/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.15550467]

>finally took the physicalism pill
>finally took the evolutionary biology pill
>finally took the Donald Hoffman Representationalist pill and realized all life as we know it is just symbols constructed for higher fitness pay offs
>was able to thoroughly explain an artist's diagram of a tree and lake by pointing out how she only finds it beautiful because our primordial ancestors required shelter and water to live
>further deconstruct her work to show how all she will ever "create" has been predetermined by her genes as ways of representing fitness payoffs so they could reproduce
>she leaves in tears
>I stand numbly and recognize the fact that my rigorous and merciless dismantling of her worldview was merely my genes' instinctive struggle for survival by attaining a higher social status through cognitive prowess
>i realize that if a cognitive scientist was looking at an fMRI of my brain at the moment he would be able to see all of this too
This is it. I've finally ascended.

Life makes sense.

[Anonymous No.15550494]

Knowing all of that won't help you a bit, I promise you

[Anonymous No.15550548]

>>15550467
>predetermined by her genes
This is so shallow and wrong.

[Anonymous No.15550567]

>>15550467
Can anyone find a PDF of this book?

[Anonymous No.15550590]

>>15550467
Psychologists and neurobiologists won't tell you this, but fMRIs/brain-scans in general are fake. It's a well kept secret that with the right statistical analysis's and pretty enough brain pictures you can get into a scientific journal and "prove" whatever you want. Also evopsych is shit and has no research behind it desu.

[Anonymous No.15550615]

>>15550467

[Anonymous No.15550620]

Isn't this viewpoint self-defeating? If your mind is incapable of perceiving reality, then whatever evidence you see for a physicalist worldview could also be a product of your mind tricking itself.

[Anonymous No.15550633]

The soul is real

[Anonymous No.15550676]

>>15550467
What's with all these biological predetermination fuckers lately? Your brain thinks, it percieves too, not your DNA. How is this hard to understand? What sort of wacky headspace do these people occupy through life to buy horse shit?

[Anonymous No.15550751]

>>15550590
>Also evopsych is shit and has no research behind it desu.
Yes but how do you counter the autism?

When they go
>so you know how if at sunset you throw a red frisbee it looks like it's glowing?
>well that's because it reminds us of certain berries our ancestors used to eat and had to forrage for so we adapted to perceive it in this noticeable way
(an actual thing i was told by one of those online JF-tier "im a scientist" internet personalities)

what is your response? This is obviously a "just so" story that plays so fast and loose with the causal narrative of the phenomenon that I don't even know where to begin with dismissing it, but it always comes with an air of scientific validity. And they continue this line out until they are explaining my appreciation for Schubert through the same "evolutionary" reductionism.

[Anonymous No.15550759]

>>15550620
this is the problem with all of the 'black box' approaches to how the brain works. it's an analogy with mechanisms or devices engineered by humans. it's completely irreflexive and inadequate as an account of human knowledge which is not simply a mechanical result of the impingement of photons or sound waves etc on a black box nervous system.

[Anonymous No.15551035]

>>15550751
Kek
>Where's the proof that's what cavemen did/saw
This is the ultimate refutation of evopsych. While guesswork in the field of psychology isn't necesarily bad (that's what most psychology is anyway), guesswork that isn't linked to observable evidence is plain criminal. And we have no observations from hunter gatherer societies, it's pure guesswork. You could equally toss them a "nurture" explanation to counter their "nature" explanation. Eg:
>you think the artpiece is beautiful because your daddy raised you to think so
Both arguments are irrefutable because the premise upon which they lie can't be seen, and anyone with two braincells should understand the irrefutable is worthless. End of the day, you're right, these evopsych types are reductionist autists, so unless they have a radical personal experience, they're unlikely to change their mind. Best you can do is pretend to be as retarded as them.

[Anonymous No.15551124]

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/the-universe-as-cosmic-dashboard/

[Anonymous No.15551183]

>>15550751
once had some evopsych dude tell me I think the sky is beautiful because it is blue and water is blue and water is what I drink when I'm thirsty

[Anonymous No.15551220]

>>15550467
Based.

[Anonymous No.15551259]

>>15550590
>evopsych is shit
Where did psychology come from if it didn't evolve

[Anonymous No.15551303]

>>15551035
>guesswork that isn't linked to observable evidence is plain criminal. And we have no observations from hunter gatherer societies, it's pure guesswork.

[Anonymous No.15551450]

>>15551259
It came out Wundt's ass, and if you don't know who he is then you're the reason evopsych has no credibility.
>>15551303
Archaeologoy is a load of revisionist shit. "Cavemen" and "hunter gatherers" were probably so advanced that all their tech was biodegradable, therefore we don't have a clue how their thinking evolved. Think about it, there was probably a "caveman" Kaczynski, and he built biodegradable bombs. Prove me wrong.

[Anonymous No.15551560]

>>15551035
Would like to hear any specific evo psych claims you're skeptical of, since most i've heard seem pretty logical. Eg women are the weaker sex, so loyalty would be less adaptive than stockholm syndrome back when there was lots of tribal conflict.
The toy example of the art-piece obviously sucks ass since art is beautiful due to its presentation of the themes (lake/tree) of the artwork, and style/presentation is more nurture than nature. Your daddy raised you on impressionist artwork

[Anonymous No.15551611]

>>15551560
Explain to me why I find certain melodies beautiful, or why the sky suggests to me a qualitatively higher condition of being compared to the depths of the Earth.

[Anonymous No.15551668]

>>15551259
>>15551303
EvoPsych is untenable pseudoscience:
>[T]here is a broad consensus among philosophers of science that evolutionary psychology is a deeply flawed enterprise and some philosophers of biology continue to remind us of this sentiment.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evolutionary-psychology/

[Anonymous No.15551724]

>>15551611
>find certain melodies beautiful
social animals evolving an ability to empathise by the tone of someone's voice. extrapolated into more exaggerated melodies. research links social reward with enjoyment of music.

>sky suggests to me a qualitatively higher condition of being compared to the depths of the Earth.
Monkeys are safer in the trees, removed from terrestrial predators. An actual example to fit the tree/lake meme in OP

Got any more?

[Anonymous No.15551751]

>>15551450
No, not where evopsych came from, where did psychology come from if it didn't evolve? Did God create it?

[Anonymous No.15551770]

>>15551668
>philosophers of science
>>>/trash/

[Anonymous No.15551775]

>>15551668
Skimmed through that article; it's gay. Philosophers don't like evolutionary psychology (and evolution in general) because it's "problematic". They think humans are le magical special abstractly thinking beings.

[Anonymous No.15551790]

>>15551775

[Anonymous No.15551792]

>>15551724
do you have even a single fact to back that up?

[Anonymous No.15551805]

>>15550467
>The word "physicalism" was introduced into philosophy in the 1930s by Otto Neurath and Rudolf Carnap
>Neurath was born to a Jewish family in Vienna, the son of Wilhelm Neurath (1840–1901), a well-known political economist at the time.

[Anonymous No.15551807]

>>15550615
>you only use 10% of your brain
If the mantra is repeated enough, reality will find a way to make it true(-ish).

[Anonymous No.15551831]

>>15550615
Simple explanation: most of his brain tissue is still there, it's just highly compressed.

[Anonymous No.15551860]

>>15551792
To back what up? Why being safer is a "qualitatively higher condition of being" rather than being in a risky more unknown place? Why trees are safer for monkeys?

Or do you mean the melody one?
>cross-cultural comparisons suggest that the particular associations we make are supported by musical similarities to the prosodic characteristics of the voice in different affective states, indicating a basis in the biology of emotional expression
...
>concluding that while learning clearly plays a role, the emotional associations we make are (1) not arbitrary, and (2) best understood by also taking into account the physical characteristics and biological purposes of vocalization.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00464/full

do your own research next time brainlet. plus you still havent posted any potentially bullshit evopsych claims. only strawmen shit about water being blue

[Anonymous No.15551902]

>>15551775
>evolutionary psychology
no substantial evidence whatsoever: the field

[Anonymous No.15551911]

>>15551902
>>15551751
I seriously don't get what you guys propose other than evolutionary psychology. It had to have evolved..

[Anonymous No.15552003]

>>15551831
*conjecture

[Anonymous No.15552007]

>>15550676
have you noticed they all sound the same almost as if it's one guy

[Anonymous No.15552031]

>>15551860
Do you really think our genetic memory of being apes is a causal explanation for some poet's ode to a sky god? Lol

[Anonymous No.15552037]

>>15552007
Averroes was right, there is a universal mind and these droids are its transducers

[Anonymous No.15552086]

>>15552003
No

[Anonymous No.15552094]

>>15552031
Why do you believe that existence, its consequences, and the manifestation of every facet every step of the way is mutually exclusive from a sky god, and the incorporation and realization of that sky god is merely a sign that was ingeniously placed in all of the above using incomprehensibly sophisticated steganography reliant on self-reference?

[Anonymous No.15552107]

>>15552031
Not necessarily, it could be as simple as gravity. Sky - resists gravity - high order state. (this is why it protects monkeys in the first place) Depths - follows gravity - high entropy, where dead things collapse and end up buried.

I mentioned the monkey thing partially to troll, even then I don't think its impossible, given how cross-cultural world trees are, holding heaven and hell together.

[Anonymous No.15552123]

>>15550676
You perceive alright, but only because some part of the brain has to in order for memories to be stored. Doesn't mean "you", perceiver, have the hands on the levers of free will.

[Anonymous No.15552152]

>>15552107
Duality drives evolution, not evolution that drives duality

[Anonymous No.15552172]

>>15550676
The structures and neurochemistry of your brain are biologically determined, retard.

[Anonymous No.15552218]

>>15552152
evolution has to arm you with the means to perceive specific dualities in the first place. the sky being one of the few universals since all life/energy on earth comes from it.

You do your best to shape the environment, but that it will shape you is a guarantee

[Anonymous No.15552270]

>>15552218
Gnostics already perceived evolution and took its ontological consequences much farther than you. You guys are stuck at a lower reading level

[Anonymous No.15552286]

>>15550494
That "knowledge" will actively make his life shit. Fucking hylics on the pyre.

[Anonymous No.15552491]

>>15552270
and yet you don't even believe in evolutionary psychology? what kind of brainlet-tier reading level does that put you on

Some amount of nature/environment making their mark on our instincts and psychology doesn't mean biological determinism. There is still ofc that component of spirit/consciousness/will in us, just as in all life, to introduce new chaos.

Haven't read the gnostics, are you planning on spelling out the point you think you have? No stress if youd prefer to keep your "high reading level" learnings safe from criticism

[Anonymous No.15552513]

>>15552491
when it comes to models of reality, the big fish eat the little fish, and evopsych is a very little fish indeed

[Anonymous No.15552517]

>>15552513
>if the state forces you to believe evopsych then it's true
God Nietzsche was a fucking mistake

[Anonymous No.15553006]

>>15550751
Does evolutionary psychology cover the existence of gender roles as a consequence of physical traits or would that be a different field? If evopsych is how you describe it (evolved perception/selected perception) then it sounds retarded. I've never really interacted with JF type people, though, so I wouldn't really know the nuances of their position.

[Anonymous No.15553122]

>>15550615
>civil servant
KEK. Literally braindead.

[Anonymous No.15553174]

>>15550467
>he starts 'thinking' about things and comes to the same bullshit reductive pseudoscientific conclusion as internet nu-rationalists
lmao is this bait? vague evopsych ""explanations""" exist to feed elitism and is essentially identical to blocking your ears and avoiding discerning reasoning. not only do they fail to explain anything and endorse pseudoscience, but they're more a means for social or political purposes than truth.

[Anonymous No.15553218]

>>15552172
and by your environment and food... things built atop baser biology are not identical to the baser biology and reducing them to it, especially when your understanding of this baser biology is infantile at best and doesn't accurately describe much of anything, is nothing more than absolving scientific responsibility and putting it into an aestheticised mythical other of your psychopathic negation instinct in which another's thoughts offend you and must be made braindead and bitter, like yourself. this shit is lower than even the level of racialist darwinism.

[Anonymous No.15553230]

>>15552286
>caring whether or not this life is shit
>calling others hylics
mhmm.

[Anonymous No.15553284]

>>15550467
>>I stand numbly and recognize the fact that my rigorous and merciless dismantling of her worldview was merely my genes' instinctive struggle for survival by attaining a higher social status through cognitive prowess
Yes I'm sure your genes are thinking exactly the ideology that is a specific product of European scientific history... fucking retard. No such description will ever accurately describe something like genes or physics. And the 'it makes sense' feeling is a cultural product that has no real validity.

[Anonymous No.15553383]

>>15550467
I realized all of this when I was in middle school. And I've long since refuted it too. I won't even give you the typical spiel, of how how says nothing about why, or the even more common Cantorian nonsense undoubtedly already posted in this thread about the limits of positivism exploring itself. I will simply say you should worry less about pop-science panaceas for existentialism and learn math. Really learn real math. God demonstrably exists.

[Anonymous No.15553513]

>>15550467
>she leaves in tears
this is were you lost me. There is no way the girl you tried to harass responded to your badgering with anything besides confusion and annoyance

[Anonymous No.15553692]

>>15550467

Looks like basic pragmatism informed by modern evolution theory and basic evopsych

Is there anything thing new in this book ?

[Anonymous No.15554044]

>>15552513
Never claimed evopsych was the be all end all. Just that it has its uses, it can be useful to think about the social darwinism of ancient times. Evopsych is most commonly denied outright by SJWs who want to deny human nature, sexual differences, racial differences, fitness of different beliefs/religions etc.

Now look at your posts - vague intonations of deeper knowledge you'll never elaborate on. Well congrats man we all have models of reality. In fact the material is already out there to reconcile free will/hard problem with physics. Doesn't mean that some attributes of the domain, such as the ph of the water, might be more easily explained by the behaviour of the little fish, instead of the regulating little-fish-eating big fish.

[Anonymous No.15554066]

>>15553383
Can you demonstrate to me the existence of God? I will be good faith if you want to.

[Anonymous No.15554206]

>>15551560
The claims seeming "pretty logical" is of no relevance. Just like psychoanalytics, evopsych is intentionally built to be able to explain away anything and hence be irrefutable. I'm sure you can see the problem with that.
>>15551751
Alright anon, think of it this way. Psychology is a study of the brain, the brain is more or less impenetrable, in that while we can get some indicators of how it's working, we have no solid way to measure the thoughts and feelings inside. Our only measure of what's inside ultimately comes filteres through human behaviour. Now the brain itself could well have evolved, that's not what I wish to deny. This is not contradictory because we can see brain development across living species and our knowledge of genetics backs up Darwin's theory. But backing up the the theory of evolution, and explaining things using evolution are two completely different things, the later doesn't work because we cannot literally see evolution. We can see genes, but we currently don't have those individually mapped to appropriate behaviours and such. Hope that helps.

[Anonymous No.15554214]

>>15550615
I hope he lived a happy and wholesome life : ). Never had to deal with the typical existential problems some of us go through and the crippling feelings of insecurity many feel. He has truly been blessed

[Anonymous No.15554248]

One thing I find striking in these threads is that people really SEETHE at the implications of OP's idea. In any other philosophy discussion (apart from maybe politics) discussion tends to not be heated. The rationalism vs empiricism or nominalism vs Platonism debates are usually mild. Yet if you ever bring up these sort of explanations for consciousness around a philosopher (or religious person) he will go absolutely mad. You know this is pure internal conflict. Notice how the critical responses are basically "this dumb!" and "darwin stupid!". They simply do not want to accept reality because they are weak and want to be comforted by comforting stories.

[Anonymous No.15554293]

excuse me, does anyone have a source for this being reality?

[Anonymous No.15554427]

>>15551183
I drink Mountain Dew when I am thirsty. Mountain Dew is artificially colored green. What are the evolutionary implications of this?

[Anonymous No.15555251]

>>15550615
>civil servant
Although suspected this.

[Anonymous No.15555305]

>>15550467

[Anonymous No.15555316]

>>15550467
>>finally took the Donald Hoffman Representationalist pill and realized all life as we know it is just symbols constructed for higher fitness pay offs

So Kant meets Darwin? And this Hoffman guy is their child?

[Anonymous No.15555327]

>>15550467
>>was able to thoroughly explain an artist's diagram of a tree and lake by pointing out how she only finds it beautiful because our primordial ancestors required shelter and water to live

But I can also find an arid desert landscape or a wide open ocean breathtaking-ly beautiful and both are completely inhospitable to humans

[Anonymous No.15555362]

>>15555327
>an arid desert landscape
Abrahamic religions were all born in a desert. You unconsciously associate the desert with the divine and thus the beautiful.

>or a wide open ocean
Life came from the sea and you instinctively find it comforting to return to it as if it were your mother's womb. Pretty sure a song in Utena talked about this.

[Anonymous No.15555369]

>>15555362
this is literally schizo-tier free association of words

[Anonymous No.15555412]

>>15555369
Reality isn't real so anything goes.

[Anonymous No.15555423]

>>15555412
the reason no one takes evopsych seriously is because you guys say stuff like this when questioned, not because of le evil SJWs

[Anonymous No.15555649]

>>15553218
>is nothing more than absolving scientific responsibility and putting it into an aestheticised mythical other of your psychopathic negation instinct in which another's thoughts offend you and must be made braindead and bitter, like yourself. this shit is lower than even the level of racialist darwinism.
not an argument.

[Anonymous No.15555666]

>>15553174
>vague evopsych ""explanations""" exist to feed elitism and is essentially identical to blocking your ears and avoiding discerning reasoning. not only do they fail to explain anything and endorse pseudoscience, but they're more a means for social or political purposes than truth.
did it hurt your EMOSHIUNNS?

[Anonymous No.15555674]

>>15550467
read markus gabriel

[Anonymous No.15555703]

>>15553284
>I'm sure your genes are thinking
not what he's saying.
>a specific product of European scientific history
european scientific history gave us the most accurate truth we can have.
>No such description will ever accurately describe something like genes or physics
>can't know nuthinng!
>the 'it makes sense' feeling is a cultural product
source?
>that has no real validity
no one says it does.

ingest more estroegen and FEEL more leftist.

[Anonymous No.15555711]

>>15553383
most people who know a lot of math won't pay your schizo ramblings much attention.
I doubt you actually know that much math.

[Anonymous No.15555738]

>>15554206
>the brain is more or less impenetrable, in that while we can get some indicators of how it's working, we have no solid way to measure the thoughts and feelings inside
not really true.
>Our only measure of what's inside ultimately comes filteres through human behaviour
contradicting yourself.
>explaining things using evolution are two completely different things, the later doesn't work because we cannot literally see evolution
doesn't follow, we CAN literally see evolution.
estroegen brain causes soft-headed thinking because facts are scary and I NEED MUH FEELS!

[Anonymous No.15555804]

>>15555738
>we CAN literally see evolution
>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.15555832]

>>15550676
>your brain thinks, not your DNA
Your brain is literally your DNA. Every cell in your body is what it is because your DNA told it to be that way.

>you ARE the ghost in the machine
Christ. Smells like fucking undergraduates in this thread. Summer never ended

[Anonymous No.15555848]

>>15552286
his life was already shit before he thought he figured everything out, but it will become more shit when he has an identity crisis

[Anonymous No.15555861]

>>15554066
as you already knew, that is something you have to find on your own. stop looking at life like a math equation or you will continue to suffer needlessly

[Anonymous No.15555874]

>>15555832
>your brain is your DNA
>calls others undergraduates

Be more rigorous yourself if you want rigor.

[Anonymous No.15555877]

>>15555804
if you think we cant you should study it a bit more, you're literally using creationist talking points, nobody will take you seriously

[Anonymous No.15556227]

>>15555649
There are multiple arguments in there and a quick look at OP's pathetic, slavish psychology.

[Anonymous No.15556907]

>Christian polfags REEEEing this hard
I haven't been this excited to read a book in a while, thanks OP

[Anonymous No.15557119]

>>15554248
It renders their entire fields of study irrelevant, a lifetime gone to ABSOLUTE waste because of their terminal midwit brains. Of course they attempt to discredit it, perfectly logical behavior that fits perfectly with the theories of evopsych. Philosophy is for cowards so we will never see one that adequately confronts their own wasted life/efforts

[Anonymous No.15557142]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYp5XuGYqqY

[Anonymous No.15557149]

>>15557119
there are no theories of evopsych

[Anonymous No.15557171]

>>15555861
could’ve just said “no” and been less of a fag about it

[Anonymous No.15557260]

>>15554427
Your ancestors used to live in the swamp and drink local low-quality water. And the reason you like the MD so much is because they lacked sugar in their diet and you are now overcompensating.

[Anonymous No.15557301]

>>15557149
> Evopsych must for into the framework of my dead field
Oh really?

[Anonymous No.15557336]

>>15557301
>science is a “dead field”
lol

[Anonymous No.15557343]

>>15554206
>We can see genes, but we currently don't have those individually mapped to appropriate behaviours and such.
I mean do you really believe this? Do you believe that eg. our pain response didn't evolve to help us not die?

[Anonymous No.15557515]

>>15557343
>reifying evolution as some mega-process or mega-subject with teleological agency

[Anonymous No.15557527]

>>15557515
do you believe that we evolved feet for walking?

[Anonymous No.15557890]

>>15557527
For worshipping and kissing

[Anonymous No.15558262]

>>15550615
>>15551807
>>15553122
>>15554214
>>15555251
>>15551831
>>15552003
>>15552086
There's a whole "essay" on gwern.net about this and it's clarifiying.

PIC RELATED

Abstract:

Hydrocephalus is a damaging brain disorder where fluids compress the brain, sometimes drastically decreasing its volume. While often extremely harmful or life-threatening when untreated, some people with severe compression nevertheless are relatively normal, and in one case (Lorber) they have been claimed to have IQs as high as 126 with a brain volume 5% of normal brains. A few of these case studies have been used to argue the extraordinary claim that brain volume has little or nothing to do with intelligence; authors have argued that hydrocephalus suggests enormous untapped cognitive potential which are tapped into rarely for repairs and can boost intelligence on net, or that intelligence/consciousness are non-material or tapping into ESP.

I point out why this claim is almost certainly untrue because it predicts countless phenomena we never observe, and investigate the claimed examples in more detail: the cases turn out to be suspiciously unverifiable (Lorber), likely fraudulent (Oliveira), or actually low intelligence (Feuillet). It is unclear if high-functioning cases of hydrocephalus even have less brain mass, as opposed to lower proxy measures like brain volume.

I then summarize anthropologist John Hawks’s criticisms of the original hydrocephalus author: his brain imaging data could not have been as precise as claimed, he studied a selective sample, the story of the legendary IQ 126 hydrocephalus patient raises questions as to how normal or intelligent he really was, and hydrocephalus in general appears to be no more anomalous or hard-to-explain than many other kinds of brain injuries, and in a comparison, hemispherectomies, removing or severing a hemisphere, has produced no anomalous reports of above-average intelligence (just deficits), though they ought to be just the same in terms of repairs or ESP.

That hydrocephalus cases can reach roughly normal levels of functioning, various deficits aside, can be explained by brain size being one of several relevant variables, brain plasticity enabling cognitive flexibility & recovery from gradually-developing conditions, and overparameterization giving robustness to damage and poor environments, and learning ability. The field of deep learning has observed similar phenomenon in training of artificial neural networks. This is consistent with Lorber’s original contention that the brain was more robust, and hydrocephalus was more treatable, than commonly accepted, but does not support any of the more exotic interpretations since put on his findings.

In short, there is little anomalous to explain, and standard brain-centric accounts appear to account for existing verified observations without much problem or resort to extraordinary claims.