/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.12208879]

What stops us from comprehending that our thoughts are all predetermined?

I once nearly accomplished this while stoned out of my brain but I gave myself a heart attack which didn't subside for an hour.

[Anonymous No.12208916]

Why would it matter?

[Anonymous No.12209002]

It's already been "comprehended", you know. On the top of my head, and just for those I've read (not many), there's Marx, Foucault, Raymond Williams, Bourdieu... Maybe go read some stuff?

[Anonymous No.12209234]

>>12208879
>What stops us from comprehending that our thoughts are all predetermined?
we are slow really stupid creatures who don't react to external things for like 250ms usually, or maybe 60ms for internal reactions. every thought you have has some connection to one previous, even if that connection is obscured to you because you are just a meatsack brainlet who is only partially not-dreaming.

[Anonymous No.12209242]

the surprise of a joke's punchline, that shock of discovery, is evidence that shit just flew over your head and you caught it too late. your brain surprised you. that "you" that was surprised is (You). the predetermined thought generator that made the thought is the thing that you're asking about.

[Anonymous No.12209285]

Is this what is thought of as deep? I hardly see any mathematical, deeply philosophical, or even remotely historically philologically interesting material being discussed on /lit/, it is just a constant influx of anime bullshit and stoner nonsense. I wish there was another place to discuss literature. I’m reading Alhazen’s Optics

[Anonymous No.12209290]

>>12209285
>Alhazen’s Optics
for what purpose, and how has it benefited you

[Anonymous No.12209338]

>>12209290
Just read my post.

In the interest of understanding more of Metaphysics and synthetical geometry, and the synthetical-analytical method in general. This last thing was barely covered, but he is very thorough. As a text, it is impressive, it uses philosophy, mathematics, and empirical examples in addition to Quod Erat Demonstratums and Quod Erat Faciendums to get the points he is trying to express across. I could point to a few quotes in book three that are incredibly philosophically deep, and the contrast of books four and five showcase the advantage of mathematical explanations while showing the intelligent engineering designs of Islamic Golden age science.

Book five invokes Euclid AND Appolonius though, and I have to tell you that is by far my favorite part of the whole thing. Book five has some legitimately mind blowing theorems and it is just downright fascinating to read.

Being a math philosophy nerd can be lonely sometimes but it’s rewarding whenever it intersects with actual philosophy like book III of The Optics so that I can tell the loser philosophy grads why I understand the concepts more than they do

[Anonymous No.12209347]

>>12208879
>smoking weed

[Anonymous No.12209348]

>>12208879
>What stops us from comprehending that our thoughts are all predetermined?

Gee, I don't know maybe it's predetermination. Get the fuck out and get a job.

[Anonymous No.12209382]

>>12208879
The fact that they aren't and that mechanicism is drooling retardation.

[Anonymous No.12209435]

>>12209338
what if i don't care about larping as a medieval STEMfag. that shit sounds literally worse than alchemy.

[Anonymous No.12209595]

>>12209338
stemfag larp as litfag that actually is a muslim here - you sounds like you're having a very good time.

anyway, have you try to read proof to ABC conjecture by Shinichi Mochizuki, I had heard that most mathematician that related to that area can't understand shit. the proof is almost 500 pages long

[Anonymous No.12209599]

>>12209338
Intellectuals as far as STEM is concerned are far above most, but for god sake do something creative, 99% of STEMs are so fucking boring, it's cool that you can get your head around it but no flair or personality exudes from you and every point you make is one I'd rather spend entertaining myself.

[Anonymous No.12209665]

>>12209599
I think this is a dull point to make. It’s as basic as making the argument that flair and color = philosophy and that black and dark = science.

In this whole post chain I have specifically endeavored to destroy any resemblance of that distinction. There is a BIG reason I’m posting this here instead of on /sci/. Because when you only read textbooks instead of active literature (like Neumann’s book on Game Theory or Alhazen’s Optics), then you can have a tendency to become dull like you say. It’s possible to understand the concepts and terminology and have a good time.

I am never going near Khan’s academy and I only read primary sources.

Below is my reading list (though I’ve been taking a break from it), tell me what you think:

- Ibn Al-Haytham - Optics
- John Von Neumann & Oskar Morgenstern - Theory of Games and Economic Behavior
- Ptolemy - The Almagest
- Alexis De Tocqueville - Democracy In America
- Aristotle - On Interpretation

[Anonymous No.12209915]

>>12208879
am i the only one that has these moments for like a second

[Anonymous No.12210011]

>>12208879
Because our thoughts aren't predetermined you fucking dudebro retard. Here's a basic bitch article, and if you're not weedlmaoing right now you might even understand it
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newscientist.com/article/mg22830500-300-is-quantum-physics-behind-your-brains-ability-to-think/amp/

[Anonymous No.12210018]

>>12208879
>our thoughts are all predetermined
>I once nearly accomplished this
>I
>accomplished

[Anonymous No.12210037]

>>12208879
it's literally just that people like the idea that theyre some sort of magic acausal agent that doesnt need to obey the normal rules of reality
humans are completely fucking retarded

[Anonymous No.12210278]

>>12209665
Aristotle is a fine read and Neumann is interesting in conversation if you have a knack for explaining things.
The issue here is that the vast majority of people operate through emotional semantics (more specifically through the language of the ego). What system-savvy people often falter in recognising is their audience in relation to their discoveries and their perhaps-conflicting goals.
I.e. You don't speak to the chick making your coffee in the same way you would your father (Hopefully, save Autism etc.)

Sure you could go "renegade" and off-the-cuff talk someone's ear off about the trials and tribulations of Diogenes in relation to the time he lived in and some (including me) just might be entertained, this is largely unlikely however because it doesn't effect or prove a lesson to a person that would appreciate you as an asset to making their ego more viable; socially, fiscally, etc.
This is surprise, surprise, why 'autistic' people who regularly wax their interests out-loud arrogantly, are not popular.
Perhaps you might be seen as charming in a peculiar, novel way, but on the whole, not so much, people will be intimidated by your knowledge and conversely might not want to be around you because they might feel bad for clubbing ad nauseum (i.e. you reflect what they lack in education and it sours them).
Of course this doesn't matter much, modern life drags people into ignorance naturally, many of them are drugged on society's goals for them (vacations, relationships of wealth) than seeing the value of an education, if you're willing to accept that you are only talking to people to amuse yourself by proxy whilst sacrificing the schmoozing, connection building completely... fine.
Just realise that any topic you introduce into a conversation HAS to be consolidated with social reputation / clout beforehand for people to respect you in more ways than purely "wow big word big word big word "(which is unironically what people would say to me before I gave up and welcomed small talk and smiles exclusively).
My argument is thus flawed because there is no confession.

[Anonymous No.12210509]

>>12210278
Your argument is flawed because you assume I think I’m smarter or can comprehend these texts better than anyone else.