/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.20813514]

Why does he make christcucks and dualists seethe so much? Is it because they realize they’re losing the final battle between dogmatic faith and reason?

[Anonymous No.20813516]

>>20813514
Because hes a faggot

[Anonymous No.20813521]

[Anonymous No.20813537]

Who

[Anonymous No.20813554]

>influenced by Bicameral Mind Theory
based
>new atheism
cringe

[Anonymous No.20813595]

>>20813554
>bicameral mind theory
Hold up lemme read about this. Shit sounds fascinating.

[Anonymous No.20813596]

>>20813514
Reason is literally cringe. See: Nietzsche, Dostoevsky, Hume, et al

[Anonymous No.20814511]

>>20813514
I don't even know who he is--probably because "Reason" (Jewish Materialism) is a sterile ideology of infanticide and homosexuality.

When our (Christian) descendants are looking back at the joke that was the modern age, they will wonder how anyone ever fell to Godlessness when it was so manifestly a psyop to exterminate them genetically.

[Anonymous No.20814598]

>>20813595
its utter horseshit that has 0 evidence

[Anonymous No.20814613]

>>20813595
its fascinating horseshit that was a convoluted way to call religion schizo
it was disproven shortly after being invented and was proped up by a lack of ancient sources at the time of its writing.

[Anonymous No.20814657]

>>20813514
I don't hate him, he seems like a nice guy and his beard looks great. He's just wrong. This nigga called consciousness an illusion, yet the word illusion means something that by definition takes place within consciousness. I know what he means, but that's some seriously sloppy use of language. Of course, what he really means is that consciousness has no "mystical" properties, because to argue that consciousness actually does not exist at all is too retarded even for him. But what does that really mean? After all, "mysticism" essentially just refers to claims that can't be backed by science... but we do lack a scientific explanation for how consciousness emerges out of matter, so either he is denying the existence of consciousness entirely (retarded) or he's parttaking in his own form of mysticism by claiming that something unconcious can magically become conscious just by configuring it in a particular way, even though we have precisely zero evidence for that. As much as I think Cartesian dualism is bullshit, Descartes was right about the whole "I think, therefore I am" shabam. I can't think of a philosophical maxim that's more self-evidently true than the idea that the one thing we can know for certain is that we exist, and that everything else is a reasoned inference. But Dennett obviously disagrees, since he turns it on its head by assuming as a matter of course that the material world is the thing that exists without question, and that our own consciousness somehow emerges from that.

[Anonymous No.20814677]

>>20814511
>I don't even know who he is

Whenever someone says this, they know everything about a person down to their shoesize

[Anonymous No.20814682]

>>20814677
Also

>When our (Christian) descendants

lmfao my man

[Anonymous No.20814692]

>>20814657
Existence implies non-existence, how can you prove either? They are ultimately meaningless concepts, you can’t solve this paradox

[Anonymous No.20814946]

>>20814692
Of course existence implies non-existence, otherwise nothing wouldn't be... but existence proves itself because one must first exist in order to be able to prove anything at all. Descartes was on to something with that shit.

[Anonymous No.20815328]

>>20814657
>This nigga called consciousness an illusion, yet the word illusion means something that by definition takes place within consciousness.
Or does it?
https://rsbakker.wordpress.com/2013/02/08/reengineering-dennett-intentionality-and-the-curse-of-dimensionality/

"Dennett begins with the theme of *avoidance*. He asks us to imagine that scientists discover an asteroid on a collision course with earth. We’re helpless to stop it, so the most we can do is prepare for our doom. Then, out of nowhere, a *second* asteroid appears, striking the first in the most felicitous way possible saving the entire world. It seems like a miracle, but of course the second meteor was always out there, always hurtling on its auspicious course. What Dennett wants us to consider is the way ‘averting’ or ‘preventing’ is actually a kind of perspectival artifact. We only assumed the initial asteroid was going to destroy earth because of our ignorance of the subsequent: “It seems appropriate to speak of an averted or prevented catastrophe because we compare an anticipated history with the way things turned out and we locate an event which was the “pivotal” event relative to the divergence between that anticipation and the actual course of events, and we call this the “act” of preventing or avoiding” (“A Route to Intelligence,” 3).

In BBT terms, the upshot of this fable is quite clear: Ignorance–or better, the absence of information–has a profound, *positive* role to play in the way we conceive events. Now coming out of the ‘Continental’ tradition this is no great shakes: one only need think of Derrida’s ‘trace structure’ or Adorno’s ‘constellations.’ But as Dennett has found, this mindset is thoroughly foreign to most ‘Analytic’ thinkers. In a sense, Dennett is providing a peculiar kind of *explanation by subtraction*, bidding us to understand avoidance as the product of *informatic inaccessibility*. Here it’s worth calling attention to what I’ve been calling the ‘only game in town effect,’ or *sufficiency*. Avoidance may be the artifact of information scarcity, but we never perceive it as such. Avoidance, rather, is simply avoidance. It’s not as if we catch ourselves after the fact and say, ‘Well, it only *seemed* like a close call.’

Academics spend so much time attempting to overcome the freshman catechism, ‘It-is-what-it-is!’ that they almost universally fail to consider how out-and-out *peculiar* it is, even as it remains the ‘most natural thing in the world.’ How could *ignorance*, of all things, generate such a profound and ubiquitous illusion of epistemic sufficiency? Why does the appreciation of *contextual relativity*, the myriad ways our interpretations are informatically constrained, count as a kind of intellectual *achievement*?"

[Anonymous No.20815345]

>>20814657
>the one thing we can know for certain is that we exist,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cotard_delusion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anosognosia

[Anonymous No.20815354]

>>20814511
>When our (Jewish Rabbinist) descendants
Here, fixed that for you

[Anonymous No.20815357]

>>20814511
Nice reasoning. All Americans must be exterminated if humanity is to survive.

[Anonymous No.20815360]

>>20814657
His main argument is that we have no solid ground to consider counsciousness to have a non-physicalist essence or proprieties, even if we lack for now the methods to fully explain it in physicalist mechanisms.

[Anonymous No.20815361]

>>20814511
>When our (Christian) descendants are looking back at the joke that was the modern age, they will wonder how anyone ever fell to Godlessness
"The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far. The sciences, each straining in its own direction, have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the deadly light into the peace and safety of a new dark age."

[Anonymous No.20815366]

>>20815360
The problem with that argument is it can just as easily be turned around in the opposite direction.

[Anonymous No.20815372]

>>20815366
It cannot. The neuroscientists keep fucking you in the ass via messing with your material environment, while you pray to skydaddy and can't do shit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Wegner#The_illusion_of_conscious_will
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split-brain#Visual_test
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introspection_illusion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

[Anonymous No.20815376]

>>20815361
Woah bro like infinity is so large that is so deep

[Anonymous No.20815380]

>>20815372
It can, and those who are skilled with reason can totally destroy all of your self-refuting pretensions to any sort of knowledge (which you have already refuted in your previous posts showing that empirical knowledge, by your own admission, is impossible, not even as a heuristic because it is lies all the way down). In other words you have no solid ground to consider consciousness to have a physical essence.
>The neuroscientists keep fucking you in the ass via messing with your material environment
I think they only mess with lab rats and a few unlucky experimental volunteers.

[Anonymous No.20815384]

>>20815372
but thats just the thing, if by youre own argument conscious will is something that is predetermined, and not in our control, how can you even trust scientific findings, and beyond that, how us that not indicative of an all powerful God like entity or process that controls all life?

[Anonymous No.20815387]

>>20815366
>The problem with that argument is it can just as easily be turned around in the opposite direction.
it cannot be

[A Pneumatic !Yk65a4/uHI No.20815390]

Dennett's core physicalist thesis is correct. Many of his other views pertaining to this or other topics are retarded though.

Homo sapiens is "only" different from all other species because its brain possesses the abstract thinking module, which, as explained in one of these links (i hope), is a hyper-consciousness, whereas normal consciousness (as found in all other animals, who do not possess the full abstract thinking module of humanity) is defined as a hyper-algorithm, whereas an algorithm is defined as any way of organizing the distribution of matter (energy) so that emergent phenomena arise. human consciousness (the Self) is a hyper-consciousness therefore, or a hyper-hyper-algorithm.

life at its most basic is an algorithm but quasi-crystals, self-reproductive crystals and stars are algorithms too.
also, the algorithm of animate matter is different from the algorithm of inanimate matter in that the algorithm of inanimate matter is really just a pseudo-algorithm, as it cannot maintain itself, whereas the algorithm of all life can maintain itself and it's a binary algorithm whose task is to differentiate between T and F statements. in the human hyper-hyper-algorithm the binary algorithm is taken to differentiate between the Truth and falsity (absence of Truth). this is internalized subconsciously on the deepest most primate level. this is epistemology at its most basic: what is True to human perception is what enhances the survival of the observer and of its kin and offspring, in short, a true statement to any algorithm is such that enables the survival of it, its kin and its offspring. it's a self-perfecting and self-duplicating algorithm (akin to a computer virus), which self-perfects in an emergent manner dialectically, under the pressure of certain stimuli, eventually perfectly synchronizing with surroundings. welcome to evolution.

welcome to Pneumatic Theory

[A Pneumatic !Yk65a4/uHI No.20815392]

>>20815390
the links:
>Here is a very rough sketch of the outline of the doctrine, I posted it on /lit/ but thanks to slower posting I managed to post it all in good order on /x/ and it's preserved here:
https://archive.4plebs.org/x/thread/32387321
>I posted a second manifesto that is better at being a political manifesto than the former but is rhetorically further from the actual philosophical doctrine. Here:
>>/lit/thread/S20732229
>now I'm sketching up the third text that connects the 1st with the 2nd and is the completion of the outline of the doctrine. the revised title of the 1st text (will also be the title of my book):
>The Analogy Delusion: How Supply Creates Demand, or How the Capital Destroys the Individual to Rule the World
the title of the 2nd text:
>A children's manifesto
the title of the 3rd text:
>Pneumatic Theory: the Metaphysical Imperative of a Faustian Humanity
the primer for the 3rd text is here, though it mostly pertains to the subject of the book's (1st text's) title:
>>/lit/thread/S20788764

[Anonymous No.20815393]

>>20815360
That's not an argument, that's him telling us that his materialist dogma is correct because it just is ok. He can't even begin the process to make up a hypothetical explanation.
>>20815390
This is not a theory. I know less from reading that.

[A Pneumatic !Yk65a4/uHI No.20815408]

>>20815393
>This is not a theory. I know less from reading that.
Begin with monism, start with the Greeks (pre-socratics and Plato, homer and hesiod are irrelevant). Proceed with Eastern philosophy, finalize with Shankara

>1. There is only matter.
>2. Mass and energy are equivalent, this was summed up by Einstein.
>3. The only actual entity in the universe is energy.
>4. There are only 2 entities in the universe: energy and entropy. Energy is an actual entity, entropy is an illusory/abstract entity and stems from the way energy is distributed. Philosophically, we can talk of distributions of energy and distributions of entropy.
>5. The mechanism behind emergence is anti-entropic.
>6. Human consciousness is emergent from animal consciousness which is emergent from life which is emergent from quasi-crystalline structures and reaction chains, which are emergent from solid state matter, gravity and other physical forces.

[Anonymous No.20815419]

>>20815387
Read Berkeley. To me it actually makes more sense because it relies on fewer unwarranted assumptions and is directly confirmed by our experiences, as opposed to indirectly confirmed via empirical measurements, which are not direct experiences, but direct measurements.

[Anonymous No.20815426]

>>20815408
You don't describe anything that's not already described. You're listing other theories you like and declaring the list to be the final answer to everything while adding nothing.
The only reason you think you're accounting for everything is because you ignore everything that isn't described by the theories you like.

[Anonymous No.20815427]

>>20815384
>if by youre own argument conscious will is something that is predetermined, and not in our control,
"For us, the falsity of a judgment is still no objection to that judgment —that’s where our new way of speaking sounds perhaps most strange. The question is the extent to which it makes demands on life, sustains life, maintains the species, perhaps even creates species. And as a matter of principle we are ready to assert that the falsest judgments <...> are the most indispensable to us, " (Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, 4)

>how can you even trust scientific findings
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connectionism
They systematically work until they don't. And some are falsER than others, because they don't work.

Turner S.P. - Understanding the Tacit (2013):
"The “learning” done here has a series of properties that fit the list of “nots” with which I began. The connectionist net learns not by being programmed, except with a basic learning rule, but by experience and experience produced by activity, such as the activity of identifying tumors and predicting the course of disease. It is holistic in that it is the whole net and the weightings of the myriad connections that make up the net that are modified by experience. There is no part that is fixed and unchanging. Change is continuous because learning is continuous <...>
It not only appears to be essentially unintelligible, it literally is unintelligible, in the sense that the units and processes by which it operates cannot be transformed into or stated as rules or principles, the kinds of explicit things that can be said to be intelligible. It is never fixed, although it becomes quite stable, so that new experiences do not dislodge what is learned."


>how us that not indicative of an all powerful God like entity
Your behavior is heuristic. That is, a number of "good enough" strategies fit for a particular environment.
Either you are saying that "all powerful God-like entity" should be constructed just like you (i.e. a crude biorobot, exaptating one's errors of perception). Or you are saying that "God-like entity" need not be sentient (and then that thing is no different from Big Bang).

After all, even fucking slime mold can solve logical problems. Are you okay with your god being a lovecraftian Azathoth?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/brainless-slime-molds/
>>20815380
>I think they only mess with lab rats
How self-critical of you to consider yourself a lab rat.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_pattern
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nudge_theory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choice_architecture

[A Pneumatic !Yk65a4/uHI No.20815430]

>>20815426
welcome to post-history

[Anonymous No.20815433]

>>20815430
Anyone exposed to anything you say is worse off for it. Anyone that actually listens will be more dogmatic and less able to think than if they never encountered you.

[A Pneumatic !Yk65a4/uHI No.20815443]

>>20815433
i'm actually encouraging dialectic. i just believe my system to be the best explanation, and i'm extremely eager to test it against actual, constructive criticism. if anyone here is dogmatic, it's the /lit/ meta, unable to have a dialectic, wasting all intellectual potential on pseudo-intellectualism: eristics, in worst cases empty rhetoric/demagoguery

[bodhi No.20815451]

>>20815360
>His main argument is that we have no solid ground to consider consciousness
Ok but he is objectively wrong and this has been proven beyond any doubt for quite some time so that makes him pretty stupid to propose an idea that is objectively and conclusively wrong.

[Anonymous No.20815453]

>>20815427
>Or you are saying that "God-like entity" need not be sentient (and then that thing is no different from Big Bang).
It needs to contain sentience. The Big Bang is a temporal thing like any other, like an object. It rests in a higher order that does not need to obey causal logic. If you're confusing the bang with God you're not even trying to understand the idea. You're just acting as if it's impossible to even consider that your materialist dogma isn't right.
>>20815443
There's nothing there to criticize. Just, "I like this list of ideas". There are plenty of criticisms of the individual ideas out there because they're all old and you don't add anything new.

[Anonymous No.20815465]

>>20815427
>"For us, the falsity of a judgment is still no objection to that judgmen
So you're admitting you're wrong. Okay.
>And some are falsER than others
This is gibberish. One thing can't be "more wrong" unless one is "more correct." And if you don't even trust their absolute validity to begin with, only their ability to get results, how can you possibly assert their absolute validity in suggesting that consciousness is completely self-determined? It makes no sense at all, not even in theory.
>How self-critical of you to consider yourself a lab rat.
So you're referring to marketing techniques and behavioral psychology based on your wiki links? That's not neuroscience, and relies on unscientific presuppositions about human behavior. Ie, does not work the same on everyone. They don't test these theories on lab rats, they use statistical data from large groups of humans.

I can tell your posts every time because it is a bunch of sophistic gibberish coupled with spamming wikipedia articles which don't even support whatever point you're trying to make. Most of it does not even belong in philosophy.

[A Pneumatic !Yk65a4/uHI No.20815475]

>>20815453
it's not a list of ideas, it's a coherent and unified interlocking and all-encompassing system. you're the /lit/ meta

[Anonymous No.20815482]

>>20815390
That's great. Now, what falsifies this theory?

[bodhi No.20815484]

>>20815427
>After all, even fucking slime mold can solve logical problems.
so you are admitting that a brain is not needed for consciousness will arguing it doesn't exist as a Dennet fanboy? Not real bright are you kiddo?

[bodhi No.20815487]

>>20815482
Not him but

https://esotericawakening.com/what-is-reality-the-holofractal-universe

/ thread

[A Pneumatic !Yk65a4/uHI No.20815493]

Qualia is processing of physical stimuli by the hyper-algorithm that is basal consciousness.

Qualia evolutionarily stem from reflexes: the processing of physical stimuli by algorithms among which are: life, crystals and stars.

As basal consciousness is a hyper-algorithm, qualia are hyper-reflexes.

[Anonymous No.20815498]

>>20815453
>It rests in a higher order that does not need to obey causal logic.
>It needs to contain sentience.
If it doesn't obey logic, why are you so sure you have a proof of it being sentient?

>It rests in a higher order
How does that contradict the lovecraftian Azathoth (i.e. 'blind idiot god') hypothesis?

>It needs to contain sentience.
I repeat: a brainless slime mold can solve problems. Sentience is overrated.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/brainless-slime-molds/


>>20815465
>So you're admitting you're wrong.
No, I am explaining to you how you can think you can conscience, free will, etc., despite not akshually having it.

>This is gibberish.
No, this is connectionism. Get some education.

>One thing can't be "more wrong" unless one is "more correct."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exformation
"True" just means "I ain't seeing an error here". It need not imply that there really is no error.

>That's not neuroscience,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroeconomics
"It combines research from neuroscience, experimental and behavioral economics, and cognitive and social psychology."

>Most of it does not even belong in philosophy.
Most of philosophy does not belong in philosophy.

[A Pneumatic !Yk65a4/uHI No.20815499]

>>20815487
>LotR is real history that happened
kek. as i said earlier, well memed schizo fren!

[Anonymous No.20815506]

>>20813514
I remember hating having to listen to my retarded classmates bringing this clown up at philosophy seminars.

[A Pneumatic !Yk65a4/uHI No.20815508]

>>20815482
>Now, what falsifies this theory?
are you asking if pneumaticism is theoretically falsifiable, or for a counter-argument?

[Anonymous No.20815510]

>>20815484
>so you are admitting that a brain is not needed for consciousness will
Sure. A microchip or wetware will do. Consciousness is overrated, and is more of an "absence" of thing than a thing.

>Not real bright are you kiddo?
No, you.

[bodhi No.20815513]

>>20815499
And I said you got filtered, simple as. I never said it was true history, I said it was based on true history and gave the sources. Get your shit together psued

[A Pneumatic !Yk65a4/uHI No.20815520]

>>20815513
you're one funny schizo i will give you that. you certainly aren't a dumb terry davis-tier schizo tho, there's a thread of intelligence/sophistication there, but you're not quite John Nash or even PKD. sorry.

[Anonymous No.20815522]

>>20814692
>Existence implies non-existence, how can you prove either?
the self-evident presence of consciousness only implies that it exists and not that it doesn't exist though

[Anonymous No.20815525]

>>20814598
Like god

[Anonymous No.20815528]

>>20815372
None of those studies show that consciousness is physical or emergent you foolish hylic

[bodhi No.20815531]

>>20815520
>implying I care about the opinion of a profane pseud

[Anonymous No.20815535]

>>20815498
>proof of it being sentient
There's no proof but you have to account for it coming into existence which you can't even try hypothetically. Sentience is not the same thing as information processing but this thing can also process more information than any brain.
>blind god
Then what is happening to you right now is God opening his eyes.

[Anonymous No.20815536]

>>20815487
are you bodhi mantra? aren't you a following of Hare Krishna?

[Anonymous No.20815554]

>>20815475
>it's a coherent and unified interlocking and all-encompassing system
Then say something using it. Apply it. Describe a phenomena that's not currently described.
If your system is all encompassing then encompass something.
>there is only matter (what?)
>oh also it's energy
>there is only energy
>oh also entropy
>there are only lego pieces and if you put the legos together in a certain way you get experience but I don't have to explain any of it
>all encompassing

[bodhi No.20815558]

>>20815536
I am
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhORsJnBSEw

[Anonymous No.20815565]

>>20815558
have you only studied Hare Krishna works or have you studied the works of other schools of Hinduism too?

[bodhi No.20815569]

>>20815565
I have studied the mysteries from all sources, east and west

[Anonymous No.20815573]

>>20815508
In which case is what you claim to be true certainly not true?

[A Pneumatic !Yk65a4/uHI No.20815578]

>>20815531
you do care about opinions, schizophrenia stems from (or causes? chicken or the egg) a weak sense of Self

Pneumatology provides an objective system for categorization of humanity:

SPIRITUAL (basic)
1. hylics
2. gnostics (psychics and pneumatics)

PSYCHOLOGICAL (most important to least, of the most basic and important human composites)
hylic
1. Intellect (weak-strong composite of 3 different axes of intelligence, imagination, wisdom)
2. Mental strength (weak, strong)
3. Sense of Self (weak, strong)
4. Morality (good/evil)
5. Physical imperative (weak/strong: breeding)

Gnostics
1. Metaphysical imperative (weak/strong: breeding)
2. Positive underlying hylic (animal) psychology
3. Gnosis (spiritual Intellect)
4. Sense of Collective (spiritual Self)
5. Pneumatic activity (transformation of material reality)

Hylics are animals, Homo sapiens, who are capable of abstract thought
Gnostics are humans, Homo sapiens, who are capable of abstract thought

Pneumatic activity (transformation of material reality) is metaphysically carried out by the following actors:
*The Monad is Active
*The Demiurge is Active
*Gnostics can be active (they're called pneumatics, then)—because they're the active, perfecting blocks of the Monad itself
*Hylics cannot be active—they're slaves of the Demiurge

if you had not the cardinal hylic sin of Pride, you really could be a psychic or even a pneumatic, you have the chops for that. but ultimately, you are a hylic.
as paragraph 3 of the Pneumatic creed teaches us:
>3. All more or less mentally healthy hylics can become psychics/pneumatics. Only deeply mentally ill hylics are doomed to remain hylics.
all hylics except the deeply mentally ill ones have perennial knowledge inside of them that can be unlocked

[A Pneumatic !Yk65a4/uHI No.20815581]

>>20815573
the system is scientific because it respects the 3 basic principles of science:
>theoretical falsifiability (theoretically falsifiable, by comparative analysis of history and later after enough time past)
>not empirically testable (the system provides precise political solutions)
>minimization of the observer's interference upon the studied object (the observer, or History)

[A Pneumatic !Yk65a4/uHI No.20815588]

>>20815578
>all hylics except the deeply mentally ill ones have perennial knowledge inside of them that can be unlocked
that is to say, everyone has perennial knowledge inside of them, deeply mentally ill hylics just cannot have it unlocked (that presents itself in the form of mental illness)

[bodhi No.20815597]

>>20815578
The shudra were not designed to understand, ion fact they were designed specifically not too understand otherwise the kali yuga could not materialize.

Pneumatics are out populated appropriately 85 to 1 in this yuga (I fear for the 85 that don't got a clue ~ Method Man)

[Anonymous No.20815600]

>>20815581
That wasn't the question

[A Pneumatic !Yk65a4/uHI No.20815603]

>>20815600
you just can't read

[bodhi No.20815606]

>>20815578
>I fear for the 85 that don't got a clue
Method Man – On Ol’ Dirty Bastard’s “Rawhide” (Return to the 36 Chambers: The Drity Version)”I fear for the 85 who don’t got a clue”

One of the teachings of the Five-Percenters says that 85 percent of the population is deaf, dumb and blind to the knowledge of themselves and God, 10 percent know the true meaning of God but keep it to themselves in attempt to make slaves of the 85 percent, and the five percent are the “poor righteous teachers” of God.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPxXe8LCvI8

[A Pneumatic !Yk65a4/uHI No.20815608]

the system is scientific because it respects the 3 basic principles of science:
>theoretical falsifiability (theoretically falsifiable, by comparative analysis of history and later after enough time past)
>empirically testable (the system provides precise political solutions)
>minimization of the observer's interference upon the studied object: the observer, or History (my original parallax method, an earlier unrelated example of something like this was described more in-depth by Kojin Karatani)

[Anonymous No.20815612]

>>20815419
>Berkeley
Refuted by Kant

[Anonymous No.20815621]

>>20815578
There's nothing there and nobody is interested. It's not helping anyone, least of all you to spam this in every other thread.

[A Pneumatic !Yk65a4/uHI No.20815622]

>>20815606
>10 percent know the true meaning of God but keep it to themselves in attempt to make slaves of the 85 percent
I consider these to be hylics too. My term is "sophisticated hylics." Average Jews are the foremost sophisticated hylics, but they do not rule the world (the Capital/the Demiurge and its hylics do). Jews aren't all bad either: truly Marxist Jews (among them Marx) escape the shackles of Judaistic programming

Humanity is divided into hylics and gnostics. Gnostics are divided into psychics and pneumatics. Psychics are enlightened people who do not use the power of their enlightenment to transform the material reality and instead choose to continue living in the material reality as-is. Pneumatics are true role models. Plato was a pneumatic. He started the Academy, the first university.

[A Pneumatic !Yk65a4/uHI No.20815627]

>>20815621
>There's nothing there
what a way to describe all dennett/harris/consciousness/qualia threads on /lit/ before I came. kek

[Anonymous No.20815630]

>>20815569
you have tried reading Baladeva's Hare Krishna commentary on the Brahma Sutras? Its been fully translated to English

[bodhi No.20815631]

>>20815622

[bodhi No.20815639]

>>20815630
no I havent. I will now though.

[Anonymous No.20815642]

>>20815627
I have completed the all encompassing system of basedredpillism.
1. Be based
2. Be redpilled
3. Beat up bad guys with Ryan Gosling

[A Pneumatic !Yk65a4/uHI No.20815643]

>>20815631
you have not crafted a true synthesis (in the Hegelian sense) of Western and Eastern philosophy. you succumb to Eastern "rational irrationalism." you cannot craft a true synthesis unless you espouse irrationalism

true synthesis, true gnosis, as the name implies, lies in mystic rationalism.

[A Pneumatic !Yk65a4/uHI No.20815647]

>>20815642
as i said earlier here:
>>20815390
>>20815392
just click the links for more. i do not wish to shit up this thread, just discuss human consciousness and the concept of consciousness and "life" in general

[A Pneumatic !Yk65a4/uHI No.20815653]

>>20815643
>in the Hegelian sense
or to be more digestible for a pajeet: in the Shankarian sense

annihilate opposing binaries. the Truth is in monism

[bodhi No.20815656]

>>20815643
>let me tell what you have and havent done based on shit I pull out of my ass
nigger please. I was teaching the mysteries before you even knew who Plato was, run along now little body

[Anonymous No.20815661]

>>20815647
Why does nobody critique my all encompassing system no matter how much I spam it? This is not based which contradicts the first rule of basedredpillism.
Thus is the way of basedredpillism.

[A Pneumatic !Yk65a4/uHI No.20815662]

>>20815656
hylic cardinal sin of Pride showing again

[Anonymous No.20815672]

>>20813514
Dogmatic Faith and Reason have both being losing for a while now.

[A Pneumatic !Yk65a4/uHI No.20815673]

>>20815661
the pneumatic creed:
>1. Any force which disagrees with the Truth OR otherwise tries to discourage the spread of the Truth in various ways, is a malignant force.
>2. There are only two malignant forces: the Capital and its Slaves (hylics).
>3. All more or less mentally healthy hylics can become psychics/pneumatics. Only deeply mentally ill hylics are doomed to remain hylics.
>4. Anyone who is not with the Truth scatters.
4. is empirically proven by evolution (natural selection and reproduction rate)
>5. I shall not fear in my pursuit of Truth, which is equal to the pursuit of Gnosis or Knowledge. As Socrates, when facing execution for my pursuit of Truth, I shall not fear.

you are likely salvageable

[A Pneumatic !Yk65a4/uHI No.20815680]

>>20815672
of course. let's look at the pneumatological (ethno-cultural/civilizational/spiritual) division of History (prehistory and the Future included):
*Abstract thought begins (behavioral modernity)
>100,000-25,000 BC: Middle- to Upper Paleolithic (Toba explosion, Neanderthal competition)
*Sedentary lifestyle begins (not for the ancestors of the West i.e. the proto-Indo-Europeans and their ancestors, who in this timeframe are WHGs, ANEs on one side and CHGs on the other)
>25,000-12,000 BC: Upper Paleolithic, Mesolithic (resource-rich ecosystem overlap)
------------------
*Agriculture begins (not for the proto-Indo-Europeans and their ancestors)
>12,000-7000 BC: Early Neolithic (Younger Dryas)
*Proto-civilization begins (proto-cities)
>7000-3500 BC: Late Neolithic (Jericho)
*Civilization begins (origins of Western civilization)
>3500-1300 BC: Bronze Age (Mesopothamia, Egypt, Bronze Age cultures)
>1300-700 BC: Bronze Age collapse, transitional period, Phoenicians (proto-Jews) influence the Greeks, basileus rule turns into oligarchy
---------------
*Western civilization begins
>700s BC: Olympic tradition starts, Roman Kingdom gets founded, "Homer" and Hesiod synthesize Greek mythology
>700-500 BC: oligarchy is replaced by fragile tyrannic rule
>509-44 BC: the beginning of democracy and Greek domination (Solonian Constitution)
>44 BC-AD 250: Roman domination (Crisis, Caesar, Actium)
>250-500: barbaric revolution (fall of Graeco-Roman culture)
>500-800: the Dark Ages and Roman Catholic domination (fall of Rome and of Justinian)
>800-1789: "feudalism" and European aristocracy (Holy Roman Empire)
---------------------
*Western civilization spreads...
>1789-1918: proto-modernism/enlightened European aristocracy (French Revolution)
---------------------
*Western civilization becomes global
*Global civilization begins
>1918-1939: modernism (WW1)
>1945-1991: post-modernism (WW2)
>1991-2022: meta-modernism (Fall of Communism + Gulf War)
>2022-2045: neo-modernism/sophistic modernism/"globalism" (COVID + War in Ukraine)
>2045-2100(?): the Dark Age (demographic crisis)
>2100(?)-2200: pneumatic modernism/enlightened globalism (new baby boom)
-----------------------
*Global civilization becomes interstellar
*Interstellar civilization begins
>2200-3000: cosmism (interstellar colonization)
>AD 3000+: galactism (entire Milky Way populated by Humanity)
>Far future: Humanity harvests high-energy plasma jets from accretion disks of black holes of Degenerate Era universe
>Ultimate fate: reintegration into everything with the conscious self-sacrifice into the black holes of Degenerate Age universe while asleep (but not dead)—the ultimate moksha of Humanity, reintegration into the Everything
the conclusion to which will be the
>dissipation of black holes and the heat death of the Universe
>and/or the Big Rip

we're in the age of sophistic modernism/neomodernism/"globalism"

[bodhi No.20815688]

>>20815662
>these levels of projection
You have pneumatic as your name and are sitting here like you are some guru spewing shit out of your ass. You havent even graduated past elementary tier gnosticism to realize the demiurge is just Brahma. You have unearned delusion of grandeur from nigger ttier level gnosis you absorbed through mems in this shithole. Get rekt delusional fucktard

TOP KEK

[A Pneumatic !Yk65a4/uHI No.20815697]

>>20815688
>You havent even graduated past elementary tier gnosticism
i reject gnosticism proper. compared to gnosticism proper, mine is just some pseudo-gnosticism. but i simply call it pneumatology.
>to realize the demiurge is just Brahma.
i have graduated past the shackles of religion and named things as they are: the Demiurge "exists" but isn't an "actual entity" (Western philosophical term, if your pajeet brain can even handle it). the Demiurge was created by Humanity and in the globalized era transformed into a unified, central, abstract hyper-entity: the Capital

the Demiurge is the Capital. that's it

[Anonymous No.20815700]

>>20815673
1. Any force which is not based is cringe
2. Not being based is cringe
3. Someone who is cringe can become based (maybe)
4. Don't be cringe.
5. Be based and redpilled (like Ryan Gosling)

If you let go of your cringe way you too may one day become based and redpilled like me.
Thus is the way of basedredpillism. You have permission to grovel at my feet now.

[bodhi No.20815704]

>>20815697
>I've graduated past religion to just make my own shit up
Wow congrats, you will be the coolest kid in the padded room. fucking donkey

[A Pneumatic !Yk65a4/uHI No.20815705]

>>20815700
pseudoscience isn't a parody of science. your parody is pseudoscientific while my system isn't. which is why your parody fails

[A Pneumatic !Yk65a4/uHI No.20815711]

>>20815704
it's not my own, it's perennial knowledge and both you and i possess it. it is intuitive, but it cannot be examined with intuition

the greeks already figured these matters out, why am i talking to you. start with the greeks: elenchus, dialectic method... the basics

[bodhi No.20815718]

>>20815711
start with sucking a nice wet fart outta my fat white ass pseud

[Anonymous No.20815719]

>>20815705
There is no more meaning in the post I replied to than the parody. I think the parody is probably more rich of actual content and more likely to help someone.
You may be trying to communicate some intuitions that have some value but the actual posts have no value at all to anyone.

[A Pneumatic !Yk65a4/uHI No.20815720]

>>20815718
your skin may be white but your psyche is non-white. sorry brah

[Anonymous No.20815723]

[A Pneumatic !Yk65a4/uHI No.20815725]

>>20815719
define actual content and help

[Anonymous No.20815727]

>>20815328
I fail to see how that's relevant to the bit you quoted. It's an instance of an illusion rather than a description of wat an illusion is or where it takes place, so it doesn't refute the bit you quoted... but desu it seems quite obvious that the "divergence between anticipation and the actual course of events" is something that by necessity takes place within consciousness. Without active participation of consciousess there can be no anticipation, and therefore no perception of avoidance.

[bodhi No.20815731]

>>20815720
no you

[Anonymous No.20815739]

>>20815725
Not a chance retard.

[Anonymous No.20815753]

>nu-atheist thread gets hijacked by schizophrenics
kinda based

[Anonymous No.20815755]

>>20813514
Why does he make physicalists and eliminativists seethe so much? Is it because they realize they’re losing the final battle between dogmatic faith and reason?

[A Pneumatic !Yk65a4/uHI No.20815758]

>>20815731
white/western psyche is fundamentally based upon rationalism, non-white/non-western psyche is fundamentally based upon intuition (irrationalism).

where there might be intuition (irrationalism) in the West, it is merely supplementary to reason (ratio). where there might be rationalism in the East, it is merely supplementary to intuition (irrationalism)

and so, of course as a schizo you gravitate toward the Eastern mode of thinking because irrational thought belies your mental illness and your holofractal bullshit. we should meet so i could bash your pleb ST-woo ass with some pleb Sabine Hossenfelder books

[Anonymous No.20815764]

>>20815673
Seek help

[bodhi No.20815765]

>>20815758
you dont even understand the basics, just stop posting pseud, this is embarrassing

[A Pneumatic !Yk65a4/uHI No.20815767]

>>20815753
i'm not a schizo, just a second generation of new atheism

[A Pneumatic !Yk65a4/uHI No.20815773]

>>20815765
what's embarrassing is you copying my replies, projecting and your clout-chasing/skinwalking

[Anonymous No.20815792]

>everything is material
>also our only descriptions of the material use logic
>I'm describing all this in a mind with an experience that can't be accounted for by matter
Where is the material logic? How do all the apples know they should obey the same rules of math?
What would an observer that's still purely "material" even mean? Can you even imagine an example of how your ideas of the world could possibly describe anything about the phenomena?
If everything is "matter" what the actual fuck are the fundamental physical forces that matter emerges out of?

Saying you're a materialist is just admitting that you don't think.

[Anonymous No.20815795]

>>20815408
this doesnt explain what consciousness is tho. and why we dont see 1st person experience when we cut into a 8rain, merely the 8rain state that corresponds to a 1st person experience seemingly ar8itrarily. we havent found a reason why any 8rain state would correspond to any certain 1st person eperience, only that it does. none of this requires a discussion of spirits or god of course 8ut outright rejecting the mystery is unscientific, which is why dennet is in the minority who pretend that the hard pro8lem doesnt exist

[bodhi No.20815796]

>>20815773
you are a legit schizo I see, makes sense and not surprising in the least.

[A Pneumatic !Yk65a4/uHI No.20815808]

>>20815795
>this doesnt explain what consciousness is tho.
this does:
>>20815390

consciousness is merely something that aids in survival of anti-entropy and evolved randomly

[Anonymous No.20815839]

Alright, I’m gonna say it… I like Toni Morrison. I like Beloved. I am not going to let crypto-pol users on lit debase her importance as an American modernist writer and voice who combines specific black experiences with well-developed characters and quite fitting Gothic magical realism.

[Anonymous No.20815843]

>>20815808
Your answer doesn't address the question in the slightest.
I agree that humans evolved. Doesn't answer anything about experience or begin to try to describe what it is.

[A Pneumatic !Yk65a4/uHI No.20815844]

>>20815839
based. when I got enlightened I embraced feminism and the idea behind CRT too.

this is because enlightenment follows the embracement of CT

[A Pneumatic !Yk65a4/uHI No.20815854]

>>20815843
it answers that your questions, being so fundamental, shouldn't focus on the human but on the most basal forms of the hyper-Algorithm that is basal consciousness (keep in mind an Algorithm is an organization of energy that allows for emergent i.e. anti-entropic phenomena, Life is among them but there are also crystals, quasi-crystals and chain reactions, stars)

anti-entropy is of course a misnomer, the spread of entropy cannot be stopped permanently in any locality of the universe, this would not just violate the law of entropy as-is (which doesnt *actually* exist), it would violate basic conservation of energy.

anti-entropic phenomena should be more precisely defined as concentrations of low entropy.

[Anonymous No.20815878]

>>20815854
Find help, a support network in real life that can help you ground your thoughts. Sooner rather than later, every day you keep going like this is a huge mistake.
There is barely a hint of a beginning of a description of the phenomena and a description would still not be an explanation.
First you talk about everything being matter but now you're talking about hyper-algorithms.
>it's my brilliant synthesis
Nope, you're vaguely referencing ideas you kind of like and adding nothing yourself.

[Anonymous No.20815897]

>>20815758
Lmao. Guenon please go to sleep

[Anonymous No.20815910]

Saying your philosophy is scientific is not a good thing in the slightest.
It's saying your philosophy assumes the modern idea of science before you even start the process of inquiry. Anything you can ever hope to come up with will be within a previously established box. How true or useful something is becomes irrelevant, all that remains relevant is how well that thing aligns to your preconceived "scientific" ideas about it.

[A Pneumatic !Yk65a4/uHI No.20815985]

>>20815878
>First you talk about everything being matter but now you're talking about hyper-algorithms.
where do you see incoherence? i don't understand. your condescendent remarks about me being schizo are a funny example of one of the many hylic mental defense mechanisms

[A Pneumatic !Yk65a4/uHI No.20815991]

>>20815910
>It's saying your philosophy assumes the modern idea of science before you even start the process of inquiry. Anything you can ever hope to come up with will be within a previously established box.
that's not a bad thing per se. i am following the dialectic method. the basic definition of science (theoretical falsifiability, empirical testability, minimization of the observer's interference upon the studied object) is a good starting point in the dialectic sense.

[Anonymous No.20815992]

>>20815854
we arent focusing on the human. i think 8oth me and the other anon are atheists without an antropomorphic 8ias. 8ut none of this or denett explains the hard pro8lem. im not even sure you know what it is 8ecause you seem to 8e trying to explain life which isnt the question at all and is definitely explained physically

>>20815839
there are valid reasons to dislike her work. im not a racist or a pol user, tho i havent read 8eloved, 8ut the 8luest eye is undenia8ly very on the nose. removed from the political relevance, i didnt find the voice that distinct or consistent and overall the creative drive felt rightous instead of artistic. for example almost every detail was directly a8out societal conceptions and not necessarily there to flesh out an independent world first and foremost or voyeuristic appreciation. originality wise i dont think there was anything that went 8eyond something like faulkner, and faulkner has similar pro8lems. 8oth confuse the would 8e profound for the 8eautiful. 8ut im 8eing much more unfair to morrison 8ecause ive only read her de8ut

>>20815844
this imo is 8oth a sexist and racist remark, seeing her immediately through those lenses and not as an artist. cr is mostly people making money out of pointing out the o8vious and idealistically attri8uting it to a cultural and therefore changea8le 8oogeyman

[Anonymous No.20816025]

>>20815603
Then answer the question. In which case is your claim certainly not true?

[Anonymous No.20816029]

>>20815985
>where do you see incoherence
Appealing to a higher order to explain the physical is not materialism. I think you're already incoherent when you say there is only matter but I'm willing to consider that you can be meaning something different than the meaning I assign to that statement. You're saying something along the lines of matter being an expression of the same underlying phenomena as everything else. That's not "everything is matter".
>schizo
I wasn't diagnosing you, I relate to the problems I feel like you're having where you get lost in ideas that stop relating to anything or anyone external, which of course is projection from me if I'm correct or not. Like I said, you may have some intuitions with value but the attempts to formalize them don't say anything.
>>20815991
Empiricism already removes experience itself completely from any thought process. Anything "all-encompassing" that's empirical is only encompassing a tiny part of reality. You being able to test ideas informally yourself is not the same as empiricism which needs many observers to agree.

[Anonymous No.20816045]

>>20815361
>Citing H.P. Chudcraft to "deboonk" Christianity.

[Anonymous No.20816057]

>>20815465
> I can tell your posts every time because it is a bunch of sophistic gibberish coupled with spamming wikipedia articles which don't even support whatever point you're trying to make. Most of it does not even belong in philosophy.
That's cause you are dealing with neuroschiz or bekkerrofag from Russian /ph/ board (on 2ch.hk)...

[Anonymous No.20816058]

>>20815558
>>20815536
>he's a filthy poo in the loo Brahmanist

[Anonymous No.20816077]

>>20815372
I'm not sure if you're trolling, or actually stupid enough to believe that only religious people object to a physicalist ontology that denies the existence of consciousness, but these studies only show that
1. we have all sorts of cognitive biases;
2. there are correlations between states of mind and particular readings of brain activity
None of them say anything about the nature of consciousness or its ultimate source. Correlation does not imply causation.

[A Pneumatic !Yk65a4/uHI No.20816179]

>>20815992
>this imo is 8oth a sexist and racist remark, seeing her immediately through those lenses and not as an artist
it depends. i follow the Butlerian angle i.e. feminism is for everyone, gender abolitionism (though not family abolitionism, that is an anti-cultural fallacy), general emancipation
you interpreting feminist as negative/limited is bigoted. not me.
>hard problem of consciousness
doesn't exist. as explained earlier, qualia are just a hyper-form of reflexes (animate physical responses to inanimate physical stimuli)
>>20816025
if the demographic collapse and the societal collapse that'll follow, won't occur. my system is the diagnosis of all ills, and a prescription
>>20816029
i'm not appealing to any "higher order," i'm a strict materialist at the end of the day: there's only matter. there's only energy.
>I think you're already incoherent when you say there is only matter
that statement pertains to actual entities (or rather, *the* actual entity). I advocate a neutrally monistic panpsychism. My mentality stems from New Atheism (I was in elementary school at its peak and it did influence me) but I would describe myself as a pantheist, insofar as you can claim to "worship" Reality (the Monad)
>>20816029
>Empiricism already removes experience itself completely from any thought process.
depends on how all-encompassing the system is. mine is empirically testable because i state precise policy proposals
>>20816057
nobody cares about Russia or anything Russian. please keep quiet

[A Pneumatic !Yk65a4/uHI No.20816210]

BTW: one of the final redpills I took was when I realized strong AI is possible after a long time of AI-denial
you don't need to solve the "hard problem of consciousness" to achieve strong AI. you don't need to solve qualia

you just need to create an evolutionary environment where the hyper-algorithm (and hyper-hyper-algorithm, that is *human* consciousness/abstract consciousness) arose
you just need to create an environment-interactive package, i.e. an android, i.e. a physical carrier for the program. we don't need to theoretize too much, we can base it on our own bodies.

and then you can just program one simple task:
>survive
now you have strong AI. congrats. but this is just the Terminator. you should also program empathy (by following pneumatic ethics, i.e. the ethical code of pneumatism)
congrats. now you have human-adjacent strong AI

[Anonymous No.20816211]

>>20816077
>Correlation does not imply causation.
It does and at the same time it implies the contradictory idea that there's a common cause for both. Correlation does not definitely tell you anything but it implies, hints at a relationship.
But it doesn't matter if the physical brain causes all the specific types of experiences. I can tell you that a certain feeling is produced by certain chemical interactions but there's no hint at a description for why those chemicals and wiring doing those interactions results in something experiencing something at all.
>>20816179
>*the* actual entity
Not materialism. Saying it's "all matter" does not help communicate your position. It confuses it.
>depends on how all-encompassing the system is
You put a qualifier on "encompassing", you didn't qualify it with "some" but deliberately with "all". This is a good example of how you're not really communicating anything. These are just jumbles of words, you assign some meaning to the word "all-encompassing" but when pressed it turns out to be some meaning completely different from any reasonable reading of "all-encompassing".

[A Pneumatic !Yk65a4/uHI No.20816225]

>>20816211
>"the concept of actual entities is incompatible with materialism"
silly goose
>This is a good example of how you're not really communicating anything. These are just jumbles of words, you assign some meaning to the word "all-encompassing" but when pressed it turns out to be some meaning completely different from any reasonable reading of "all-encompassing".
it's actually all-encompassing, lol. it takes after everything and applies to everything, cross-disciplinarily. philosophy, psychology, ethics, politics, history, natural sciences, technology
another example:
>>20816210

[Anonymous No.20816246]

>>20816210
Again a great example of nothing added in the slightest. You once had dumb ideas about AI and now you have maybe slightly less dumb ideas about it that are basically the same as any random reddit nerd.
>>20816225
>the concept of actual entities
Any reading of your words will lead me to think you're saying matter is an expression of an underlying phenomena that has more properties than are apparent in matter. You have some kind of third realm in your model.
>it's actually all-encompassing
Except for all the phenomena it doesn't encompass.

[A Pneumatic !Yk65a4/uHI No.20816257]

>>20816246
>You once had dumb ideas about AI
actually that is the consensus in ML circles. it's why i had those views to begin with. my original views were reddit but that's excusable because i was a kid back then and basically still am
>Any reading of your words will lead me to think you're saying matter is an expression of an underlying phenomena that has more properties than are apparent in matter. You have some kind of third realm in your model.
are you unable to grasp emergence in a monistic system?

[Anonymous No.20816263]

>>20814511
>Christians surviving another 500 years.
lmao

[Anonymous No.20816286]

>pop in to see why this thread got bumped so many times so quickly
>the new schizo namefag is running wild
As if consciousness discussion wasn't ruined enough due to thomists, pajeets and retards who think that p-zombies are real.

[Anonymous No.20816293]

>>20816257
>actually that is the consensus in ML circles
The consensus among anyone that has done anything is that you can replicate the human mind in computers. If you can it just shows definitely that qualia is not a result of anything we call physical.
You had some absolutely braindead "chinese room" idea that you call the "consensus" because you're an incompetent child.
>emergence in a monistic system
Nothing to do with materialism. The statement "there is only matter" confuses any attempt to communicate any such idea. That you can't even grasp that you contradicted this statement in the next breath by talking about entropy means you have some serious issue you need to resolve before attempting anything academics.

[Anonymous No.20816579]

>>20816263
>>Christians surviving another 500 years.
https://theupheaval.substack.com/p/are-we-in-a-500-year-religious-revolution

"In the last decade we’ve seen the emergence in the West of a strident new ideology of “Social Justice” which, despite its self-conceived secularism, many observers have now convincingly argued bears all the hallmarks of a new religious cult, complete with a new metaphysics of truth and reality, a concept of original sin, a new hierarchy of moral virtues, a self-constructed canonical liturgy and a strict orthodoxy, a de-facto priesthood, sacred spaces, self-abasing rituals, a community of believers, linguistic shibboleths, blasphemy laws, and excommunication – among other giveaways.

But, quite notably, this “New Faith” seems to have, consciously or unconsciously, modeled most of its belief system and ritual practices straight out of the Christian tradition, from an overarching preoccupation with the weak and the victimized, along with an emphasis on atonement (though any conception of grace, forgiveness, or redemption is notably absent), right down to specific forms of ritual, like the washing of feet or the symbolic reenactment of martyrdom.

This raises an interesting question: is what we are witnessing now less an entirely new faith than what in the past would have instead been immediately recognized and categorized as part of the long list of Christian heresies, large and small, which challenged the established church throughout history? Could we be living through, as I posited briefly in my introductory essay to The Upheaval, a religious revolution similar to the Reformation that wracked Europe beginning around 500 years ago?"

[A Pneumatic !Yk65a4/uHI No.20816588]

>>20816293
>The consensus among anyone that has done anything is that you can replicate the human mind in computers
that is absolutely not the consensus at all. the consensus mood in ML tends toward pessimism and limited utilitarianism

[A Pneumatic !Yk65a4/uHI No.20816594]

>>20816293
>Nothing to do with materialism.
how? again, can you grasp emergence in a monistic system, or can your hylic brain only grasp emergence in dualistic and pluralistic (atomistic) systems?

proper materialism (which I advocate) espouses all dualisms and pluralisms

[Anonymous No.20816628]

>>20814598
>>20814613
Almost every page provides evidence supporting his claim.
>schizophrenia is inherently wrong
lol
>disproven
how? It's only detractors are dipshits who don't grasp it.

[Anonymous No.20816698]

>>20816588
>that is absolutely not the consensus at all
In formal academia you don't impose assumptions. The question of qualia is not relevant in AI or ML but nobody serious actually takes chinese rooms seriously. From my perspective it was never an argument, it just pretty much described the problem as I already saw it. The problem is still there, the human brain is a "chinese room".

[A Pneumatic !Yk65a4/uHI No.20816719]

>>20816698
so you agree but disagree. who is the meaningless one now? what DO you believe in?

[Anonymous No.20816767]

>>20816594
>monistic system
The words can't be "monistic". You're describing a perceived phenomena arising out of "another". You can frame both as the same thing but what's relevant to the description are the distinctions and the attempt to communicate those distinctions is undermined by making a distinction and then just stating there also are no distinctions (all is one). I can accept that everything arises out of some "one" but we're discussing the perceived phenomena and those have distinctions.
>all is matter
Doesn't mean anything.
>>20816719
Imposing beliefs is not useful to discussions like this which is why people don't do it in AI research. The subject of ML is not qualia, that's a philosophical subject.
I know nothing for certain. I know the thing we call qualia exists for more certain than I can know anything about the external world including anything about "matter" which seems to be a high level representation and not some kind of "fundamental reality", like all analysis into matter confirms.

[Anonymous No.20816782]

>>20816719
The "problem" of the chinese room only exists if you assume you know everything because you have a decent physical model of the stuff involved moving around. It's not a real issue unless you're dogmatic materialist that can't conceive of being wrong.

[Anonymous No.20816818]

>>20813514
Who?

[Anonymous No.20816841]

>>20814657
take the panpsychism pill, its waiting for you

[Anonymous No.20817082]

>>20814657
t. idiot

[Anonymous No.20817147]

>>20816841
Who do you suggest I read? Spinoza? I tried to read Whitehead but didn't understand it at all. Listened to some lectures by Matthew Segall as part of trying to figure out what the fuck Whitehead was talking about, but that didn't help much.

Tbh I kind of already took the idealism pill... Kastrup's model is incredibly coherent and as far as I can tell it solves most if not all problems commonly associated with consciousness.

[A Pneumatic !Yk65a4/uHI No.20817150]

>>20816767
>The subject of ML is not qualia, that's a philosophical subject.
how are you going to create strong AI if not with ML? how are you going to create strong AI if you do avoid crucial philoso-practical subjects?

[A Pneumatic !Yk65a4/uHI No.20817158]

>>20817147
>Who do you suggest I read? Spinoza?
Spinoza is good, also Plato and Hegel, but if you want a shortcut, just read this:
>>20808452
>>20808545

[A Pneumatic !Yk65a4/uHI No.20817160]

>>20817158
i forgot to mention Adi Śankara. actually if you just want to swallow the panpsychism pill (without all the implications), just read him and forget about Spinoza and me

[A Pneumatic !Yk65a4/uHI No.20817171]

>>20816782
the problem of the chinese room is strictly correlated with the hard problem of consciousness, but it's not an immovable obstacle

i say let's just subject the android to forces of natural selection and the chinese room is solved for all purposes practical. not necessarily philosophical, but then the distance between the android and a human is blurred enough to cause ethical issues: is there any point in distinguishing between humans and human-created p-zombies?

[bodhi No.20817177]

>>20817158
>20 years old
ROFL no wonder you are such a dunning-kruger ego maniac

[Anonymous No.20817179]

>>20817150
>how are you going to create strong AI if not with ML?
This is an example of how incoherent your thought process is.
You can't separate ideas. Yes this is all related but when I work on ML qualia does not enter into anything I do. You don't have to think about it at all. If qualia is reproducible in computers that does not mean we know what it is.

[A Pneumatic !Yk65a4/uHI No.20817193]

>>20817179
how are you going to reproduce qualia in computers if you do not know what qualia fundamentally is? this is what i'm talking about. you're running yourself into a corner

[Anonymous No.20817206]

>>20817171
>the problem of the chinese room is strictly correlated
If you understand what I said in that post you've managed to transcend your materialist dogma but this post says you haven't.
>is there any point in distinguishing between humans and human-created p-zombies
Not for putting together the lego pieces. You still don't know what these lego pieces are or how the fuck they make something like experience express.
For any philosophical claims about the subject you can't just ignore it. It's like saying your philosophy is refusing to do any philosophy or think about stuff.

[Anonymous No.20817231]

>>20817193
>how are you going to reproduce qualia in computers if you do not know what qualia fundamentally is
By putting together the logical lego pieces like they're put together in brains. I can't actually know if the thing has qualia. The same issue arises if I copy a human in a startrek teleporter or whatever. How do you know you copied the qualia?
In physical terms we can basically see everything happening in a brain and there's nothing special about it, brains are made of carbon. Maybe carbon itself has qualia somehow but we know the physical medium isn't the important part of the brain, we confirm that if we reproduce its apparent abilities in a computer. It makes more sense to me qualia is a universally accessible thing like the logic the computer is reproducing.

[Anonymous No.20817256]

>>20815360
But he cannot do that. Consciousness is unreachable by empiricism because the moment we experience someone else's consciousness it would also become our own consciousness. We cannot observe a first person experience third person.

[Anonymous No.20817403]

>>20814511
Yaw new empiyah?

[A Pneumatic !Yk65a4/uHI No.20817443]

>>20817231
if you had total logical knowledge (or in the classical sense, Absolute Knowledge or simply Knowledge), you could grasp the code behind qualia, because ultimately All is Number (pythagoras)

which is why i'm saying, if you do not wish to see things philosophically, that is to say, holistically, you will not be able to create revolutionary ideas, and then put them into practice. this is what outside-the-box thinking means. this is how Einstein developed the special and general theories of relativity. this is how Newton and Leibniz developed their theories. this is why physics nowadays is a dead field and Sabine Hossenfelder is more or less correct

[Anonymous No.20817649]

>>20817443
Total absolute knowledge is not relevant or graspable.
In all your examples the phenomena had possible explanations before. You could imagine logical descriptions. You can't imagine one for many things like qualia or to explain why logic works, they're apparently irreducible for now. The mind automatically ignores those things because it's hard to fasten a relationship to them conceptually, like a fish ignores water. It's outside the "box" the fish experiences things in.
To attempt to describe those things it's very unhelpful to say things like all is matter or frame the chinese box as some kind of new "problem" just because not everything is accounted for in simple physical descriptions. None of the most important things are accounted for in such descriptions. It's not a problem if you understand how limited the tool you're trying to apply to everything is. It shouldn't surprise you that a hammer isn't an airplane, it's not a "problem" with the hammer.

[A Pneumatic !Yk65a4/uHI No.20817660]

>>20817649
>Total absolute knowledge is not relevant or graspable.
wrong. we disagree on the fundamentals hence further discussion is futile. only if we agreed on this fundamental could we establish a proper platonic dialectic

[A Pneumatic !Yk65a4/uHI No.20817672]

>>20817660
and it's relevant because, as I lay out earlier, consciousness (or the hyper-algorithm) is binary, it's simply an algorithm ranking truth-statements according to the level of Truth in them. the level of Truth in them is evolutionarily worked out on the basis of what judgment fosters survival and procreation for the specimen

i do not wish to discuss further if we cannot reach agreement on such fundamentals

[Anonymous No.20817720]

>>20817672
You're just describing mechanisms again, saying that if we put together the legos a certain way certain things will happen.
You're saying you have some grasp on some absolute total knowledge but don't know anything about anything. If you were right you could demonstrate it.
Even "binary" is high level, it's not some fundamental property of reality.

There's no imaginable way for me to confirm your claim that you experience things except by assuming things that behave in certain ways have experience.
As soon as you provide any hypothesis for how I can confirm this you've advanced knowledge.

[Anonymous No.20817743]

>>20816286
They don't need to be real, also, if you are filtered by p-zombies you gave up before you even started mate

[Anonymous No.20817749]

>>20815345
I was reading about these two the other day. Fucking crazy.

In a case of semantic dementia, an elderly lady was convinced she died multiple times and came back to life. All because she began forgetting the semantic meaning behind vocabulary. She slowly lost the ability to name parts of her body and sensations; soon enough she started believing she was a dead/rotting corpse

[Anonymous No.20819572]

>>20817743
>They don't need to be real
That's exactly the point dummy.