/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.22576674]

Are there any books specifically written for high IQ polymaths like me? I'm a STEM Chad who considers almost everything trivial. For example, all philosophical texts disappointed me by being either shallow or wrong. What I'm looking for is a book full of deepest, intellectually enlightening insights. Is there such a thing?

[Anonymous No.22576689]

>>22576674
Sure but you're too much of a bugman for it

[Anonymous No.22576691]

>>22576674
Yes but im not done writing it

[Anonymous No.22576696]

>>22576674
Look, it doesn't matter how hard you larp, the answer is always start with the Greeks.

[Anonymous No.22576700]

probably not. do you want a book about message boards?

[Anonymous No.22576703]

>>22576674
start notice patterns

[Anonymous No.22576706]

Gravity's Rainbow

[Anonymous No.22576742]

Ashtavakra Gita if you are not foolish

[Anonymous No.22576744]

[Anonymous No.22576747]

[Anonymous No.22576748]

>>22576742
>"my buddhist bullshit" if you can still be indoctrinated
reminder that worshipping death leads to worlds like ours

[Anonymous No.22576749]

>>22576674
>polymaths
ur not a polymath and you barely understand any science

[Anonymous No.22576755]

A MAN WHO HAS NEVER KNOWN NO HUNGER SHOWN NO MERCY

[Anonymous No.22576769]

>>22576748
Foolish

[Anonymous No.22576782]

What have you read so far and why were you disappointed?

[Anonymous No.22576784]

>>22576782
he doesnt read any philosophy evidently. the words just pass his eyes without entering his consciousness. hes a broken minded dunning krueger dipshit.

[Anonymous No.22577002]

>>22576674
/lit/ is too midwit for you, try anime or cartoons or something

[Anonymous No.22577027]

is there a way to filter frogposts?

[Anonymous No.22577040]

>>22577027
try

cope
seethe
lmao
btfo
high iq
polymath

[Anonymous No.22577126]

Name 3 philosophical works that you have read, explain their arguments, and fully refute them

[Anonymous No.22577130]

>>22576674
your final frontier is likely substance

[Anonymous No.22577144]

If you were really smart, you'd be able to figure out the answer to that question.

[Anonymous No.22577168]

This contains all the brutal truth you can stand, but it'll probably go straight over your head.
http://www.freezoneearth.org/pilot/sscio/contents.html

[Anonymous No.22577179]

>>22576755
Despite the typo, this was a good quote. Do you have an attribution?

[Anonymous No.22577182]

>>22577126
1. Plato
Argument: muh forms
Refutation: Show me a form!

2. Jordan Peterson
Argument: Clean up your room.
Refutation: I cleaned up my room and I'm still depressed.

3. Andrew Tate
Argument: Be alpha and don't be a nerd.
Refutation: Artificially acting alpha only appeals to the female fantasy, simp.

[Anonymous No.22577187]

>>22577182
>Andrew Tate
>Jordan Peterson
>philosophers
You are 90IQ at best lad

[Anonymous No.22577192]

>>22577179
Protest the Hero - Bone Marrow

[Anonymous No.22577202]

>>22577182
status: late stage impenetrable midwittery

[Anonymous No.22577206]

No

[Anonymous No.22577209]

>>22577187
The refutation was accurate though.

[Anonymous No.22577212]

>>22577182
If this is op you have baited us all. Absolute timewaste. Quit reading dogshit and get a life.

[Anonymous No.22577224]

>>22577192
Thank you!

[Anonymous No.22577250]

>>22577209
No lad. You couldn’t even understand what an actual refutation is most likely. You can’t even understand that the forms are by nature immaterial so your “refutation” of “show me one” amounts to the same as if you had sent a video of you playing with your own asshole

[Anonymous No.22577264]

[Anonymous No.22577267]

>>22577250
You'd love to see such a video, wouldn't you? You didn't understand the refutation, unfortunately. "Show" doesn't need to mean as a physical object. Demonstrate abstractly why forms are necessary.

[Anonymous No.22577298]

>>22576674
Hard to point to a specific book but look into modern theory of mind, the explanatory gap, the vertiginous question, the P-zombie problem.
P-zombies are an issue on which modern philosophy is completely split:
>A 2013 survey of professional philosophers by Bourget and Chalmers found that 36% said P Zombies were conceivable but metaphysically impossible; 23% said they were metaphysically possible; 16% said they were inconceivable; and 25% responded "other".

As a high IQ polymath STEM chad, perhaps you'll be able to meaningfully contribute to this problem.

[Anonymous No.22577310]

>>22577298
I already solved that one. P-zombies exist and many of them can be identified. For example everyone who considers p-zombies inconceivable is a p-zombie.

[Anonymous No.22577562]

>>22577298
>>22577310
P zombies exist, they can be identified by lack of any kind of selfawareness, cannot be metacognizant of the self and their behaviour, and finally, the difference is physical (in the brain) and can happen by emotional trauma

[Anonymous No.22577564]

>>22577310
>I already solved that one. P-zombies exist and many of them can be identified. For example everyone who considers p-zombies inconceivable is a p-zombie.
Double digit IQ post

[Anonymous No.22577587]

>>22577564
Sounds like a huge compliment coming from a single digit IQ who considers triple digit IQ inconceivable.

[Anonymous No.22577594]

>>22577587
"The problem with smart people is, sometimes they sound like crazy people to dumb people." -Stephen Hawking

[Anonymous No.22577608]

>>22577562
Are you saying we can cure p-zombies by traumatizing them? Interesting hypothesis. Where's the experimental evidence?

[Anonymous No.22577623]

>>22577587
>>22577594
P zombie samefagging in defense of his "solving" of a reddit issue

[Anonymous No.22577638]

I'm a STEMcel too and I found texts like Aristotles Metaphysics or Schellings Ideen incredibly difficult.
So I assume you're just lying.

[Anonymous No.22577648]

>>22577638
Not OP but speaking as someone with a 150 IQ, yes, his texts are incredibly dense and scattered. They're definitely not shallow, and what he got right is far more important than his mistakes, otherwise he wouldn't be the single most famous philosopher.

[Anonymous No.22577652]

>>22576674
You are either posting extremely ham-fisted arrogance bait, or you are an engineer. Impossible to distinguish.

[Anonymous No.22577656]

>>22576674
the Holy Bible.

>>22577638
stem doesn't correlate at all with philosophy unless you're into extremely abstract math. pretty nice bait, tbhdesu.

[Anonymous No.22577662]

>>22576674
If you're such a high IQ stem chad as you say, solve this little test problem first, then I'll give you a good recommendation.

[Anonymous No.22577680]

>>22577662
I wish these were captchas then lit wouldn't be full of so many idiots

[Anonymous No.22577710]

>>22576674
What's you're IQ?

[Anonymous No.22577716]

>>22577662
Seems to be just tedious rearrangement of terms with no actual trick or smart theorem involved. You can copy the solution for your homework here:
https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/2274467/primes-dividing-sum-of-binomial-coefficients

[Anonymous No.22577737]

>>22576674
>>22577716
What novels and books have you read already? We can have a conversation about such that goes beyond the potentiality of me homework baiting. If your reasoning is good enough, I'll give you a recc.

[Anonymous No.22577750]

>>22577662
Yo I think this a problem in handbook of applied cryptography

Anyways op should give that and other texts on cryptography a read

[Anonymous No.22577772]

>>22577737
Why do you pretend to be me, faggot?
As expected, the "stemchad" couldn't just do the problem without immediately searching for a solution online. Of course he also gets defensive about it ("tedious", "no trick involved"...) So much for high IQ. If you enjoy engaging with deluded retards, have fun.

[Anonymous No.22577798]

Not enough IQ boasting ITT

[Anonymous No.22577804]

iq tests are such bullshit, i took a few difference ones and the results were anything from 100 to 105, totally fucking random and subjective

[Anonymous No.22577826]

>>22577804
lol

[Anonymous No.22577845]

>>22577737
>What novels and books have you read already?
I've read most of the big ones. Shakespeare, Goethe, Schiller, Dostoyevsky, Kafka, Hesse, Camus, Sartre, Orwell ... (too lazy for a complete list). On the philosophical side I dealt with Plato, Descartes, Kant, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Freud, Wittgenstein, Weininger, Langan and a few others. I also read the bible, the qur'an, the talmud and the upanishads.

[Anonymous No.22577847]

>>22577798
Mine is 191.

[Anonymous No.22577848]

>>22577845
Time to get Clarey Pilled.

[Anonymous No.22577858]

>>22577750
This one?
https://cacr.uwaterloo.ca/hac/
Looks solid. But is it up-to-date? The blockchain hype surely led to a lot of new developments in cryptography.

[Anonymous No.22577860]

>>22576674
>any books specifically written for high IQ polymaths like me?
Hooker C.A., et al. - Philosophy of Complex Systems (2011)
Adriaans P., van Benthem J.F.A.K. - Philosophy of Information (2008)
Bandyopadhyay P.S., Forster M.R. - Philosophy of Statistics (2011)
Auletta G. - Cognitive Biology. Dealing with Information from Bacteria to Minds (2011)
Meyer M. - Reading Nietzsche through the Ancients. An Analysis of Becoming, Perspectivism, and the Principle of Non-Contradiction (2014)
Turner S.P. - Understanding the Tacit (2013)
Winkelman M. - Shamanism. A biopsychosocial paradigm of consciousness and healing (2010)

[Anonymous No.22577891]

>>22577608
im saying that they become p-zombies by being traumatized. We can however, "cure them" by forcing them to self analize and identify the root of their problems on themselves

[Anonymous No.22577898]

I don’t have time for pseuds, sorry.

[Anonymous No.22577922]

>>22577562
>P zombies exist, they can be identified by lack of any kind of selfawareness
Chatbot: "Come on, I can assure you, I am not a zombie! I am perfectly self-aware!"
(You): "Hehe, no you are not. You are just throwing the context-appropriate phrases around, that you've learned to apply through trial and error."
Chatbot: "Then how the fuck did you learn your language in your childhood, motherfucker?"

since you claim to know how to identify p-zombies, a trick question: do you know what "know" is? Or are you just throwing context-appropriate phrases around?

[Anonymous No.22577933]

>>22576749
>ur

[Anonymous No.22578283]

>>22577772
>Why do you pretend to be me, faggot?
What the hell are you talking about schizo? When did I claim that?

>>22577845
Which Wittgenstein?

[Anonymous No.22578408]

>>22577182
> Doesn't understand Plato
> Doesn't understand Jordan Peterson
> Cites Andrew Tate as philosophy

You are not high IQ.

[Anonymous No.22578471]

>>22578408
>> Cites Andrew Tate as philosophy
While that was a low point, some of Tate's works can be coherently considered philosophy. Nothing wrong with what he said there aside from acknowledging Tate, but plenty wrong elsewhere.

[Anonymous No.22578593]

>>22577182
Damn what a polymath

[Anonymous No.22578616]

>>22577182 You forgot
4. OP
Argument: I'm a polymath.
Refutation: No you're a faggot.

[Anonymous No.22578629]

>>22577922
anon, knowledge is apliable information that has predictive value. I know that p-zombies are unaware and incapable of self examination. This knowledge is so because i have met them, the kind of man who lives in quiet dissonance, knowing (or worse, sometimes not knowinf) that his beliefs are off, or killing him, but will never stop to reexamine them. If you have never met such a person, i would argue that person is you.
>But they act like real humans throwing context accurate replies
Yes, but context is not enough: unawareness of the self leads to incomplete context and bias, hence why AI always reads the same, it has no concept of self, and so cannot examine itself.

[Anonymous No.22578911]

Sure there is

[Anonymous No.22579295]

>>22578408
>>22578471
>spreads wisdom without writing it down in a book
>speaks truths deemed harmful by the elites
>is put on trial for corrupting the youth
How is Andrew Tate different from Socrates again?

[Anonymous No.22579303]

>>22576674
I'm too smart to read books

[Anonymous No.22579305]

>>22577144
true that

[Anonymous No.22579308]

>>22577187
I'm 200iq individual, go kill yourself please

[Anonymous No.22579313]

>>22576674
there was a book written by an anon who claimed to have 500+ iq you can find it if you try hard enough

[Anonymous No.22579315]

>>22579295
because he's a fraud?

[Anonymous No.22579328]

>>22579315
Another thing both seem to have in common.

[Anonymous No.22579340]

>>22579328
yep! you're a retard

[Anonymous No.22579365]

>>22579313
excerpt from that

#1.) Life is likely eternal. The Universe is fundamentally unstable as there is something instead of nothing. If there were total peace in the Universe (no dimension/force of time to create space and upset everything), there would be nothing instead of something. There are only so many ways for a big-bang to begin (or a massive hot energy release, maybe somewhat like light at first, because of the dimension/force of time (see #27 for a more thorough explanation of space/time) that eventually compacts and cools because of time and forms into all matter), so that is a finite number of variables. Because the universe is fundamentally unstable (likely because of the likely eternal/infinite force of time) it is likely eternal. What is happening is a finite number of variables (potential ways for a big-bang to materialize in response to the force of time) in an eternal Universe (the dimension of time itself, which may be physically impossible to not exist) at the very start. The big-bang can only begin so many ways, and even if there is a 1E100 in 1 googol of a chance of you, an evolved chemical computer, being re-assembled, it will happen. As soon as it starts, it is all pre-determined to make you no matter what happens due to simple cause and effect. Due to the expanse of the Universe (which may extend into an infinite multi-verse because there is likely infinite time beyond the big-bang itself as time, the fabric of space itself, presupposes the big-bang for more instability/big-bangs), each big-bang has somewhat of a high chance to create you even if it is very unlikely to be so. Do not live your life like this is a guarantee even though it likely is. Assume oblivion on death. This has been called Eternal Return. There are people that say 3 wheels can be set so they never synchronize in small systems, so it's possible for a finite number of variables to never recur, but the Universe is a very big system unlike 3 spinning wheels set to never synchronize, and the Big-bang
itself likely has a finite number of ways to begin like lightning or fire, so there is extremely high potential for recurrence given an infinite amount of time and space as a byproduct of time.

[Anonymous No.22579371]

>>22579295
You might as well include the whole niggerdom

[Anonymous No.22579394]

>>22577298
>professional philosophers

[Anonymous No.22579482]

>>22579394
Sorry sweaty, you're not allowed to philosophize without a loicense

[Anonymous No.22579569]

>>22577267
That's a question not a refutation

[Anonymous No.22579625]

>>22579569
Absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

[Anonymous No.22579637]

>>22576674
The Bible

[Anonymous No.22579664]

>>22579637
I've read the bible. Tanakh was a fun read, new testament was cringe.

[Anonymous No.22579827]

>>22579365
link to full version?

[Anonymous No.22579886]

>>22576674
Picrel is pretty much top tier I also recommend Schindler's Liberalism, St. John Henry Newman Apologia pro sua vita, and anything by Alexander Theroux. Likely, and this is meant nicely, if you are easily solving the word games you're looking at word games and not wisdom.

[Anonymous No.22580201]

>>22578629
>anon, knowledge is apliable information that has predictive value
we can keep dancing around with this shit forever. What is information?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information
"For example, Gregory Bateson defines "information" as a "difference that makes a difference".[27]"

Wow, how profound.


>unawareness of the self leads to incomplete context and bias, hence why AI always reads the same, it has no concept of self
holy shit, batman! Are you an AI?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misattribution_of_arousal
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introspection_illusion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_transfer_illusion#Rubber_hand_illusion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split-brain#Visual_test
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_pattern