or a feeling.

I wish I had bookmarked the amazon page.

>browsing /lit/ listening to music
>stone sour's "Bother" comes on from shuffle
>see this thread

Fucking killed my mood with the combined relevance of song and thread. Thanks OP.

>>2303309

OP here, one of The Plague's characters more or less realizes that in trying to write his "book", and in describing the failed suicide of his neighbor. He gets physically agitated at his failure to convey the right words. Maybe this is the book you had bookmarked.

>>2303313
No, I've read the plague. The book I'm talking about was more like a treatise or a long-essay on this specific subject rather than just a scene. I also didn't read it, I just had the amazon page bookmarked somewhere but I seem to have lost it.

>>2303320

Book sounds very interesting. Shame you lost the link, because after this read, it sounds like something that would be extremely compatible and relevant. There are a lot of moments in my life that really sort of set in to corroborate the ideas: for instance, the people who ask about your day but do not expect a real answer, only doing it for pretenses and not caring about the true feelings.

>>2303328

>the people who ask about your day but do not expect a real answer, only doing it for pretenses and not caring about the true feelings.

It's odd just how vital human verification is. Creatures that abstain from efficiency in the face of their loneliness, all of which is spawned from language.

>>2303328
Yes. Maybe read some Beckett, he definitely tackles this issues. I wish I could find that book.

1/?

>>2303290
I "get" most of my philosophy through science - physics, quantum mechanics, and the such.
Concerning your post: It depends on your scientific point of view; Newtonian or Quantum?
Newtonian physics treats this whole universe as if it is a box full of pebbles - completely predictable... for every action is a reaction.... We are all billiard balls bumping into each other. However, though this perspective we find that we are completely and absolutely isolated. Alone. Not only are we physically separated (two people cannot exist in the same physical location at the same time), but we are also separated via time. It is a well-known fact that the faster you go, the slower time goes, however not many people know that ALSO closer you are to a dense object, the slower time goes - even if by infinitesimal amounts of time. What this means is that not only is someone that is traveling near the speed of light experiencing time slower than someone going a normal speed, but also someone that lives in a hut next to the grand pyramid in Egypt is experiencing time slower than someone living in a farm in the middle of Wyoming. So not only is there a physical schism between you and everyone you know, but there is also a TIME separation between you and everyone else... If you jump on a plane for vacation on spring break and your girlfriend doesn't, you no long even EXIST in the same time period anymore.

2/?

>>2303353

I know you are fighting this within that internal dialog of yours, but the equations are there - the experiments have been proven.
While this builds up to quantum mechanics (theory of relativity), the end result of quantum mechanics is pointing at the other complete extreme…. Something called nonlocal identity. the basis behind nonlocal identity is the fact that just the simple observation of an action by a conscious entity absolutely affects the outcome on a small enough level(Schrodinger’s cat, double slit experiment where the photon exists in both locations at the same time until you look at it to see where it is). The question arises then as to what makes us - conscious beings - so special? Why does the outcome of a micro experiment end at our retinas as we observe it instead of our retinas/brains being just another part of the environment that the experiment takes place in? This is where quantum entanglement comes into play.

3/?

>>2303357

Quantum entanglement arose after the results of an experiment trying to prove quantum mechanics wrong - Bell's theorem. The idea was that if you create two photons simultaneously and then send them off in different directions to the point where there is an infinite distance between them (which, to a photon, a distance of a foot is an "infinite distance"), if you do something to one photon (send it through a polarized lens) then the opposite photon should not be affected at all - but as it turns out, after many different types of experiments, if you do something to one photon the OTHER photon reacts too - as if somehow proton A can talk to photon B and say "Such and such just happened to me, I reacted this way, you need to react this way too at this exact same moment!"

4/5

>>2303359

Trying to explain this has been a hard task.... Why would two objects an infinite distance away from each other be somehow tethered together? And if this is the case - aren't we all "Tethered" together if the big bang theory is true? The materials that make up you are the exact materials that make up me right? We are all stardust... and these materials all originated simultaneously, just as the photons did in our bell's theorem experiments. And after trying to attack this problem from many different angles, some weird implications are coming to the surface - such as maybe the reason this cannot be explained away is because contemporary science is trying to explain consciousness in terms of matter - as in, what is consciousness made of, how can consciousness be quantified in the terms that we use to quantify matter, what is so special about consciousness that causes the very act of observing something to cause the outcome, which plays a role in quantum entanglement also. Maybe instead of explaining consciousness in terms of matter, maybe we should really be explaining matter in terms of consciousness. If this is done things start to make logical sense, however the implications here aren't necessarily what physicists want to hear - that Matter/Space/Time is an illusion of consciousness - That quantum entanglement occurs because there is no such thing as space, as separation - that consciousness is nonlocal. And if this is so, then not only are we all entangled (we are all stardust that originated simultaneously), but we are all the same nonlocal consciousness - I am you, you are me. So much so that there is no point to kill, or deceive, because you are only killing hurting and deceiving yourself. And in the same regards, there is no point in asking for forgiveness from people, because your toe does not ask for forgiveness from your hand after it gets stubbed.

>>2303336
yeah i was reading this "communications" book somebody recommended me on here called like Looking In, Looking Out, (everybody laughs at communications majors cuz they're all jocks hoping to get into sports broadcasting but this shit is dope) and like it had this thing in it that was like:

> I am what I think I am
> I am what you think I am
I am what I think you think I am

and it's like "mind = blown" cuz like dumbass motherfuckers think they "create themselves" but really they just create an imagine to please others, but then you go to next level and say ok i do create myself to please others, but you forget you only creating yourself to please fantasms of people that you made up in your own mind! so you come full circle into creating your own image.

5/5

>>2303362

And so I know I've done a horrible job at explaining all of this...because there is so much more to it, and I understand that it sounds incredibly hippy-ish. But the equations are there, the information is there.
And the kicker to this all is - is that if consciousness is nonlocal, and if the very act of consciousness causes the state vector collapse of the probability matrix that is reality, then all the arrows are pointing towards Consciousness being what caused the "Big Bang" - Is this consciousness our "gods" of our religions? It seems to me that science and religion are progressing in opposite directions to ultimately end up pointing to the same conclusion - that a nonlocal consciousness created all of this, and the separation we feel from each other is but an illusion.

>>2303365
tl;dr

>>2303359
>>2303357
>>2303353

>mfw science

Extremely intriguing perspective, friend. Saved and stored away for future night thinking.

>>2303365

Consciousness is not non-local.

Some claim that quantum principles play some sort of role in consciousness, but to say consciousness is non-local is absurd. Given the fact that you and I obviously don't have the credentials to speak about it on a more technical level we might be at the whim of semantics.

>>2303353
I think I would classify myself as the "Newtonian" type after reading your deliberations on the topic. It makes sense to me that we are all made essentially of the same things, which should therefore make us all "one", but it seems we still for all that similarity cannot find that ultimate way of communicating what should be that sameness to the other.

>>2303384

I want to know why you don't think it nonlocal though...whether you have the credentials or not, I'd still like to know why.

If you are actually interested in it, I'd recommend starting with http://www.amazon.com/Physics-Consciousness-Quantum-Mind-Meaning/dp/0738204366/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&am
p;qid=1325826595&sr=8-1

It does a good job at explaining the whole concept in a logical manner starting with classic newtonian physics progressing towards quantum physics as it plays a role on neuroscience and the universe in general. It is very jargon-heavy with lengthy equations spelled out in detail, but if youv'e taken some physics classes before I'm sure those parts wouldn't be too dry.

Not trying to be a dick, i just like hearing both sides to these types of stories.

>>2303386

>which should therefore make us all "one", but it seems we still for all that similarity cannot find that ultimate way of communicating what should be that sameness to the other.

This statement makes no sense.

There is defiantly a lot of interesting things in regards to how we view ourselves on a collective scale in the face of our cognitive process and a priori, but this discussion seems to be filled with nothing more than superficial bullshit.

Sorry for the asshole response, but I just want to make sure everyone knows we aren't making any ground here and this entire discussion is just a case of mental masturbation and semantics. I could elaborate but I'm afraid I'm not in a position to give an answer that would merit anything of value besides verification for the lack of content here considering how many great texts are out there on this field of thought.

>considering how many great texts are out there on this field of thought.

like?

>>2303359
>>2303357
>>2303353
>>2303362
>>2303365

You know nothing of physics. (1/2)

You're conflating Newtonian theory with general relativity, which are in direct contradiction not to mention four hundred years apart. 'Existing in the same time period' means nothing, a few microseconds of disagreement between clocks isn't anything remarkable or profound other than the fact that time passes differently for every given perspective.

You've completely misunderstood the term observation within a quantum context-- this necessary 'concious entity' is a total fabrication. Observation in this context simply means interaction: a photon hitting a particle counts is the observation, it's what counts, not a photon getting back to someone's retina. If no one watches the double slit but the lights are on, you'll see only two bars, not an interference pattern.

Quantum entanglement isn't very puzzling, but it's hard to explain how obvious it is without having to explain eigenvalues and eigenvectors. The point is that the entangled photon's are a single system until disturbed (observed, probed, measured) and if one of the states (spin, say) collapses (is measured, probed, observed, hit by a photon) from superposition, the other 'side' as it were, must fall in the opposite state.

>>2303397

Let me go into further depth then to make sense out of a statement that seems to make no sense to you.

Scienceman claims that with a "quantum" perspective, we are all at our core the same, meaning our bodies and minds are composed of the same exact elements of matter. He then proceeds to say that non-local consciousness more or less makes us into "one" being. I say that while I agree we are made up of the same components, which technically should make us all the more ready to understand each other, it does not work that way. That is why I am Newtonian in perspective.

The reason for this is that a priori concept you just mentioned yourself. If we were all of the same consciousness, when a self and an other interact for the first time, there should be an immediate understanding of language, feeling, and action displayed between the two. We all know, though, that language and action and perhaps even some feelings are socially constructed, meaning we do not know how to understand the other. A priori, we do not know how someone will interpret our actions; when the self does something, it creates an impression on the other to retaliate, and the cycle continues. It is a learning process, but yet, it does not ever fully bestow a complete comprehension of that other.

I hope that is a better expression of what I mean.

>Why would two objects [...] be somehow tethered together?

There is no 'why' in science, there is only how.
>>2303359
>>2303357
>>2303353
>>2303362
>>2303365

2/2

>if this is the case - aren't we all "Tethered" together if the big bang theory is true?

That doesn't follow at all. Entangling isn't nearly as ubiquitous as you think it is, and it's short-lived as fuck. Not to mention that atoms (you, me) don't entangle, and even if they did (they don't) stardust wasn't all made at the same time which precludes any possibility of them entangling (which they couldn't).

No, you don't understand physics: what you do have is some standard pseudo-science tirade couched in 'impressive' terms to laymen.

signed, your friendly neighborhood mathematician.

that's when i decided i no longer wanted friends and cut off all social contact with everybody in my life except for my immediate family

>this entire thread supports OP quote
>OP is genius

>>2303362
>>2303362
>>2303362
mind=blown

>>2303362
sounds like metaphysical mumbo jumbo

>>2303408
>>2303412
fuck yes

i love it when actual students of science/history/etc debunk pop science philosophical mythical garbage

Isn't that distance the reason why certain relationships are meaningful? Is the space, in and of itself, not meaningful?

Isn't because the hivemind never overcame the barrier of communication, that such a meaningful line was produced?

>>2303412
>There is no 'why' in science, there is only how.

Inkorekt. Ther is lots of "why" in evolutionary bioloji.

>>2303408
>>2303412

I forgot to ad that i think that, besides the mistake about "why questions", u did a fine job.

>>2303465
Not when reduced to physical processes, which is what I was getting at.

>>2303465
uh why but the why can be reduced to "how did it get like that"

>>2303472
>>2303453
Thanks.

>>2303465
Well, language reform anon, I would argue that when rid of the abstractions and reduced to the barebones physical processes the extra-complexity of 'why' disappears. but it's a rather minor point that I'm willing to concede because of my narrow understanding of higher-level sciences.

>>2303478

Yes, it is that talk of reesons without a mind (see Dennett's Darwin's Dangerous Idea). It's all metafor/non-literal/not-in-the-ordinary-sens-of-the-word, but it is very komon in evo. bio. and for good reeson.

Wen biolojists talk about wat the funktion of X is, they ar talking about the reeson wy X evolved. Sooner or later this has to kom down to jeens ("genes") interakting at the molekular level, ofk. Ther is no god/mind puling the strings in evolution.

>>2303465
>evolutionary biology
>science

>>2303490

Any partikular reeson to deni that? As in, anything non-relijiusly/kreationism/ID motivated.

I LITERALLY JUST FINISHED READING THIS BOOK, LIKE AN HOUR AGO. HOLY SHIT I KNOW THAT FEEL.