/lit/ - Literature

>>14161185
Bible
Literally brings people back from the dead

>>14161188
checked

>>14161188
>muh desert jews is smrt. Eternal wizdom beats your scientism cult of satanic baby killers. Rot in hell!!!

>>14161206
Shut up butterdick nobody cares

>>14161216
If nobody cared we’d stop hearing about it, now wouldn’t we?
Read a book

>>14161185
If you reduce sensation and thought as far as you can, then yeah. I don’t think there’s any such thing as consciousness disconnected from a brain (a complex array of chemicals and neurons), and doubt that what comes after death is different from what came before life.
On a related note, a braindead patient who still has a pulse is essentially dead, as their consciousness and personality have been erased and cannot be formed anew.

>>14161185
The whole point is to trigger certain reactions.

>>14161185
In Thomist theology the soul isn't a ghost that inhabits the body but the body's principle of life (the same goes for plants and animals; the soul is the "self-moving" part of any living being). For Aquinas, the soul is originally blank and featureless and attains its form from the structure of the body it inhabits (though this is not to be taken as implying that the soul pre-exists the body) and that we only gain knowledge via sense-perception (quite a blank slate view). Aquinas himself notes that the soul (or the expression of the soul) of a person is affected by physiological changes, for example he says:
>If the use of the imagination is hindered by an organic lesion, a man's power to use knowledge already acquired is thereby impaired.
Summa Theologica, First Part, Question 84, Article 7 (Copleston's translation)
Aquinas does that however hold the intellect or the 'rational' element of the human soul (by this he means something higher than mere cognition which is involved in planning etc. which obviously animals are capable of, but an awareness of spirituality and first causes) transcends the material plane, and that this is the manner by which the human soul is able to exist after the death of the body. However the bodiless deceased are not strictly speaking "human" since a human is taken to be a unification of body and soul, and the lack of sensation is counted as a deficiency, a privation. Therefore the Resurrection etc. etc.

Penrose's books on the Mind.
Start with 'Irreducible Mind' .

>>14161185
Explaining how something happens says nothing about why it happens. It's the most autistic thing to get upset by, that you obey the laws of causality, as though the hypothetical alternative of randomness wouldn't be the severest of slaveries. It's the equivalent of saying life is meaningless because the sky is blue, you've done nothing but describe the obvious and the irrelevant. Every would be nihilist that says this kind of shit may as well wish to fly and kill themselves because they can't, it's inanity on the level of wishing for magical powers.

The Critique of Pure Reason refutes this thoroughly and systematically

>>14161243
No it doesn't

>>14161243
not in the least, but if you can explain why you think it does i'll listen

>>14161185
Do you really waste time trying to refute the unproven?

>>14161243
Never read it, but if this is the case then science and reality refute the Critique of Pure reason, thoroughly and systematically.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Libet#Volitional_acts_and_readiness_potential

>>14161232
It’s nice to see posts like this one with effort put into them (even if I disagree)

You have not read that much then. Even the most basic philosophy of the mind is at least dualistic.

>>14161185
So you used your subjective experience of the world to reject your subjective experience of the world? Or are you saying that subjectivity (that is, "having experiences") is the nature of chemicals? Are you secretly Thales?

>>14161185
Too many questions unanswered.
It's hard to accept that some chemicals produce all this shit *maniacally moves his hands in circles*
:^)

>>14161185
I can litteraly think of three clinic al cases from the top of my head, now, on my couch, having just woken up.
Panphysicalists are litteraly worse than gnostics.

>>14161185
r/samharris

>>14161185
Okay, tell me how memory works.

>>14161514
Well, like everything else, through neuronal physiology.

It can be true yet still meaningless
>everything is reducible to electrical reactions in your brain
>everything is reducible to quantum inference in your brain
Those are equally true.

>>14161541
Imagine going on Facebook and LARPing as protagonist of boring B-class melodrama starring Channing Tatum

>>14161288
Benjamin Libet has been outed as a fraud.

>>14161185
What is it about chemical reactions that cause subjectivity though? It can either be the complexity of the brain or a nature of the chemicals in it.

If it is the complexity, does it mean that we can build a complex enough computer that is also actually conscious, really can feel things subjectively? It wouldn't even have to be an electric one, if we build a huge mechanic computer just from iron gears, that could also be complex enough. Maybe the computers we have already have a form of subjectivity?

The other possibility would mean that certain elements already have subjectivity, which would mean that many inanimate objects also experience things.

Both possibilities sound absurd to me, which leads me to think that subjectivity is more of a thing that the brain is using, rathet than something it created.

>>14161185
But it's not. It's literally impossible to describe human behaviour in physical terms. Human behaviour and cognition are high level phenomena; to describe high level phenomena we need high level descriptions, hence the use of psychology.

>science, the natural philosophy, to explain metaphysics
Lol

>>14161185
>he doesn't know what the pineal gland holds

>biological entities are biological
Amazing insight. Anything else you'd like to add?

>>14161185
>durr I broke the radio, therefore I broke the signal!

>>14161185
>>14161595
Also the whole arguement is based on the assumption that things that solopsism is false and the my own conscious mind experiences actually exist, such as other, subjectively conscious beings.

Just because our "subjective" dimension is sustained and facilitated by physiology doesn't mean it is irreducible i.e conceivable purely through physiology. In the same way that chemical phenomena being grounded in quantum mechanics doesn't mean you can actually conceive of it through it. All these "composite" domains of reality don't stop existing just because they are conditioned to a certain extent by prior, simpler realities.

>>14161681
>irreducible
*reducible

>>14161597
>It's literally impossible to describe human behaviour in physical terms. Human behaviour and cognition are high level phenomena; to describe high level phenomena we need high level descriptions, hence the use of psychology.
wrong. psychology reduces to chemistry.

for instance, the "higher function" of say feeling ecstatic in the wake of some accomplishment? that's dopamine. that's literally all that it is at bottom

>>14161697
I was talking about behaviour and cognition, imbecile

>>14161697
>psychology reduces to chemistry.
More like it expands to chemistry.

>everything is reducible to chemical reactions in your brain
Except the following concepts
>everything
>is
>reducible
>to
>chemical
>reactions
>in
>your
>brain
Where did the abstractions of human intellect come from and what caused them? Is there a chemical reaction for that?

>>14161697
Dopamine is just the physiological expression, the facilitator of ecstasy (to speak in these simplified terms that are far removed from actual neurology). Ecstasy isn't "nothing more than dopamine", it is precisely the contrary, dopamine by itself is a nothingness without this added dimension of meaning by which we can talk about ecstasy, joy, etc.

Lower-level phenomena exist to reproduce higher-level phenomena, not the other way around.

>>14161729
Beyond that I'd wager that the quote is in reference to a dubious definition of brain dead (like half the gray matter gone).

>>14161185
Is the voice the vocal chord itself? Is the light the sun itself?

>>14161188
Based numerology dabbing on the faithless, as it was intended. Imagine the suffering of the unbelievers lmfao

>>14161188
Bible. Literal. Kek.

>>14161188
Kek chose Hitlerian numbers just to further inflame the soulless bug worshippers ITT who should, frankly, prepare themselves for the hellfire that will chap the hollows of their ashen bones
>B-b-but I'm am eco-warrior poet!! I'm fighting bad idea men!!
Lmfao you'll get to clarify it all each time youre immolated to a greasy patch in hell

>>14161631
>there is metaphysics
retard, refuted by kant 300 years ago

the complete dependence on entirely made up metaphysics shows how at least half this board is low IQ

>>14161185
LMAO try real life you fucking autistic son of a bitch

>I have yet to read anything that refutes this.
Thats the point fuckwad. There is also nothing that proves that our nominal reality exists either. Things just seem to correlate, but causation is unprovable, so your brain exists only in your metaphysial assumption of causality to begin with. But than you can devide theory from practice, first create a metaphysical system of how perception works, and see if it correlates with chemical reactions. In all practicality it probably does. But saying everything is reducable to chemical reactions in your brain implies that the idea of chemicals are reduced to chemicals, which is proclaiming self evidency, which is not very scientific of you.

>>14161191
>>14162479
>>14162495
Numerology is occultist and supersticious heresy, you're gonna burn in hell.

>>14161185
>Will you fight?

>another thread arguing over whose pointless, made-up system of metaphysics is better

This board needs to be purged of philosofags.

>>14161578
Imagine being named Brayden

>>14163992
It's a Chad name, likely to induce a backfire in a minge's muffler

>>14161223
I like you sometimes, Butterfly. Even though we have different taste in philosophers, we agree that religion has blighted life in horrific ways.

>>14162525
how?

>>14164153
Taleb and Guénon refuted Kant though. Don't worry about how "Kant refuted metaphysics."

>>14161185
Panpsychism cannot be ruled out desu

>>14161185
Everything is irreducible and can only be exactly what it is when it is what it is and that it is that it is.

>>14161232
what the fuck are you doing here, you are not retarded

>>14161232
Praise God

>>14161185
>babby's first hard problem of consciousness

You're allowed to make threads about subjects when you have put in some effort towards understanding them first.

>>14161541
What is “begging the question”?

>>14161642
This

>>14161185
Science is classist and hits downwards... hard. You have no idea of how to even conceive of what 'chemicals' are

>>14164172
Imagine believing this

>>14161185
If modern hard science is the framework your working with it would be stupid to assume any kind of refutation, and if you are unwilling to think beyond modern hard science then what exactly do you expect from posing this question? Answer me bitch