/lit/ - Literature

>>22578563
Kant is probably right, if these people think Kant is wrong I will have less of a good time

i bought one his books on an audible sale and the whole thing was just him dunking on creationists. i thought this dude wrote about consciousness and shit.

>>22578563
All philosophy is about the mind and consciousness

>>22578582
He’s an academic they’re paid by the Israeli government to do that

To this day, no one has been able to give an adequate answer to Hellie's vertiginous question. The people that say the question is meaningless are probably just NPCs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertiginous_question

Some ways it might be scientifically possible to test if other people are conscious beings or NPCs:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gvwhQMKvro

does Dennett add anything of value? if so, which of his works are worth reading?

>>22578620
its simple: Consciousness has phisical limits, of space and limits of the senses. Or alternatively: Consciousness is physical, from the brain

>>22578636
Does he even know what it’s like to be alive?

just read metzinger

Qualia is a myth of folk psychology.

The debate is so tiresome at this point. It is obvious that materialists are retarded. But idealists are stumbling around the real answer, which is that yes, idealism is true because reality exists as an idea in the mind of God. The whole discussion is pointless when you ignore the God question. We perceive reality as "material." But reality is actually immaterial because it is sustained by God. What else is there to say? Idealism (without God) doesn't solve the emergence question or any other hard questions.

Basically idealists are like LOOK LOOK WE FIGURED OUT MATERIALISM IS FALSE! and theists are like yes, we've been telling you that for 2,000+ years.

It is important, though, for allowing materialist normies to see the light and understand how God can exist and sustain reality.

>>22578636
the problem is, imagine if you can only go somewhere if a specific person is there. imagine the smartest person in the world having no teacher. you just don't get it.

>>22578666
>idealism is true because reality exists as an idea in the mind of God
prove it. provide an argument

unless it features God there is no reason to believe "the mind" apart from the brain or consciousness even exists

>>22578677
we know idealism exists in the mind of God because he revealed it to us through the Scriptures and Christ

>>22578636
>Consciousness has physical limits
If you believe that other people are conscious, that implies it's physically possible for their conscious states to exist. So how would physical limits explain why I'm me and not someone else?

>>22578686
>We know its true because the thing we think is true says its true and we know the thing we think is true is true because it says its true
do christfags really

>>22578693
That text took a nosedive in the last paragraph.

>>22578698
not what was said at all try again atheist cuck

>>22578702
christfag btfod

I got a degree on it, and the physicalist shills invading the field are some of the most retarded people on the planet

>>22578706
your concession is accepted

>>22578709
Why is Eliminativism wrong?

>>22578626

>>22578563
Consciousness arises with its object; objects arise with consciousness. It is impossible for either to exist in isolation, so this leads me to believe that consciousness is just the reverse side of the material world and vice versa.

>>22578563
its cool to think about

>>22578677

Cosmological
Kalam
Contingency
Jesus Christ

Etc etc

We exist
We are not material
We are not responding for our own existence
Therefore something else sustains our existence - God

God is obviously true. There are many different proofs. You just don't believe them. I could say 2+2=4 but it still requires belief.

>>22578666
>the mind of God
God is a being preceding metaphysical concepts such as the “mind”, or physical ones like the “brain”. As a matter of fact, “God” precedes the existence of all spiritual essence.
Get out of here.

>>22578740

Yes. Good good. You're getting it. It's not either/or. They are two sides of the same coin. Will and Representation. Hylomorphism. God. There you go.

Btw gnosticism is the oldest heresy and it's whole deal is splitting the mental and physical - dualism. We live in a gnostic society (non-Christian).

>>22578762

Yes but God also creates reality through the Logos/Word, which is the idea. That's why it's a trinity.

I only say God's "mind" because it's the closest analogy. I don't mean it equivocally to our minds. But we were created in the image and likeness of God.

>>22578772
“God” is a 1D element, a “first creator”. Majority of creation is that of physically manifested spirits—by what we can perceive—or “3D” beings.

>>22578670

What does this mean?

>>22578785

3D material world isn't "real." It is a spacetime representation created by our mind from "raw reality data" for lack of a better term, which is immaterial, or 1D as you put it. AKA idealism.

>>22578810
it means the smartest cannot extend beyond what they know

>>22578818

Oh I see what you're saying, I think. The human mind is trapped by itself. All human thought is basically the human mind having a recursive conversation with itself. It is all circular; tautological. At the bottom of everything is some brute fact of reality that we cannot know (outside of divine intervention).

>>22578810

1D is creation
2D is spirit
3D is body
4D is soul
5D is archetype

1
2
31
42
531
042
053
004
005
cont.

Not terribly relevant unless and until the ability to quantify philosophical zombie/agency impairment can be deployed to give the cognitively and morally benighted only commensurate and proportional political suffrage.

>>22578815
For an “ideal” to exist, there must be an “unideal”; therefore, could would have to be partly unideal.

>>22578563
I thought this was going to be a Nicholson Baker thread, The Mezzanine certainly fits OP post.

>>22578826

Gonna need you to expand on that. What are the dimensions of each?

>>22578833

Uhh what

>>22578826
>>22578852
the dimensionality of a number is definitely not the number of operations involved in it.

>>22578666
What do you make of your trips, then ?

>>22578857

Then what is it?

>>22578582
read his articles on philpapers not his books retard

>>22578686
:DDDD why that book instead of lets say Hegel's Phenomenology? Not old enough? Epic of Gilgamesh then

>>22578620
You can safely ignore anyone who tries to use the word "vertiginous" as an imbecile.

>>22578620
This does not seem like a question worth even thinking about

>>22579478
So what do you think the vertiginous question should be called instead?

>>22578563

Every time i hear of it i get diarrhea.
Its everything that is wrong with philosophy manifesting in one place.
It is also a good place to hunt for fallacys and errors in thinking.

Dualism is the only valid answer. Descartes was right about everything. Von Neumann and Penrose proved it with quantum mechanics.

>>22579823
slow news day. make news day. my problem is when people start willing it.

I think people need to reconcile that the metaphysical "exists" and you cannot know everything, i.e. trying to elucidate every aspect of the "real" isn't possible.

>>22579823
https://nintil.com/consciousness-and-its-discontents

>What theories do I think are probably true, with probabilities, as of today:

>1. Neutral monism/Panpsychism(60%)
>2. Interactionist dualism(30%)
>3. Epiphenomenalism(10%)
>4. Idealism(~epsilon%)
>5. Non-interactionist dualism(~epsilon%)
>6. Identity theory(~0% as it rejects consciousness as real)
>7. Eliminativism(~0% as it rejects consciousness as real)

>>22579812

Okay explain them then

>>22579823

No. Reality is mental. The physical world is a representation of the underlying reality.

>>22578563
hahaha
1. proof? sure
2. coherence? i guess...

>>22579868
Antropocentricity
Interpretations
Intuition reliance
High ammount of assumptions
Superficialy defined object of research --when it is defined it is saturated with ontological assumptions

In essence:
>Your story does not work because when you put it inside my story it makes no sense so that means my story is corect albeit i cant prove my story is true either.

Thats the whole discourse of PoM. If you accept any theory in PoM you necesserely accept whole subset of assumptions, ignoring that those assumptions are subject of debate them self.
Altho i do not agree with functionalism and physicalism as much anymore, they atleast pushed norm for reliance on empirical data so it was interesting to learn about that.

>>22578733
Because it provides actual answers and explains phenomena. Every nerd in this thread throwing a tantrum about that fact doesn't actually disagree which is why they don't believe that Down Syndrome is caused by demonic possession, that being a Muslim is caused by a willful choice or that trannies are actually women.

>>>/his/

>>22579933
Nice double dubs

Also, while i agree, they kinda just ignore whole of qualia problem.

>>22579870
>*squeezes your balls*
Huh, suddenly reality doesn't seem so mental anymore?

>>22579930

You didn't refute anything. But believe what you want. Your loss.

>>22579951

>muh kick rock, I have refuted it thusly

aka "I don't understand what we're even talking about"

>>22578733
Because I can directly observe being conscious.

>>22579994
I havent said i will refute it in first place
Belive? Facts are only belives now wow.

>>22579996
Explain how she didn't refute your point.

>>22579951
I mean, all he has to do is not have mental sensation of his balls. Mental reality doesnt mean reality isn't real, it just means it's real in a necessarily "human" way.

>>22578620
What is this question actually asking? Why we can't perceive things through the POV of other people?