/sci/ - Science & Math

I love how he dances around pain qualia.

Like exposure to raw consciousness without the "dashboard" is going to be gumdrops and lollipops. Assholes like Kastrup have such a severe optimism bias its impossible to take them seriously.

>>14601753
The next Buddha

>>14601753
>Is this guy a schizo or a the kind of guy who will be looked at 1000 years from now as someone who lead us out of ignorant darkness?
Schizo.

>>14601961
Now do you see where the new idealism is coming from? I knew Kastrup would be arming midwits when I encountered him on Richard Brown's excellent youtube channel.

Its a lot like Jordan Peterson, in that seemingly overnight image board users were using "logos" and "archetype" in their arguments. You can always trace it back to an influencer, sadly.

https://youtu.be/D1f3QLQjls4

>>14601753
>(18.834 words, read time ~1h 35 min.)
tldr?

>>14601978
I mean I've known about both of them for many years. I knew about Peterson before he became some public entity, but only vaguely the same way I "know" some researchers name on a paper.

I wouldn't call them "midwits" nor is the term useful at all. People with motivated reasoning and bad epistemology can be very intelligently and infuriatingly bad at epistemology.

>>14601753
Schizo.

>>14601753
looks like Schizonisme

>>14602097
>I wouldn't call them "midwits" nor is the term useful at all.
Did we read the same paper? I know you read philosophy papers, e. Have you ever read one with so much bone and so little meat?

>>14601753
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Uz6anwm47g
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YRYxZuYACg

>>14602338
You've never once explained the mechanism that causes the winnowed conscious state approaching death to expand itself into a functional robust conscious state later.

>>14602340
What made it happen the first time? Why can't it ever happen again?

>>14602349
Where does the flame go for the candle when it dies? The flame ether?

>>14602356
Shut-up

>>14602349
The first time it unfolded uniquely into the timeline of experiences shaped by the brain and its body, alongside the outside environment. Why does all of that happen again?

>>14602357
2/2

It also built upon the metabolic state of the architecture it was running on. If my pre-death conscious is continued elsewhere, why must it resemble the past states at all? Why would it not then blossom in the direction of the new substrate?

>>14602338
Natural philosophy and objective truth is not remotely connected to your esoteric Christian-inspired shit. It will never get validated. And the 15th century is over.
Cargo science cults should really move on into something else.

technically were never really alive thats why we cant die
life is just an illusion that makes it simpler for our human brain

>>14602366
>esoteric Christian-inspired shit
To be fair, his stupid diagram and dead Mario's stupid dead argument relies on nothing but materialism being true.

I mean, if we are at anytime a configuration of brain states, can those brain states be continued elsewhere and what would that mean for our POV?

Its just the transporter problem restated.

>>14602329
I simply do not think the term is useful. As with most like them, they exist more to service the hubris or narcissism of crowds than say anything worth saying.

Someone being intelligent, but utterly inept due to ideological goggles, is a far more scathing criticism in my mind. Nor encompassed by "midwit". I can follow what Kastrup is "after", but that doesn't make it any less inept regardless of how well argued for a wrongheaded causes. Chalmers does the same thing.

Just saying, you have had genius tier mathematicians go to bat for the fucking young earth creationists. If you are intelligent it just means that without a good and rigorous epistemology you can more convincingly argue for your own bullshit. Including to yourself. That's what seems to be the case anyway, and I'm faaaaaar from the only one to have noticed or mentioned that online or real life. Get what I'm saying?

>>14602435
>Just saying, you have had genius tier mathematicians go to bat for the fucking young earth creationists.
>Get what I'm saying?
I really can't see what you're saying because you're equating educated with intelligent. Just because someone is learned enough to argue young earth with logic doesn't mean they were ever anything resembling intelligent. They're more like chinese rooms than anything. Intelligence is when that room is populated with someone dismissive enough on the grounds of experience + common sense.

You can chalk it up to some mis-calibrated epistemology, but I look at it like plain retardation.

>>14602448
I am not equating intelligence with education. Jordan Peterson is exceptionally intelligent, it's just a shame he seems to be falling for his own bullshit and using dead authors like crystal balls rather than owning up to his own reasoning.

On the contrary, and this is bizarre, it would seem you're the one equating intelligence (the ability itself) with truth or epistemic validity. I'm trying to say that doesn't always follow, because desperation and exceptional circumstance can always twist that into a convincing lie. Often to ourselves.

Maybe an analogy here, I suppose, would be like a series of equations and formal reasoning. Yes, the way in which they write and try to communicate does require they have some level of innate ability. The problem is all of their axioms are wrong (in this analogy). Unfortunately, and maybe you disagree with this, in my experience even genius level intellect can get those axioms horribly wrong and due to personality or circumstance utterly refuse or reject all modification. That is what I see going on here.

>>14601753
Check out the Seth Material and thank me later

>>14602455
>desperation and exceptional circumstance can always twist that into a convincing lie
Generous, I think they're just selling me something.

>even genius level intellect can get those axioms horribly wrong
Then I would say their eagerness to take the dive and put in the work on unstable grounding betrays a lack of intelligence. An intelligent person is considerate of red flags and initial assumptions, when they are assumptions, which all of it is really. By my understanding, JP and BK may be the two rightest motherfuckers in their respective fields. The problem is, they think they can know that, when "right" isn't even applicable in their respective fields. They're both just building a better tool, if not a more marketable one.

>>14602479
>Generous, I think they're just selling me something.
Well, don't misunderstand me I do understand how you come to dismiss them as you do. I agree, it is because they sound preachy, and like preachers they absolutely are trying to sell you something. I just think in their case, not every case but with those two, they completely believe what they're selling to have value.
>An intelligent person is considerate of red flags and initial assumptions, when they are assumptions, which all of it is really.
Ordinarily that would be true, but it's also a matter of stress and personal perception of life difficulty. I believe there are psychology studies on this, but I can't remember, something about how self perceived life stress results in higher degrees of things like paranormal beliefs and whatnot irrespective of intelligence.

Now, again, it is much less likely with a higher IQ, but not unheard of. If it helps, I do agree with your sentiment "it feels like they're trying to sell me something". That is a good instinct to have.

>>14601753


Schizo but also not wrong

>>14602492
I'm playing a more skeptical character given the names we're talking. The truth is what I said initially about the lack of meat, also his work reads like a wish list begging an outcome.

"But look at the AWARE study, but materialism can't say anything about this, but.. "

All leads to his prepackaged conclusion. You know, the one he started with? That's why its bad.
I guess that's your axiomatic blindness in layman's terms, though. So I do see what you're saying.

>>14602517
Worse, he's not even wrong.

>>14602525
I don't particularly disagree with that. A lot of it comes down to personality and interpretation, how one sees the motives of others, hostile attribution and whatnot.

No worries anon. I just have this irritation with assuming people saying stupid things makes them stupid I guess. Don't get me wrong, though, all the antivaxxers trawling /sci/ with their bullshit are exactly as stupid as they sound.

>>14602532
>are exactly as stupid as they sound
Now you see, that's interesting.

I made the thread yesterday about them protecting themselves. Seems to have slid, but whatever, the point was, how much is ignorance and how much is choosing the comfort of blindness, if only on a subconscious level?

On the flip-side, how much counter argumentation is an attempt to correct the record, and how much is fed from a longing to be so ignorant?

>>14602544
I can only speculate. Desire to feel special to justify what amounts to a toddler tantrum "I don't wanna" instead of just admitting their sole reason IS a toddler's spite?

>>14602361
Do enough drugs to fuck your consciousness up until theres no ability to recognize yourself but you remain with waking consciousness. Psychedelics are the class most fit to do this, though actually all sorts of drugs can do it. As long as some point is reached where every idea of what 'you' are gets tested.

>>14602085
I read the first few paragraphs, he sounds like a retarded dualist. Probably the same kind of retard who believes in epiphenomenalism.

>>14602973
Idealist, not dualist.

>>14602338
I also tend towards eternal return (I would say I am convinced of my own favorite view at about 80% strength, so far from a true believer). But even thought what this graph depicts is metaphysically sound, the very most "high level" seeming implementation details (seeming) trivialities of (seeming) biology paint a dire picture: memory. What would one be without memory? Not just having only short-term memory. Not just having not even that, but 1 second memory. None of that. No memory whatsoever. Would the consciousness not be indistinguishable from a death state? Now, thankfully that matters to no higher mammals, as they likely would not even function with exactly 0 memory. But it matters in that a state that shuts off all your memory for an arbitrary amount of time, and deletes all stored memories, functionally seems to be equivalent to a death of sorts. Of course, if you at least have body continuity, the relevance of this point is defeated. But with eternal return, you do not have that luxury.
Whether it actually for a lack of a better term "matters" or makes a difference whether one permanently dies, or gets eternally reborn with exactly zero memory between each instance (which would not be the case, i.e. there'd be some remembrance even literally the ONLY piece of information was one singular bit of information -- remember whether you already had a past life, or not. That's all it'd take to enact nonequivalence from the zero memory scenario) is question that currently looks dire. But fundamentally, answering such is above the paygrade of even the brightest human minds.

>>14603387
I can't say for certain what one would be without memory, but I can point to some of UVA's work on this stuff showing that at least some reborn children retain a high degree of recall from their previous life. I can't say what causes or mechanizes this supposed transfer of consciousness, all I can do is point to a result (reincarnated people) showing that something happens at least. If anyone has any ideas on how it actually works, I'd also probably go from 80 to 100.

>>14601978
>Its a lot like Jordan Peterson
I rest my case then. Peterson is only a reference for underaged right wing wannabes. His entire work can be resumed in a couple of memes.

>>14602532
Ah, so someone made a risk/benefit assessment that you didn't agree with and that means they are stupid. You were just arguing about axiomatic blind spots, correct? I am surprised you have unironically included this comparison.

>>14603527
>Ah, so someone made a risk/benefit assessment that you didn't agree with
No, they hold risk/benefit assessment based on lies and complete ignorance, contrary to the best evidence and contrary to all evidence whenever it is explained to them.

Yes, that makes them stupid. Go dilate.

>>14601753
You already posses the necessary tools to experience the universe as it is.
You cannot unravel the secrets of life using your logical mind.
I have read the paper and I understand the intention but it is still just a waste of time.
I have spent my whole life, since age four, looking for truth.
Yoga is the way of knowing yourself and much more if you are willing.
You... are the key. The most advanced bio-mechanical machine.
Looking in is the only way.

>>14602356
Almost all flames have gone or haven't happened. Why is your flame burning today? Why are you not dead? What a coincidence. Millions of dead planets for eons and you just exist in current year in the only planet with life

>>14603387
>what this graph depicts is metaphysically sound,

see >>14602357
and >>14602361

The graph is sound by no definition of "sound."

>>14604212
Because someone else "lit" me in the area that had matches available. There was a clear line of causality here.