[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 35 KB, 325x434, Capture.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19321776 No.19321776 [Reply] [Original]

>thesis is fascinating
>book is boring as hell
any more like this

>> No.19321858

>>19321776
What kind of nerds reads shit like this? Do you think you're better than everyone because you read pretentious, nonsensical books like this?

>> No.19321867

>>19321858
Calm down anon lmao

>> No.19321920

>>19321858
Luke Smith did a podcast episode about it kek

>> No.19321924

>>19321858
wtf

>> No.19321939

>>19321858
This is a midwit normie book

>> No.19322959

>>19321776
I read it some time ago and thought it rather fun

>> No.19323188

>>19321920
>>19321776
>>19321858
I watched Luke Smith's podcast a while ago, it really reminded me of the Buddhist understanding of the consciousness. It seems like his strain of understanding of consciousness is a direct model based on the Buddhist monk/philosopher Dignaga's (5th century) model. I wouldn't be surprised if he was influenced someway or another, the psychology field is influenced by Buddhism through and through.

>> No.19323327
File: 14 KB, 462x664, images (2).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19323327

>>19321776

>> No.19324059
File: 10 KB, 376x499, 31oypxpWw0L._SX374_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19324059

>>19323327

>> No.19324160

it is absolute nonsense without a shred of empirical support. no serious psychologist or neurologist takes this seriously

>> No.19324597

>>19324160
>serious psychologist
Oxymoron

>> No.19325745

>>19321776
Hamlet's mill. Good luck finding the thesis though.

>> No.19326947

>>19324160
I don't need an idea to be strictly true to find it enjoyable.

>> No.19327033

>>19324160
this. stick with works that have been qualified by accredited institutions of experts

>> No.19327038

>>19327033
>accredited institutions of experts
b8

>> No.19327187

>>19321858
filtered

>> No.19327209

>>19321776
Thesis is fundamentally retarded, read Gilgamesh

>> No.19327291

>>19321776
How can one brainlet be this filtered? It's the exact opposite: the thesis is utterly pants-on-head retarded when briefly summarized, but the book read as a whole is brilliant.

>> No.19327307

>>19324160
>no serious psychologist or neurologist takes this seriously
>The discussion of making things to think with in chapters 5 and 6 was inspired not just by Richard Gregory's Mind in Science ( 1981) and Andy Clark and Annette Karmiloff-Smith's 1993 paper, but also by Karmiloff-Smith's book Beyond Modularity ( 1992), and by several earlier books that have been fruitfully rattling around in my brain for years: Julian Jaynes' The Origins of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind ( 1976), George Lakoff and Mark Johnson's Metaphors We Live By ( 1980), Philip Johnson-Laird's Mental Models ( 1983), and Marvin Minsky's The Society of Mind ( 1985). A new book that presents the first actual models of some of these quintessentially human activities is Douglas Hofstadter's Fluid Concepts and Creative Analogies: Computer Models of the Fundamental Mechanisms of Thought ( 1995).
guess who wrote this

>> No.19327713

>>19327291
nah, the thesis is cool but then most of the book is just like "at XYZ archeological site they found the king had been buried sitting up, that must be because they thought he was the voice in their heads," i'm not exaggerating how much he stretches it

>> No.19327816

>>19321776

The best part is that he's obviously wrong. At best there is a windowdressing aspect to language. Normies can acquire certain catchphrases and polite mannerisms that make them seem somewhat more human than they actually are. For example, Nietzsche accuses Euripides of educating the rabble and founding the first pretense of collective humanity. But Julian Jaynes takes this same observation into a totally strange and fucked up direction where we all collectively and equally "evolved" higher levels of consciousness in accordance to culture and language and our brains and minds physically took upon a different according shape to each stage of civilization. But this is schizo and obviously not true according to practically any evidence we have. He's mistaking the windowdressing "politeness" of normies as being evidence of sincere, substantial change in the mind

>> No.19327886
File: 107 KB, 601x499, 1a1.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19327886

>What kind of nerds reads shit like this?

>it is absolute nonsense without a shred of empirical support (haha). no serious psychologist or neurologist takes this seriously

>Thesis is fundamentally retarded...

>The best part is that he's obviously wrong.