/lit/ - Literature

>>22666687
stop spamming your tweets you twink fag
>>22666676
this

>>22642342
Which is more likely, the consciousness isn't real or that autistic materialists and their faggy ontologies are completely wrong?

>the science is settled, goy

>>22617060
rarely does a single meme obliterate an entire persons body of work so easily

>>22606694
its bullshit, nobody can explain what is about energy (let alone matter lol) that leads to consciousness and recursive self-awareness, let alone the litany of religious epiphanies that are so fundamental to the whole phenomenology of consciousness. show me where in the fundamental laws of physics that outlines the specific characteristics of energy that enables it to structured to achieve consciousness

fact is, the soul is real, and the cosmos is far more of a dream-scape than some dead, unalive material realm

>>22219507
Found the P-zombie

mind and consciousness, everything is fake and gay

>>20818767
Or maybe you are

>>20766338
based

>>19793968
>DIRECT PERCEPTION IS JUST AN ILLUSION BRO
Fuck off Dennett

>>19650200

>>19514830
Barron. Other than Barron and Peterson, don't know them.
Barron doesn't seem to be this type, as it is. He's just a well-spoken clergyman and his "brand" is an invention of the ministry.
>>19516508
>He's the closest I've ever seen anyone get to something like a religious worldview while denying the "supernatural".
That doesn't sound that different from my formal studies of cognitive science. Panpsychism (see Galen Strawson) and process ontology are important views in the philosophy of cognitive neuroscience. They may not be majority, but they're there.
And, the honest truth of most neurological theories of consciousness is that they don't have evidence.

For example, here's two of those theories: Global Neuronal Workspace Theory and Integrated Information Theory (or, at least in my opinion, computational theories of mind). The former has no evidence in terms of actual verifiable observation, and there's not much more to say.
The latter, computational theories, basically assumes the brain works like a computer, which it just doesn't. I won't go into details, but in rat experiments, knocking out certain genes can demonstrate a loss of memory faculties (in *behavioral* studies, an important realization). Cool experiment, right? The problem is that the rats don't lose the entirety of memory, and it's obviously unknown what the "phenomenology" of the rat's memory is. And in humans, this is far more complicated, especially as it regards "Long Term Potentiation."
Here's another thing a lot of people don't realize: the dualist problem/notion of the "Cartesian theater" (or humorously called a "homonculus" in the brain) hasn't actually gone anywhere. The fact that the various philosophers and neuroscientists of the field do this annoys the living shit out of me, but all they've done is simply reworded and reworked the idea to sound more scientific. There are several theories which take a "spotlight" idea of consciousness, and speculate about a "CPU of the brain" (doesn't seem to exist) or a biological analogue to a spotlight (no real evidence), which is nothing more than a fanciful reworking of the homonculus. Except now it seems so """scientific.""" I want to punch these faggots sometimes. It's a retread of the exact same Renaissance/Enlightenment disputes, except these academic are pretending it's new and making the debate extremely boring for their faggy publishing standards.
Incidentally, this is perhaps one of the motivations that led Daniel Dennett to his retarded "consciousness doesn't exist" nonphilosophy.
But I digress. My point is that such issues inevitably drift to the mystical, despite our best efforts.
It's one of the reasons I don't take any pop atheist remotely seriously, except for the damage they do to the rhetorical area, in how they portray these problems to laymen and young people (giving them a false intellectualism). There's nothing special about Dennett or Harris.One could say the same about Peterson, honestly.

>>19227396
Marvin Minsky and Brian Tomasik also deny the existence of consciousness

https://longtermrisk.org/the-eliminativist-approach-to-consciousness/#Denying_consciousness_altogether

>>19008281
>You don't "understand" what it's like to see red, you just see it, and you see it not because of "consciousness" but because your eyes are functioning normally
I give up, the way you can't seem to differentiate consciousness from your body or even acknowledge that consciousness is an internal experience and not just an externally observable event, leaves me with only two logical conclusions: You're either baiting, or you're a philosophical zombie like Dennett https://philarchive.org/archive/KEACDD
In either case it's futile to argue

>>18873814
wide dick dennett is influential but probably the worst philosopher tackling consciousness right now

he literally had the dumbest, most condescending "critique" of panpsychism I've ever heard.

His argument was basically "oooh, well what if I have a view called 'pan-niftyism', and claim that everything in reality is 'nifty', what does that add to your ontology?"

He doesn't engage with the position in any capacity.

His argument for consciousness as illusion is also retarded.

>>18506016
>not posting the one which triggers p-zombies the most

>>18376149
>>18376191
Dennett is probably the biggest retard in philosophy since the logical positivists.

>>18153934
You're an idiot.

>>18153735
>An illusion
Found the NPC

>>18147590
How do you know that? How do you know anything?

>>18054832
Causality is true and real by necessity. We wouldn't be having this conversation without it. Denying the reality of causality is effectively as dull as denying you exist.

>Mary is a brilliant scientist who is, for whatever reason, forced to investigate the world from a black and white room via a black and white television monitor. She specializes in the neurophysiology of vision and acquires, let us suppose, all the physical information there is to obtain about what goes on when we see ripe tomatoes, or the sky, and use terms like 'red', 'blue', and so on. She discovers, for example, just which wavelength combinations from the sky stimulate the retina, and exactly how this produces via the central nervous system the contraction of the vocal cords and expulsion of air from the lungs that results in the uttering of the sentence 'The sky is blue'. (…) What will happen when Mary is released from her black and white room or is given a color television monitor? Will she learn anything or not? It seems just obvious that she will learn something about the world and our visual experience of it. But then is it inescapable that her previous knowledge was incomplete. But she had all the physical information. Ergo there is more to have than that, and Physicalism is false.

how can they ever recover from this?

>>17942741