/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.21605461]

How can nu-philosophers expect to solve problems like consciousness when they've barely even read any philosophy?

[Anonymous No.21605474]

>>21605461
modern philosophy is little more than an exercise in rhetoric and self-fellation
hyper specialisation has rendered it inept

[Anonymous No.21605475]

How can he solve the problem of his son devoting his life to the state of Israel?

[Anonymous No.21605796]

>>21605461
This is about as bad as Fridman's summer reading list or whatever.

[Anonymous No.21605810]

>>21605461
Contemporary Philosophy of mind is the cringiest fucking shit, but I can respect Chalmers even tho hes plebbit tier

[Anonymous No.21605837]

>>21605461
>>21605474
>>21605810
There are real living philosophers, you guys don’t know about them because it is YOU who are the pseuds. You only know uneducated unoriginal popular philosophers because like attracts like.
>inb4 who are they?
You don’t deserve to know, if you did then you would find them.

[Anonymous No.21606217]

>>21605837
Popular philosophers are a recent phenomena but they are the most influential. The "real living philosophers" you mention speak only to a tiny circle of academics. It's a fact that most modern philosopher papers are only read by 3-6 people. Which raises the question of philosophy. What's the point if it doesn't reach anyone?

[Anonymous No.21606281]

>>21605474
Fpbp

[Anonymous No.21606512]

Have any philosophers made any progress towards solving Benj Hellie's vertiginous question?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertiginous_question
https://philpapers.org/rec/HELCFC
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTtxwHQ_fYQ

[Anonymous No.21607194]

>>21606512
Already covered by Schopenhauer

[Anonymous No.21607217]

>>21605461
>when they've barely even read any philosophy?
Don't read philosophy at all to begin with and come up with all the answers yourself.
Either you reinforce others' positions or contribute new ideas.

[Anonymous No.21607247]

>>21605461
All these nu-philosophers like Lewis, Chalmers, Dennett etc. are all uneducated redditor retards. Holy fuck stop talking about these imbeciles.

[Anonymous No.21607394]

>>21605461
The fact that he's got those influences listed there does not mean he's literally never read any other philosophers, but rather that these are the most noticeable influences in his work.
David Chalmers studied Philosophy at Oxford and has a PhD in Philosophy, so he's most likely acquainted with all of the history of philosophy. Even philosophy students at analytic philosophy-centered departments have to learn about Husserl's phenomenology, action theory, and other types of theories invented by Continental philosophers. They might just not necessarily use the ideas and works of every single philosopher they've ever read or learnt about in their own speculative research and theorycrafting.

[Anonymous No.21607404]

How can they expect to solve problems like consciousness when nobody can even define consciousness?
https://youtu.be/RfwsvSjXkJU?t=4225

[Anonymous No.21607452]

>>21605461
i hate daniel dennett

[Anonymous No.21607458]

>>21605461
>>21606512
Everyone having cameras must make it significantly harder for these people.

[Anonymous No.21607730]

>>21605461
>how can /lit/izens discuss books when they've read barely any books?

[Anonymous No.21608076]

>>21607452
Why do you hate him?

[Anonymous No.21608256]

>>21608076
Aside the illusionism stuff which I really don't mind, reductionism is going to drive the human race into a hell on earth (not op btw)

[Anonymous No.21608284]

>>21608256
Most "materialists" today are either emergentists or otherwise anti-reductionists. They just continue to identify as materialists for some reason. They're more or less dualists with Stockholm syndrome.

[Anonymous No.21608546]

>>21605837
thats a real non sequitur

>based captcha

[Anonymous No.21608550]

>>21605475
Imagine being that close to a woman

[Anonymous No.21609522]

>>21607394
>Husserl's phenomenology, action theory, and other types of theories invented by Continental philosophers.
All made-up nonsense, philosophy is a joke

[Anonymous No.21609531]

>>21605461
Blocks his path

[Anonymous No.21609567]

>>21605461
the two pictures on his wiki page are him wearing the exact same outfit 4 years apart lol

[Anonymous No.21609580]

>>21606512
SSA Self sampling assumption fallacy

[Anonymous No.21609584]

>>21609531
Consciousness denialism is an easy way to detect NPCs

[Anonymous No.21609608]

>>21609584
Magical dualism is an easy way to detect midwits and religiotards

[Anonymous No.21609767]

>>21609567
kek you're right

[Anonymous No.21609834]

>>21606217
>It's a fact that most modern philosopher papers are only read by 3-6 people.
That many? The vast majority of philosophy papers are literally not read at all, and not even their authors care about them. They are just churned out for CV upgrading purposes.
>>21609531
Daniel Dennett has openly stated, mockingly, that he will never even read the literature on parapsychology and survival research because his entire worldview rests on there being no evidence for it. And yet there is, and NDEs are real and prove that there is an afterlife and that we are eternal and will go to heaven unconditionally when we die.

Here is a very persuasive argument for why NDEs are real:

https://youtu.be/U00ibBGZp7o

It emphasizes that NDErs are representative of the population as a whole, and when people go deep into the NDE, they all become convinced. As this article points out:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/mysteries-consciousness/202204/does-afterlife-obviously-exist

>"Among those with the deepest experiences 100 percent came away agreeing with the statement, "An afterlife definitely exists"."

Since NDErs are representative of the population as a whole, and they are all convinced, then 100% of the population become convinced that there is an afterlife when they have a sufficiently deep NDE themselves. When you dream and wake up, you instantly realize that life is more real than your dreams. When you have an NDE, the same thing is happening, but on a higher level, as you immediately realize that life is the deep dream and the NDE world is the undeniably real world by comparison.

Or as one person quoted in pic related summarized their NDE:

>"As my soul left my body, I found myself floating in a swirling ocean of multi-colored light. At the end, I could see and feel an even brighter light pulling me toward it, and as it shined on me, I felt indescribable happiness. I remembered everything about eternity - knowing, that we had always existed, and that all of us are family. Then old friends and loved ones surrounded me, and I knew without a doubt I was home, and that I was so loved."

Needless to say, even ultraskeptical neuroscientists are convinced by really deep NDEs. And even hardened skeptics are convinced by the book in pic related.

[Anonymous No.21609844]

>>21609584
Why isn't there a single philosopher of mind who approaches the topic from an evolutionary perspective? It makes things very simple. Everyone knows humans are the most social animals. We have the most complex forms of communication of any species on Earth. Our theory of mind gave birth to consciousness.
The Cartesian philosophers only try to explain consciousness by referring to the I. By examining consciousness itself. The object exists because of the subject. But this is the wrong fucking way around. It's putting the cart before the horse. It seems very obvious to me that the You came before the I. The evolutionary realization that there are other living beings separate from ourselves led our ancestors to start internalizing the outside world. Thus consciousness was born.
I speculate that the change from a basically animalistic mindset to modern human behavior must have occurred almost overnight, as evidenced by the immediate explosion of art and creativity during the upper Paleolithic.

[Anonymous No.21609857]

>>21606512
>>21609580
>he still uses SSA
try Tomasic's UTI
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/GBgumWfXWiqWxkt2K/the-table-of-different-sampling-assumptions-in-anthropics

[Anonymous No.21609868]

>>21609844
>The evolutionary realization that there are other living beings separate from ourselves led our ancestors to start internalizing the outside world. Thus consciousness was born.
So if I make a robot that models the outside world and other robots it will be conscious? I already did that to some degree, how good does the model have to be for the robot to become conscious? How does this new element of experience get into the complex robots when it doesn't exist at all in less complex ones?

[Anonymous No.21609875]

>>21609608
>what is idealism
>what is neutral monism

[Anonymous No.21609879]

>>21609857
Brian Tomasik is an NPC

https://longtermrisk.org/the-eliminativist-approach-to-consciousness/#Denying_consciousness_altogether
https://magnusvinding.blogspot.com/2015/08/my-disagreements-with-brian-tomasik.html

[Anonymous No.21609880]

>>21609531
Anyone got the greentext of Socrates arguing with Dennet?

[Anonymous No.21609882]

>>21605837
There's a similar situation in the sciences, where it's in vogue to bemoan a perceived lack of innovation and progress, when in reality this is just a result of midwits with unrefined tastes not knowing where to look

[Anonymous No.21609888]

>>21608256
>>21608076
>Chalmers is a reductionist and illusionist
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiFlxwHZ074

[Anonymous No.21609897]

>>21609531
dennet's autism gave us pic related so he is forgiven for everything

[Anonymous No.21609898]

>>21609868
Why are you so certain it's mechanical?

[Anonymous No.21609909]

>>21609880
Not that but here's a story I found about Daniel Dennett doing LSD

https://qualiacomputing.com/2020/08/06/that-time-daniel-dennett-took-200-micrograms-of-lsd/

[Anonymous No.21609910]

>>21609898
Where in that post with only questions do you find any certainty you blithering retard?

[Anonymous No.21609915]

>>21609879
than for the second link, worth a read
that said, you don't need to deny consciousness to see that "you are all your copies" is the correct Anthropic sampling assumption
it affirms consciousness actually

>>21609897
>atheist who believes in superstitious things like fingers crossed
cope, crosslet

[Anonymous No.21609916]

>>21609844
>Why isn't there a single philosopher of mind who approaches the topic from an evolutionary perspective?
Bernardo Kastrup did that and came to the conclusion that consciousness couldn't have evolved.

https://mindmatters.ai/2020/02/bernardo-kastrup-consciousness-cannot-have-evolved/

[Anonymous No.21609918]

>>21609875
Hello Bernado

[Anonymous No.21609947]

>>21609875
>neutral monism
seems as retarded as panpsychism

[Anonymous No.21609948]

>>21609916
>there's no death
even if you had infinity lives (eg quantum immortality), that doesn't mean you'll live forever (ie hyperbolic rate of death)

matthew 10:28 - fear not those who kill the body but not the soul, but rather fear Him who kills both body AND soul, in Hell.

>consciousness couldn't have evolved because then there's the hard problem of transition from non-consciousness to consciousness
Kastrop is an Idealist, so why doesn't he just conclude that the "muh trillions" of years are merely a retrocausal phenomenon that Began when the first human acquired consciousness (Adam, 6000ya)

[Anonymous No.21610048]

>>21609834
why is this coping faggot in every thread

[Anonymous No.21610053]

>>21609875
I often think about the type of people who make these philosophy memes, and I can't help but see them as midwits and pseuds, not because of the content of said memes, but because of the type of person who would actually make a meme about these topics. Some retard desperate to get attention from his "cool intellectual" club, more concerned with attention and approval than education and knowledge.

[Anonymous No.21610083]

>NOOOOOOO YOU CANT DO PHILOSOPHY WITHOUT READING BRAIN FARTS OF MUH GERMANS
Philosophy before Neetsh is useless

[Anonymous No.21610110]

>>21608550
i've been inside one anon

[Anonymous No.21610166]

>>21610053
thanks for providing a handy response to your own post, anon

[Anonymous No.21610193]

>>21609916
>denies the most dearly held principle of modern science
Ok schizo

[Anonymous No.21610202]

>>21610053
This is how culture happens. The memes will be foundational to the next era.

[Anonymous No.21610205]

>>21609915
>correct Anthropic sampling assumption
Yes, and refuted by reality. Refuted by binding itself. If you are anything but the causally chained unit you've lived as, you would know. The fact is our most basic observation is that we're bound to one perspective, so the statistical autism guys have everything in their models except reality.

[Anonymous No.21610225]

>>21609844
There are but Philosophy of Consciousness is stuck in a dogmatic wheel of trying to keep humans at the center of reality.
Evopsych is still a dirty word for these people even if they won't admit this outright. I recommend Metzinger and sci-fi author biologist Peter Watts.

https://youtu.be/v4uwaw_5Q3I

[Anonymous No.21610256]

>>21610205
>hasn't heard of acausal trading
https://www.lesswrong.com/search?query=acausal%20trad

[Anonymous No.21610284]

>>21610225
Watts is a good sci-fi writer, but please don't take him too seriously on the matter. He even advises that himself.

[Anonymous No.21610298]

>>21605475
QRD?

[Anonymous No.21610319]

>>21610284
I'm not taking it to heart, I'm giving people examples of those who punch in the aforementioned direction.

[Anonymous No.21610392]

>>21605461
That's why we have science retard. Philosophers are pseuds

[Anonymous No.21610408]

>>21609844
> The evolutionary realization that there are other living beings separate from ourselves led our ancestors to start internalizing the outside world. Thus consciousness was born.
You cant have realizations without already being conscious from the beginning anon, hence it wasn’t “born”

[Anonymous No.21610413]

>>21609880

Buddha: So you see, consciousness is of course merely an illusion.

Socrates: I see. But, simplify this for me, I do not understand. What do you mean by “illusion”?

Buddha: Of course, good Socrates, an illusion is an appearance that is contrary to reality.

Socrates: That is well, but I still desire clarification about “appearance.”

Buddha: Appearance is how an object is perceived by an observer.

Socrates: I understand. So, consciousness is an appearance perceived by an observer contrary to reality.

Buddha: No, Socrates, that is not right. There is no observer to consciousness, as this would be another consciousness.

Socrates: Then you contradict yourself, Buddha. For if consciousness be an illusion, there would yet be another consciousness observing this illusion, and how could this second awareness be unreal?

[Anonymous No.21610420]

>>21609916
> Bernardo Kastrup did that and came to the conclusion that consciousness couldn't have evolved.
His model proposes that consciousness undergoes teleological progress/evolution towards a final goal like the Hegelian absolute

[Anonymous No.21610425]

>>21605461
practically speaking all the problems of philosophy should all be immediately evident based on observation. you might lack the language to express your insights but you ultimately will still be experiencing the same reality and therefore running into the same things.

[Anonymous No.21610542]

>>21610425
true, but you still need a methodology to categorize your observations.

[Anonymous No.21610574]

>>21610408
Of course you can. Animals don't have consciousness (according to the traditional understanding) but they realize and understand stuff all the time. I'm not saying that dogs will become conscious if you put a bunch of them in a room together and given enough time. But humans developed the physiological, cognitive, and most importantly social preconditions for what we call consciousness. It's an accident of evolution, a socially developed behavior. That's why feral kids are still basically animals.

[Anonymous No.21610607]

>>21610574
>Of course you can. Animals don't have consciousness (according to the traditional understanding)
Whatever "traditional understanding" says this is wrong, animals very clearly have consciousness, which is shown by how they can get emotionally involved in events or their owners, which requires them to be conscious to react this way. Consciousness just means to be sentient or aware, you can't develop awareness in response to things you are aware of because this involves you already being aware (conscious) in the first place.

[Anonymous No.21610616]

>>21605461
Is that a rock singer

[Anonymous No.21610630]

>>21610607
I agree completely, I don't think consciousness is binary. I just mentioned that for sake of argument. As a concept it's firmly embedded in a Cartesian framework so that's what people expect when you even mention the word consciousness. I think the term is anthropocentric and should be discarded, but that would entail discarding dualism altogether, problem is the cogito is the default worldview for most people.

[Anonymous No.21610708]

>>21609834
>100% of the population become convinced that there is an afterlife when they have a sufficiently deep NDE
ok retard

[Anonymous No.21610718]

>>21610413
>Buddha: No, Socrates, that is not right. There is no observer
It should end here because that's the actual Buddhist view, and with Socrates then going "hmmm I guess illusions elude us my good sir; now pass the femboys."

[Anonymous No.21610841]

>>21610718
>Budhha: there is no observer
>Socrates: I didn't hear that
if your metaphysics can be refute by a simple game of peekaboo
then maybe you're a little too reddit-nihilism

fact: the Observer is real