/lit/ - Literature

>>17584929
what book, anon?

>>17584941
"The idea of world" by Bernando Kastrup. Shit got me filtered hard sometimes.

>>17584929
If you have to read pseudoscientific babble to convince your lizard brain that God exists, you are already lost.

>>17584950
Low IQ take as fuck.

>read near death experience reports
>all structurally similar
>something like heaven literally real
>souls in heaven are concerned for us

>>17584959
>All reports
>Majority comes from western world with deep christian notion of after life
>"See bro, heaven exist because of not totally biased evidence bro!

>>17584929
There is no scientific explanation for consciousness.

>>17584929
There is no problem of consciousness.

>>17584975
It doesn't accord perfectly with Christian notions of heaven. I think it's more interesting to investigate what is structurally isomorphic across different experiences. Even though there is variety in how the afterlife manifests to people, they all seem to experience communicating with other souls and entities who show concern and activity (not just a formless haze).

>>17584981
Are there any good thought experiments or real experiments demonstrating that consciousness violates the laws of thermodynamics? It obviously does but a convenient proof would be nice.

>>17585002
>Isomorphic

Just say "equals" bro, no need to try to appear smart

>>17585002
If it's so obvious then coming up with the proof should be easy, no?

>>17585001
*Chalmers slaps your face and thrown your book on the floor*

>>17584959
>something like heaven literally real
Nah man people are just on that death trip

>>17584959
Yeah except a near death experience isn't actually experiencing what's after death though is it? A common experience just points to people's brains being similar- which they are.

>>17585038
Amazing how such similar structures create vastly different beings.

>>17584929
Not the anthropomorphic christcuck God though.

>>17584929
https://www.wired.co.uk/article/near-death-experiences-psychedelic-religious

op just read steven pinker lmaooo

>>17585044
You're not so different, you and I

>>17585002
Gimme evidence for your points bro

>>17585051
Depends on the circumstances of revealing ourselves to each other, my guy. For all you know I could worship Beelzebub, Lord of flies.

>>17585050
What?

>>17585002
Not that I am aware of, but what I do find interesting are the so called disorders of consciousness. It's clear from medical evidence that damage to the brain in traumatic injuries can cause damage to people's consciousness, so there must be some scientific explanation.

>>17584929
There is NOTHING to say about God. Anybody who says otherwise is lying to you to sell you something, anon.

>>17585090
What do anons on here gain when discussing these things?

>>17584929
Kastrup already got a pretty hard reorientation in this post here—https://sensuscatholicus.jimdofree.com/2021/01/10/concerning-idealism-evolution-psychology-and-other-modern-errors/—but you are right in that God exists. Too many people adhere to the delusion that God is only known through suprarational means; you find ideas like a "leap of faith" and people who have spent their entire lives working around that post, but you can literally just learn about God's extant influence through meditative seeking and becoming well-read.

>>17585021
I don't get your response. Doesn't Chalmers have panpsychist leanings as well? He takes the approach that sentience = information processing. This is why has been willing to entertain the idea that something like a thermostat is minimally conscious; the identification of consciousness with information processing is also implicit in formulations. This approach has bothered me though because it seems too exclusively cognitivist; I think that “cognition” and “information” have become way overrated in recent discourse, and that sentience needs to be seen first of all as affective (or as involving “feeling” in Whitehead’s sense) before it is seen as cognitive or informational. Affect or feeling both precedes and exceeds cognition or information.

>>17585090
It's not about The God from the christian cucks, or muslim half wits. It's a conception extremely close to the idea of theistic god, you midwit.

>>17585101
Nothing. It is just empty conversation to pass time.

>>17585116
Page not found bro,

>>17585021
Mind and Cosmos is a terrible book.

>>17585128
I pity the fool who has yet to witness the magic of existence

>>17585017
filtered

>>17584929
The existence of God has no bearing on the correctness of religions

>>17584929
Idk where you got that but
My idea of the likelihood of God's existence goes something like the simulation hypothesis but broader and less gay and still unprovable:
We already know conscientiousness can exist in the universe, because we are
Therefore if there can be any higher forms of consciousness including higher and higher levels of understanding, which I see no near limit to by first principles, then that being would quickly approach what would be a literal God
And if infinity can exist in any nonrepetitive form whatsoever in all of reality, then we can postulate that a God does exist and indeed he arguably IS everything

Once again, not scientific as it is not testable nor necessarily the logically exclusive possibility, but that's why it's faith, it's more like a decision to believe something over another without any evidence either way

>>17585167
You've got it backwards.

I genuinely do not understand where this cope is coming from. How do you arrive at a point where you believe in something like a God? This thought-process is absolutely alien to me.

God exists, there's not a lot more to it

>>17585130
Get rid of the stuff after the second forward slash. My mistake.

>>17585186
>uuuh God doesn't exist cause... ummmm le I dont see him!
get the fuck out of this board

>>17585186
Limit experiences can make a man do anything. Trauma is a massive part of who we are as people. Even the tiniest of anxieties can easily build up to an intangible yet massive something. Does that make sense?

>>17585124
It’s a concept you can attribute just as readily to magic pixie dust, you nitwit.
For now on, anon, let the bigger brains do the thinking. It makes for an easier flow in the threads when there is less shoddy ideas proffered such as your own. You understand? Good.

>>17585195
Stop gatekeeping and neck yourself. The man's just asking a question.

>>17585046
Except classical theism doesn't purport an anthropomorphic God

>>17585223
This is a TEST! CAN YOU READ THIS?!

>>17585187
>God exist
>Thefore it is

BRAVO, JUST BRAVO!

>>17585227
No

>>17585044
You're legit retarded if you think any human is vastly different from another.

>>17585227
Are you okay anon?

>>17585208
>uuuhhhh gatekeeping is..uhh..... le bad!
go back

>>17585233
Was just testing

>>17585231
In degree, yes. Not in totality, sure. But two men can be the best of friends for a decade only to find out later they hold irreconcilable differences that turn them into objects of deep hatred for each other.

You are now ready for Guenon.

>>17585235
>le
Genuinely consider killing yourself. You have no retort to an honest anon asking about how belief in god comes about, so you draw the cringiest fucking caricature anyone on this board could have thought up. End it already

>>17585186
basically something like this
>you can't expirience a state of mind simply by knowing the excact condition of a brain, hard problem of consciousness
>so consciousness is imaterial
>there needs to be a first cause
>it can't be physical since something can't come out of nothing
>since the one thing we know that isn't material that can do shit is consciousness it would make sense for the universe to be started by one very powerful consciousness
>something something fine tunning

>>17585195
Go away, Christian larper
>>17585203
Yes, that makes sense. I just find it fascinating to observe how someone turns born again and discovers faith. I always wonder what triggers that. Whether it is a natural process or some specific trauma that led to this. Honestly, I view it as the same way as the development of a mental illness (speaking of the modern definition). Some condition in life that just cracks you.

>>17584929
Honestly when you read one book like this you’ve read them all. Let me guess, it references Schrödinger’s cat, artificial intelligence, the simulation hypothesis?

>>17585251
>honest anon
dont you see its a bait you nigger?
>>17585265

>>17585270
Kek, no, wrong buddy.

>>17585286
I am not baiting. I do not see much of a difference between mental illness and intense faith. Both seem like cope to me that eventually emerges.

4chan is largely a skeptical community full of cynics. So I always find it interesting to see the rise of so many Christians in recent years and I am never sure whether they are your run-on-the-mill contrarian of serious about their belief.

>>17585247
>Guenon

Get out of here you fool.

>>17585265
>how someone turns born again and discovers faith
It can be for both reasons you laid out. Look into Antony Flew. He was never a theist but he abandoned atheism for deism on largely intellectual grounds
>inb4 he was getting old and scared of death
Why didn't he become a Christian or something then?

>>17585286
Your stench of new burns the nostrils. And you're a retard if you don't see the link between trauma and what religions call sin.

>>17585247
>Books from a old schizo

No thanks.

>>17585265
I failed to mention that trauma is only one side of the limit experience coin. People can start feeling intense love or security for seemingly no good reason other than a higher power.

>>17585327
Okay
> It then advances a compelling formulation of idealism that elegantly makes sense of - and reconciles - classical and quantum worlds.
I read this on Amazon about the book. Explain what the book argues about this

>>17584975
Lol seething materialist.

>>17585342
Thank you for the recommendation, pretty interesting. Did not know about this. Do you recommend reading his book "There is a God"? Seems like a controversial work.

>>17585362
Everything that your bias says.

>>17585393
Controversy aside, it's an interesting read but you won't necessarily come away as vindicated in your present beliefs or feel a need to really reconsider your beliefs. I'm theistic of the classical bend but the book didn't really emboldened my position. I'd view it as more of a case study into what we're discussing. If you end up being interested in Aristotle as a consequence of the book there are far better resources that explain his thought.

>>17585467
*Embolden

>>17585432
Youre not making me want to read this book

>>17584959
They're all different, lad. I read once that there are people who reported they went to a void, literal abyss and endless darkness. They said they can't even move a muscle, the only thing they can do is just think and stare into the abyss. When they're in the void, circular entities approached them. The circular entities talked to them, it said "This is your real life, what you experienced before is just a dream. All of it was fake". After that the entities went away and fade into the void. Leaving the person alone in the darkness.

>>17585567
The just don't read it bro.

>>17585569
Circular entity:
>lol, enjoy staring into the abyss for all eternity.
No Circular entities wait ! WAIT! THIS CAN'T BE HAPPENING !

>>17585851
kek

>inflicts material damage on brain
>'immaterial' consciousness gone

>>17586031
uh, ironic to say the least!

>>17584948
Bernando Kastrup is a panpsychist you freak.

You'd like this book, anon. It describes exactly what you're talking about. Proves God is real and discusses consciouness and how it is immaterial, what the soul is, etc.

>>17586130
Oh plus it's short (less than 300 pages) and you can find it at the library. It's a good read.

>>17586130
>Proves God is real
Why are Thomists so arrogant? The man himself wasn't.

>>17586129
who said otherwise?

millions of people all throughout history believed in things beyond the material, the greeks gave great credence to their oracle (incredibly so), many cultures saw spirits in the trees, even buddhism which can be readily compared to atheism finds some kind of spirituality.
Were they stupid?

>>17586031
>people in a coma
>entirely aware

>>17586462
Yes.

>>17586462
Intelligent people have all contested one another's beliefs since time immemorial. There have been 100 billion people altogether. Presumably, if there is a singular truth, most of them are wrong.

>>17586507
all of them*

>>17585262
Probably a dumb question but if the universe was started by a one very powerful consciousness (god), who created that one very powerful consciousness?

>>17586945
The universe

>>17586490
Anglos were a mistake.

>>17586945
exists eternally, outside of time, all manifestations of time, space, materiality, take place within it etc. etc.

>>17586031
There's no basis with which to assert it is gone, as it was never perceived to begin with.

>>17585340
>>17585349
I honestly think it's best to start with Guenon immediately after one stops adhering to physicalism, then after read things like the Bhagavad Gita, or other scriptures. At least, I wish I did that, having done it the other way round.

>>17586130
>Feser closes with an attempt to demonstrate that modern science still points toward an Aristotelian metaphysical system. Mr. Feser's biggest blunder here is that he mistakes teleological metaphors often loosely used to describe scientific observations, especially in texts directed towards non-scientific audiences, for the actual conclusions drawn by scientists from such observations.

Uhh... EdwardFeserBros... I think we got to cocky...

>people still believe in Aquinas on 21 century

KEK, the depths catholics is insane, people go far as possible to denied reality to defend their beliefs.

>>17584950
High IQ take as fuck