/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11557843]

I recently became an intelligent person and I am too scared of the sharpened senses and wit I possess. What books do I read to turn myself back into a dumb fucking idiot?

[Anonymous No.11557851]

>>11557843
Culture of Critique

[Anonymous No.11557864]

The Bible

[Anonymous No.11557877]

brainlet over here but why is "trusting the chemcals in your head to tell you they are chemicals" hypocrisy on any level?

[Anonymous No.11557885]

>>11557864
came here to post this

[Anonymous No.11557890]

>>11557843
I love how Mickey implicitly provides a defense of Donald's view.
>All knowledge is ultimately based on that which we cannot prove.

[Anonymous No.11557909]

Fiction.

[Anonymous No.11557918]

Gravity Rainbow
Infinite Jest

[Anonymous No.11557925]

>>11557890
yeah, but we never know what donalds reaction might be

[Anonymous No.11557947]

Go to pol

[Anonymous No.11557978]

eckhart tolle

[Anonymous No.11557993]

>>11557843
you don't--you need blunt trauma

[Anonymous No.11557996]

>>11557864
>>11557885

[Anonymous No.11557999]

>>11557843
Humility is the greatest virtue since pride is mother of all sins, anon.

[Anonymous No.11558409]

>>11557843
Any recent autobiography oughta dull the senses

[Anonymous No.11558442]

>>11557877
Because it's the Chinese Room Paradox. When pseuds say "it's just chemicals man", they're reducing/minimizing an extremely complex process to some random machinations. Consciousness is an incredible trait that we don't fully understand. It'd be like someone saying, "I learned how to speak Chinese" and some pseud said, "No you didn't, you just memorized a bunch of symbols." Understanding a language is far deeper than memorizing a bunch of symbols, much to the chagrin of programmers trying to create translation software.

Actually, if Penrose and modern cogsci researchers are to be believed, thinking might actually be a quantum process, not a regular, computational one (this is because human thinking operates in non-polynomial time, meaning it's impossible to write a turing machine to replicate it). In that case, it's not merely chemical, but subatomic as well.

[Anonymous No.11559393]

>>11558442
Ok wise guy.

[Anonymous No.11559448]

>>11557877
Because it’s circular reasoning. New York is a city in America therefore New York is a city in America. Donald is a duck made of chemicals and atoms and he knows this because he is a duck made of chemicals and atoms. The statement begins and ends with the same conclusion. Mickey is describing Hume’s problem of induction.

[Anonymous No.11559928]

The Fart in our Spats

[Anonymous No.11559974]

>>11557843
Unironically huff toluene, you can get it in cans at hardware stores.
It's psychedelic as hell for a solvent high, but it also epoxy-resins over your third eye and flattens you from the fifth dimension to the second.
Just do it every week until you start to feel 'flattened'.
Word of warning though, you'll need LSD or shrooms to re-enter 3D normality.

[Anonymous No.11559989]

>>11558442
>this is because human thinking operates in non-polynomial time, meaning it's impossible to write a turing machine to replicate it
You're an idiot. Don't use words you don't understand. It doesn't even make sense to talk about whether a human brain can solve a given decision problem in polynomial time or not since the brain doesn't operate in discrete digital steps. Further, just because a problem is in NP doesn't mean a Turing machine can't be programmed to solve it. It's the easiest thing in the world to write an algorithm to solve TSP for example, it just runs slow.
>>11559448 has the correct idea anyway.

[Anonymous No.11559998]

>>11557877
because he claims nihilism while still according meaningful truth/explanatory value to mechanical physicalism

[Anonymous No.11560017]

>>11559998
although this interpretation relies on Mickey exploiting an ambiguity between ethical and epistemological nihilism in his response. i don't see any reason to conflate the positions, however. it seems perfectly reasonable to argue, as Donald does, that ethical value cannot arise out of brute causal interaction, while at the same time concepts can be formed by thinking creatures that adequately conform to their objects. Mickey however suggests that the first argument necessarily implies the negation of the second, and i'm not convinced that's the case.

[Anonymous No.11560043]

>>11560017
The accusation of epistemological nihilism is valid too, however. The logic is circular because it’s as such:

>Q: What are we?
>A: Just conglomerations of chemical processes and molecules and atoms
>Q: How do you know that?
>A: By using this conglomeration of chemical processes to observe, we determined we’re just a conglomeration of chemical processes
>Q: Why do you trust these chemical processes? What makes their observations and judgments valid?
>A: Well, it all fits together complexly and consistently.
>Q: Yes, but what gives it a genuine truth value?
>A: ...

[Anonymous No.11560051]

>>11559989
>It doesn't even make sense to talk about whether a human brain can solve a given decision problem in polynomial time or not since the brain doesn't operate in discrete digital steps
I mean, I might not have the terminology precisely correct, but this is basically what Penrose argues in The Emperor's New Mind.

> Penrose notes that the present home of computing lies more in the tangible world of classical mechanics than in the imponderable realm of quantum mechanics. The modern computer is a deterministic system that for the most part simply executes algorithms.

Fine, you can argue that NP is not the correct terminology to use here, but Penrose's thesis that complex decisions are made by the human brain in a way that cannot be replicated on ANY kind of Turing machine is valid.

> It's the easiest thing in the world to write an algorithm to solve TSP for example, it just runs slow.
That's the point isn't it? Humans can navigate through the world miraculously. When a tennis player swings at a ball, they make an instantaneous calculation of where the ball will be within a giant probability cloud that is the summation of what they're seeing + what they know from experience. Trying to solve this type of problem classically would take for fucking ever and couldn't be done without heuristics. But humans do it all the time effortlessly. Hence, Penrose is probably right.

[Anonymous No.11560053]

>>11557843
"The Idiot"

[Anonymous No.11560058]

>>11557947
Do not do this.
They pick at you to probe for weaknesses, and should you be dumb enough to expose one you’ll end up assimilated and “redpilled”.

[Anonymous No.11560087]

>>11560058
please tell me this is sarcasm xD

[Anonymous No.11560090]

>>11560043
yes but my objection is that Donald doesn't question or criticize epistemological nihilism, in fact he accepts it as a premise. Mickey is really only restating his position while (morally, I might add) indicting it as hypocrisy. but i don't think, for instance, Donald would contest the claim that "all that we know is based on that which we cannot prove," or at least, he doesn't *have* to in any way that would preclude him from also agreeing that "Everything we know and love is reducible to absurd acts of chemicals."

[Anonymous No.11560096]

>>11557843
your doing fine

[Anonymous No.11560110]

>>11557843
>I recently became an intelligent person
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BNjJutK_4A

[Anonymous No.11560111]

>>11559989
I looked into it again and I wasn't entirely wrong. I knew I wasn't misremembering (this is outside of my field so fuck off if I'm not 100% autistically accurate with terminology).

NP-hard problems can be solved in polynomial time by a non-deterministic Turing machine. The operative word is non-deterministic, that is a machine that can make multiple decision steps at the same time.

The quantum world is non-deterministic because of superpositions. Thus, a quantum computer should be able to solve large probability space problems like trying to decide where to swing your tennis racket in a reasonable time, unlike your standard deterministic Turing machine.

Point is, NP is a valid term to use here, though I should have focused more on the nondeterministic part and less on the time complexity part.

[Anonymous No.11560118]

>>11557843
do drugs consistently and lose yourself for a while

[Anonymous No.11560126]

>>11560111
not that anon but that's not what polynomially bounded problems have to do with lol

[Anonymous No.11560202]

>>11560118
This, booze and deliriants will work especially well for this purpose and can be purchased cheaply and legally

[Anonymous No.11560220]

>>11557877
to put it in brainlet's terms,
Modern man knows a good deal about the universe. He knows the atom, he understands the fundamental forces, etc. That's all great stuff.
But then he struts over to philosophy and (like a smug cretin) exclaims "Oh, it's all meaningless because cells and neurochemicals and such!".
He thinks he pulled the robes off of god himself and exposed his crude nakedness... thereby... winning? at something?

Here's the problem: All that knowledge does nothing to shift the fundamental problems of the human condition. We still don't know what consciousness is. We still don't know why we exist. We still don't know what we're supposed to do (and how). It doesn't even solve the simpler more practical problems like the conundrum of harmonious human co-existence.
Modern Man wants a trophy and a retirement check. He thinks he's earned it. But this thing we're in is far from over.