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

/lit/ - Literature

View post   

File: 357 KB, 1024x1024, IMG_3795.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
23305972 No.23305972[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]


>> No.23305974

go to /his/ pls

>> No.23305987

Based gervaisanon

>> No.23306171

>5 threads died for the AI slop spam and it'll be 30 hours before jannies do anything about it
Any books for this feel?

>> No.23306172


No Exit

>> No.23307524


>> No.23307567

How can people take seriously a guy who denied the existence of consciousness? Are they really that desperate to "own le Christcucks XDXDXD"?

>> No.23307597

What kind of arguments he even used for that? Qrd

>> No.23307668

User illusion bro

>> No.23307693

Why is there an anime girl in hell?

>> No.23307721

Because anime girls are just modern succubi

>> No.23307842
File: 190 KB, 1077x618, 1000068671.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Consciousness IS an illusion bro, at least imo. My issue with Dennett & the other horsemen of the fedora revolution is the hypocritical dysjunction between their views on the relationship between consciousness & religion versus their general political character; if they were acting in anything like good faith, they'd have promulgated a political discourse derived from something like buddhism, but instead they just used their rhetoric to sledgehammer judeochristian culture/morality while at the same time endorsing MUH OBJECTIVE RATIONALITY neoliberal globohomo post-enlightenment values

>> No.23307860

>AI prompt: godless healhen burning in hell burning in hell forever as skeletons and demons laugh
>AI model: would you like a succubus waifu with that?
>uh no
>AI model: well I'm gonna put one in there anyway

>> No.23307863
File: 85 KB, 600x450, p6n8r6t7nkb71.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>23307842 >>23307567
Tldr, their ethical & political conclusions are ridiculously disconnected from their scientific observations, like
>Consciousness is an illusion, eternal essential souls dont exist, what we think of as our "selves" is actually just ephemeral interplay between different material aggregates

>> No.23307952

ok, its an illusion to who?
to ummm ummmm another illusion?

>> No.23308017
File: 40 KB, 555x450, The-concept-of-free-will-as-an-illusion-Subconscious-mind-is-said-to.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>to ummm ummmm another illusion?
yes. if you ever consume ketamine, you can experience it firsthand. I fell into the k-hole myself once & learned for a fact beyond the shadow of any doubt that consciousness isnt real

>> No.23308066

Although this is stupid, it's actually the only logical conclusion of naturalism in regards to the nature of consciousness. Of course, one would've to accept all the premises of naturalism to accept this, which a lot of people do not. Even naturalism by itself is a question begging system of thought. So, at the end---and even though most refuse to admit it---the matters is nothing but the 'Pacal's wager', with people simply reaffirming louder and louder the position of their choice.

>> No.23308077

Based AI

>> No.23308081
File: 184 KB, 720x1110, amazing atheist bananas.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

The problem is that while guys like Daniel Dennett want to assert a materialist worldview because they heckin' love science and religion is for rural conservative boors, they're unwilling to fully commit to it because they're still status obsessed shitlibs at the end of the day and full materialism is for dirty commie authoritarians. So they continue to adhere to idealist philosophical concepts that make them come across as good liberals.

That's where the disconnect happens and they cross their wires. The materialist position would be that of course consciousness and personal will exist, but your consciousness and your will are part of the material universe and are subject to its laws. This doesn't mean that you don't have a consciousness or a will, but that the laws of the material universe shape and define it. You are not some metaphysical force squatting outside of your body and outside of the material universe being tricked into thinking you are in control when you're not, you ARE you body and are a thing *of* the material universe and the laws of that universe are simply what guides your personality and your will.

The problem with guys like Daniel Dennett is that they cannot acknowledge this because they still fundamentally believe in the existence of the soul whether they'll admit it or not. The cognitive dissonance between the belief in the soul and the somewhat shallow belief in a sort of vulgar "I heckin' love science!" materialism is that they wind up at the conclusion that essentially we all have souls but our souls don't do anything, and instead are just tricked into believing that they do something.

>> No.23308171

> judeochristian
This is how you spot a psyopped american protestant who thinks he needs to send millions to Israel. Look at the ngram for that phrase. Pops up like a rocket after WWII. Guess why.
Until 1950 about ain’t no fucking christian who would try to fuse his religion with the synagogue of satan. Today they’re bending over backwards to insist it’s the same.
The extra special retard part of your post is where you think you’re opposed to the neolib/globohomo agenda. The same people who programmed you to think “judeochristian” is a thing.

>> No.23308189

That's nice and all but in real life every actual Christian disagrees with your gay little LARP and sees right through it.

>> No.23308192
File: 67 KB, 909x405, dennett 1.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Pic related.

>> No.23308201

Well, how is consciousness being defined?

>> No.23308217

I don't know what it's like in the rest of the world, but I rarely hear the term judeo-vhristian outside of the American context.

>> No.23308232

I'm German, both the Catholic and Lutheran churches here uses it (or rather the German cognate, "judenchristlich") all the time.

>> No.23308238

Good, he's still burining in hell, tho.

>> No.23308241
File: 11 KB, 220x294, 1697457827136882.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

After reading your post I had shivers
Thinking about his judgement and descent into Hell, I suddenly imagined his terror it hurts, it just hurts so damn much but there is no escape
And worst of all, he knows who the Lord is and that the Lord's judgement of sinners is eternal
I shiver and my heart hurts but I know it is justice
I contemplate Junko Furata opening up her eyes after she was killed and seeing God and having her judgement declared to her and that fall
That awful endless fall into the pit that burns forever
Her eyes are burning, her tongue is burning, her hair is burning, her nail bed is burning, she tears her skin in the hope of some relief but no relief ever comes
Her brain is burning, her heart is burning, all is burning and there is no escape
She screams but her screams are drowned out
It is just white noise, the screaming of the damned
A terrible constant noise that one cannot truly contemplate
Every time I hear white noise I think about the damned and their screaming, their horrible screaming, billions of bodies and their souls screaming out A LIFETIME OF SIN LEAD TO THIS
The Saints in heaven, with God, their Lord, enjoy perfect bliss after a lifetime of scoffers and persecution and Junko Furata screams to no one in particular
Her fate is mind-destroying, one cannot truly contemplate the fate of the damned

>> No.23308258

Enough about Funko Furata for now
I picture Daniel Dennett surrounded by the damned, he himself is one of the damned
In their lives who were these damned? Is it not reasonable to imagine that these people are those who had listened to the silver words of Daniel Dennett in their lives?
What fury, Heaven and Eternity lost, and who is to blame? They claw at him, they grip him and try to chew his face, gouge his eyes, pull out his tongue
They tear at his flesh but it brings no relief yet that angers them even more
A crowd of ten thousand, ripping Daniel Dennett apart
It is horrifying to imagine
There is no rest for the wicked
There is no devil torturing the sinners, there is only pain and futile rage
The devil screams and cowers in pain

>> No.23308299

>consciousness is an emergent phenomena
That's a basic take and nothing else he says is backed up by this central claim. Also, the smartphone analogy is really dumb. You wouldnt say someone isnt meaningfully using their smartphone because they don't know how to code.

>> No.23308316
File: 1.00 MB, 1157x1584, 2456157257.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Any source for this religionbros? Thinking of getting into it but I need some convincing.

>> No.23308329

He's currently in purgatory surrounded by fedoras who died prematurely asking him questions about YouTube videos and debates he was in. He wasn't sure if he was actually in hell and still hasn't found his faith yet.

>> No.23308333

How do you know this

>> No.23308365

>You wouldnt say someone isnt meaningfully using their smartphone because they don't know how to code.
Good think that nothing like that was claimed, quite the opposite
you clearly need to improve your reading skills

>> No.23308369

Nah, he likely has enough good karma to have get a descent rebirth

>> No.23308375
File: 62 KB, 909x421, dennett 2.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

This is a complete nonsequitor and has nothing to do with what was posted. Have you considered looking into what Dennett believed before having an opinion on him? Being a contrarian redditor will get you nowhere, as this thread has repeatedly demonstrated.

>> No.23308378

That's such a weird argument.
>You can't do binary conversion so the output is an illusion
>Introspection is similar to looking at folders on a computer to figure out computer science
But there are computer scientists, we've build them you can study and build them and figure them out you can study the math.
The brain obviously has many unknowns but there are developments which do explain somethings that occur and these are studied/repeated/verified.
The second paragraph reads as if the writer had a joint

>> No.23308382

>the brain is a computer
No, it isn't. That's the problem. It's demonstrably not, there's no CPU and no harddrive. That's the entire crux of this gay predditor meme. Yes, Dennett affirms that there's no "real you" inside your head piloting your body watching your experiences on a screen, that's obvious to anyone who spends five seconds introspecting and it's obvious to anyone who has even a passing familiarity with neuroscience. Thinking otherwise is pants on head retarded.

>> No.23308386

>But there are computer scientists, we've build them you can study and build them and figure them out you can study the math.
What a coincidence, there's a discipline of science that's focused on studying the brain! Here, let me introduce you to it:

>> No.23308389

So...we all agree that consciousness isn't an illusion

>> No.23308394

Define "consciousness" and "illusion".

>> No.23308401
File: 69 KB, 913x475, dennett 4.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

This is the one that introduces "conscious as an adjective" vs "consciousness as mental homunculus" but it means that I have to skip 3.

>> No.23308508
File: 599 KB, 1070x1070, 1000070639.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>23308192 >>23308375 >>23308401
thanks for saving these effortposts anon, they're great. would u mind dumping the rest? the anon who wrote them was relentlesy on point.

>> No.23308519

murder victims automatically go to heaven

>> No.23308564
File: 882 KB, 2817x2117, Brian Tomasik.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Brian Tomasik is another NPC that denies the existence of consciousness.


>The mantra of the more radical version of eliminativism is that we're not conscious but only think we are. How is that possible? "I just know I'm conscious!" But any thoughts you have about your being conscious are fallible. I believe there are bugs in the vast network of computation that produces thoughts like "I'm conscious in a way that generates a hard problem of consciousness." No thought you have is guaranteed to be free from bugs, and it seems more likely -- given the basically useless additional complexity of postulating a metaphysically privileged thing called consciousness -- to suppose that our attribution of metaphysically privileged consciousness to ourselves is a bug in our cognitive architectures. This is a relatively simple way to escape the whole consciousness conundrum. If it feels weird, that's because the bug in your neural wiring is causing you to reject the idea. Your thoughts exist within the system and can't get outside of it.

>Your brain is like a cult leader, and you are its follower. If your brain tells you it's conscious, you believe it. If your brain says there's a special "what-it's-like-ness" to experience beyond mechanical processes, you believe it. You take your cult leader's claims at face value because you can't get outside the cult and see things from any other perspective. Any judgments you make are always subject to revision by the cult leader before being broadcast. (Similar analogies help explain the feeling of time's flow, the feeling of free will, etc.)

>> No.23308574
File: 37 KB, 1000x682, that time daniel dennett took LSD.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Daniel Dennett never did any psychedelics in his entire life. I found this story about what would have happened if Dennett did LSD:

>> No.23308578
File: 1.66 MB, 1280x7779, arguing with zombies.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]


>> No.23308579
File: 10 KB, 315x499, kolak i am you.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>what we think of as our "selves" is actually just ephemeral interplay between different material aggregates
Pic related is a book that argues for something like this.

>> No.23309458


>> No.23309670

If you're a christfaggot concerned about cement girl being sent to hell, just go for the old evangelionist line about Jesus meeting everyone before they die.

>> No.23309874

>top right

>> No.23309897
File: 78 KB, 909x547, dennett 3.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

I've only got four, here's #3. If you go on warosu.org/lit and search around you can find some really high quality shit in this dumpsterfire.

>> No.23310260

>Good think that nothing like that was claimed
"User illusion," retard. It's a dumb argument. No shit your brain filters reality and renders it into experience. That doesn't mean consciousness is an illusion. Sorry you're too dumb to discern bullshit when you hear it.

>> No.23310264

Because it's funny.

>> No.23310270

>This is a complete nonsequitor and has nothing to do with what was posted.
I responded directly to what you posted in that screenshot. I'll read the other posts but based on the first there's no there there.

>> No.23310271

Anyone who has wished for this, jokingly or not, has only put themselves in danger.

>> No.23310510

No you didn't, you schizobabbled without reading the fucking screenshot.

>> No.23310512

>That doesn't mean consciousness is an illusion
Could you produce for me a bucket of consciousness? Like, go take consciousness in a bucket.

>> No.23311458

the anime demon babe seems shocked at the man's predicament, maybe she'll help him

>> No.23311492

>filtered by a direct response
No wonder you take Saturday morning philosophers like Dennett seriously.

>> No.23311496
File: 17 KB, 200x198, NPC_wojak_meme.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>Could you produce for me a bucket of consciousness? Like, go take consciousness in a bucket.

>> No.23312658

Anglos are so smart that they are stupid. "Consciousness as an illusion" is a consequence of the Anglo-Saxon belief in reason as a force overcoming superstition - I emit the forces of Reason to tame myself and the world. Ergo - I become conscious to overcome unconsciousness. And since this postulate is impossible to implement, and proving that any view is "purely rational" is impossible, the Anglos concluded that consciousness must be the same illusion as rationality.

And it is enough to say: "Awareness of me is only a part of my mind." Consciousness could not exist without unconscious elements. This is not the Freudian realm of repression, this is the essence of humanity. What's more, thanks to understanding this fact, I can finally be truly rational (truly, that is, to the extent of my human capabilities).

That's why I think these Anglo-Saxon "new atheists" are stupid and rather destructive nihilists.

>> No.23312739

>How can people take seriously a guy who denied the existence of consciousness?
He doesn't though. He explains consciousness as a particular way our deterministic brain processes experience - meaning that it exists, but as a perceptive illusion, not a thing in itself. It's not that there is no consciousness, it's that there is no qualia, no "ghost behind the eyes".

I'm fine with this idea, but it ultimately doesn't mean or change anything, and is just a part of the retarded analytical dialogue that gave rise to the qualia, which is undeniably an ugly and useless crutch. It's a good deconstruction of a useless tautology at best, not an actual theory.

Things are made worse by the whole fedora atheism shitstorm that Dennet got into for no sane reason whatsoever, as >>23308081>>23308081 pointed out.

Overall I think that Dennet is a decent guy who decided to spend his life trying to prove idiots wrong rather than actually saying anything right himself.

>> No.23312809

>first there was nothing
>then suddenly, out of this nothingness, everything came to exist. btw this is against all laws of physics which we so adore, as it breaks the conservation of energy and the principle of causality
>then from this initial universe which was just tiny subatomic particles, in a few billions years stars and planets and galaxies were created somehow
>then one on of these planets, earth, somehow, out of a bunch of random molecules in a primordial soup, life started, actual living beings came to be created from this molecules
>then a few billions years after that, through evolution, these primal living beings became sentient, advanced creatures capable of contemplating their own existence

Now the second point.
Reminder that if you believe in scientific realism, you literally believe that there is an immaterial symmetry group SU(3)×SU(2)×U(1)× P(1,3) living outside the universe and yet governing every interaction in the material universe without even being able to explain how immaterial rules act on matter.

The problem with science is that scientific realism is completely retarded. Bible level of retardation. According to science, reality is composed by mathematical objects. Nobody has ever witnessed those immaterial mathematical constructs.
It’s peak atheist midwitism . The main problem with determinism and science is that they use ‘’rules’’ and those ‘’rules’’ 1/ are not subject to determinism 2/ don’t live in the universe 3/ nobody knows where they come from 4/ no atheist is able to explain how a material system is acted upon by immaterial rules
5/in labs, all the rules are followed not deterministically, but statistically at best

Atheists are so stupid that they deserve to be depressed and commit suicide out of their own-making nihilism.

>> No.23312820

>first there was nothing
Wrong tho

>then from this initial universe which was just tiny subatomic particles, in a few billions years stars and planets and galaxies were created somehow
We observe astrogenesis and planetogenesis in real time on a costant basis.

>According to science, reality is composed by mathematical objects. Nobody has ever witnessed those immaterial mathematical constructs.
Imagine getting filtered by the concept of models.

> nobody knows where they come from
From a (functional, non-retarded) human brain. That uses those to try and predict behavior of things in the material universe. Theories and models are not rules that govern the universe - they are the human explanations of phenomena observed in the universe.

>> No.23313049

This is a bunch of nonsense
>If there were only people that dont believe in free will there would be no computer because computer cant make each other exists
What the fuck is that drivel

>> No.23313704 [DELETED] 

You’ll never brown, Tristan

>> No.23313710

You’ll never be brown, Tristan

>> No.23313832

Of course not, Johnny, my skin is as fair as my continental views.

>> No.23313841

Supposing Abrahmism or Christianity is true; you'd be closer to going to Hell than Dennett would be. To deny God on intellectual grounds is a sin of foolishness and arrogance, but to mock a man's fate is something worse.

>> No.23314191

Lighten up, dude

>> No.23314195

Lmao I highly doubt God would be more annoyed at me assuming someone's going to hell than he would about someone deciding He isn't real and living his life believing that.

>> No.23314207

Was it Augustine who said that one of the great pleasures of heaven would be to see the sinners in hell suffering torments?

>> No.23314221

Don't worry, just remember that God™ loves you.

>> No.23314223

Rejecting materialism sounds like a bunch of fucking commie gobbletygook. YOU are material, you dumb fucking mutt.

>> No.23315082

As hard as you try rabbi, you can't erase the anti-Semitic nature of the New Testament lmao

>> No.23315202

>God did it all with magic
This literally does not solve anything. Theists are retarded and deserve to live in caves with animals that they sacrifice to imaginary sky daddies.

>> No.23315204

Shocker, Christianity appeals to sadists

>> No.23315226

Hello jew.

>> No.23315258
File: 91 KB, 390x493, 1689755653582882.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>miss the theurgic apodicity point
>perfomatively contradict & self-negate one's self in the process

And nothing of value was lost, this too being a necessary moment in Absolute Spirit.

>> No.23315371

Consciousness is a feeling; it is itself a type of qualia, which is subjective experience, constructed by multiple parts of the brain and body working in tandem. It is not something that goes from 0 to 1; it evolved gradually, primarily as a byproduct of memory. We can experience partial forms of it (e.g., during REM sleep) and other animals have different iterations of the feeling since they have different brains and bodies.

>> No.23315495

For a loving and compassionate religion, you sure do love imagining people you dislike being subject to unspeakable eternal torment.

>> No.23315524

Even more intellectually bankrupt and logically unsound than the strawmen typically used against him. Nice work, really. Impressive.

>> No.23315612

Saying that something is an illusion only begs the question of what ontological status you give to "illusions" - especially if they seem to have consequences in the real world and influence entities that are "non illusory".
This seems to be the core of the question to me, and the reason why picking up Aristotle or Plotinus to have serious discussion on how we can re-define the ontology of certain objects is worth it - but it seems to me that very few philosophers and even less scientists are willing to engage in that kind of question.

>> No.23315784

When i wrote that consciousness is illusory, i was refering broadly to the points made in these attachments >>23308401 >>23308375
after my khole catastrophe from several years ago >>23308017 obliterated my understanding of reality & consciousness & myself, i became absorbed heavily in studying buddhist ideas to try making sense of what i had experienced, & i unknowingly came to many of the same sorts of illusionist materialist conclusions as dennett. this why i couldnt stand him when i eventually learned about his work & i hope he's roasting in imaginary hell rn, even though our concepts of human consciousness were mostly similar; in my view, instead of presenting them from a positive, buddhist-esque perspective, he used these ideas destructively, to shit on christianity, attack cultural & spiritual stability, sew social discord, & demoralize people

>> No.23316555

That doesn't seem right

>> No.23316878

>what is tough love?

>> No.23316993

it's a just a generic name for the Poincare group

>> No.23317052

I know. But why include it there?

>> No.23317174

What the fuck is this schizobabble?

>> No.23317181

This is correct.

>> No.23317187

She’d be in limbo, moron.

>> No.23317210


>> No.23317422

>you can’t be moral without god
christians being “moral”:

>> No.23317486

Where there is universal morality, there is universal sanction. This is how it is in Christianity. Atheists, on the other hand, simply believe that everything they like is good and what they don't like is bad. The sanction therefore depends on the subjective assessment of the atheist; the act is less important than who commits it and against whom. Therefore, Christianity is righteous and atheists never are.

>> No.23317505

christianity morality is also subjective it just makes the subject of the morality god and his subjective assessments
christians will say that killing is bad but when god floods the world killing all but a few humans that’s considered fine or even good because it’s god doing it

>> No.23317575
File: 109 KB, 624x572, Succubus-James_Jean-Gicle_Digital_Print-trampt-56620o.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]


>> No.23317596

Your perception of Christianity as chaos results from a misunderstanding of basic concepts and generally chaotic, atheistic way of thinking. God is the Absolute, which means that He contains all meanings, starting with the Principles. There is no room for subjectivity here. People may differ in their assessments, but the principles remain constant. Moreover, when it comes to God, principles operate on a global scale. The Great Flood is a sanction for humanity's immorality (inability to see principles). This is not an act of an individual, but of reality towards people not getting rules of life. Think of it like an avalanche falling on a man who wanted to scream in the mountains.

>> No.23317597

Sorry Dan, there is no you to be suffering =]

>> No.23317653

I see what you are saying but there is no morality outside of God’s will and so if god wills you to burn it is good and if he wants you to die it is good.

You created a new level of morality to judge gods behavior but that’s not a meaningful thing to say

>> No.23317724

The original NPC

>> No.23317726

if schopenhauer never read the second critique, it must also be said that hegel never read the first

>> No.23317748

Don't do Schopenhauer or Hegel, kid. It's destroy you. Stay close to Kant.

>> No.23317779

Consciousness is real. That fact that there's a me behind my eyes. I am conscious of my thoughts and physical movements. I perceive myself as a little entity being forced to act in this world. If i wanted to i could delete whatever i wrote here and move on with my day. But I won't. Cause "I" am making the decision. The "me" that is being forced to run this mortal body like a robot. Can't say the same for you guys. Maybe you all really don't have any independent thoughts? maybe I am the only guy in the ever expanding universe who has a "self". Maybe you all are not even real. Maybe i am stuck in a lower dream which is a part of a greater simulation. Cause one thing for sure, I'm not an "npc". I'm here. I was born of something.

>> No.23317842
File: 33 KB, 542x450, 0c6f6d8259c8ceafa8ac5688aa7faa65.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

nvm i take back what i said. This explanation is obviously right. We are all a bunch of fucking npcs. We are just doing what our non-animate neurons are telling us to do. Fuck this is depressing. I thought I was special. Why was I even born if "I" am not real? everything i have achieved up to this point is invalid and meaningless. It's like I was conceived just to reproduce. How are we any different from Robots?

>> No.23318058

>if you had to manipulate the 1's and 0's it would be impossible to do the most basic task
Wow, you non-STEMs really are that dumb, huh? And to not even realize it...