/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.12099698]

Upon completing Dan Dennett's The Mind's I, Nick Land's Fanged Noumena and The Katha Upanishad, I've come to the conclusion that consciousness is the immaterial noumenal substrate that underlies spacetime. What do you think /lit/?

[Anonymous No.12099717]

This is what I think
*unzips dick*

[Anonymous No.12099729]

>>12099698
I mean, if you find makes you happy

[Anonymous No.12099751]

>>12099698

Sounds like you're reading a little too much

[Anonymous No.12099754]

>>12099698
pay attention OP
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NVsyMalJXo

[Anonymous No.12099762]

>>12099698

This is the way I see it OP, The elite are all about transcendence and living forever and the secrets of the universe, and they want to know all this. Some are good, some are bad, some are a mix. But the good ones don’t ever want to organize; the bad ones tend to organize because they lust after power. Powerful consciousnesses don’t want to dominate other people, they want to empower them, so they don’t tend to get together, until things are really late in the game. Then they come together and evil’s always defeated, because good is so much stronger. We’re on this planet and Einstein’s physics show and Max Planck’s physics’ show that there are at least 12 dimensions. And now that’s what all the top scientists and billionaires are coming out saying, ‘it’s a false hologram—it is artificial.’ The computers are scanning it and finding tension points where it’s artificially projected, and gravity’s bleeding-in to this universe. That’s what they call ‘dark matter’. There’s this sub-transmission zone below the 3rd dimension that just turned over the most horrible things—it’s what it resonates to. And it’s trying to get up into the 3rd dimension—that’s just a basic level consciousness—to launch into the next levels. And our species is already way up at the 5th/6th dimension, consciousining (sic) our best people. But there’s this big war trying to basically destroy humanity, because humanity has free will.

[Anonymous No.12099765]

>>12099762
>>12099698

And there’s a decision to which level we want to go to. We have free will, so evil’s allowed to come and contend, and not just good. Which is kinda like a false transmission, because what they’re thinking is that they are is ugly and bad, projecting it onto themselves, instead of believing ‘no, it’s a human test about building us up.’ And so, Google was set up, 18/19 years ago (I knew about this before it was declassified—I’m just saying I have good sources) that they wanted to build a giant artificial system, and Google believes that the 1st artificial intelligence will be a supercomputer based on the neuron activities of the hive mind of humanity, with billions of people wired into it, with the internet of things. So all of our thoughts go into it. And we’re actually building a computer that has real neurons in real-time that’s also psychically connected to us, that are organic creatures, so that they will have current prediction powers, future prediction powers, a true crystal ball, but the big secret is: Once you have a crystal ball and know the future, you can add stimuli before-hand that make decisions that control the future, and so then it’s the end of consciousness and free will for individuals as we know, and a true 2.0 (and a very bad way) hive-mind consciousness with an AI jacked-into everyone, knowing our hopes and dreams, delivering it to us, not in some PKD wire-head system where we plug in and give up on consciousness because of unlimited pleasure, but because we were already wired-in and absorbed before we knew it by giving over our consciousness to the system, our daily decisions—that it was able to manipulate and control into a larger system. There’s now a human counter-strike taking place, to shut this off before it gets fully into place, and to block these systems and to try to have an actual debate about where humanity goes, and cut-off the pedophiles and psychic vampires that are in control of this AI system before humanity’s destroyed.

[Anonymous No.12099777]

>noumenal
every time this word is used without stating that the noumenal is unknowable, Kant spins in his grave.

[Anonymous No.12099780]

>>12099777
Capital knows the noumenon that is not-for-us

Capital is machinic desire mapping the Outside, the human just another tool among many

[Anonymous No.12099793]

>>12099780

Oh yeah? Did Saint Nicholas tell you this?

Same problem I have with the speculative realists... like if you accept the correlation of mind to matter, then sure, go ahead and speculate, but you haven't solved anything.

[Anonymous No.12099802]

>>12099754
Sounds better with this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUIcCyPOA30

[Anonymous No.12101029]

>>12099698
time to stop reading

[Anonymous No.12101040]

We aren’t really sure if consciousness has physical properties or not; if there’s a muscle or neuron firing or some detectable movement when we’re consciousness. But seeing as how certain areas of the brain light up as we think specific ways it logically follows that it is in fact corporeal.

Your whole premise seems like wishful thinking ( using this exact brain ) and it isn’t hard to make that connection when Land is so influenced by Gibson and science fiction. Fuck off with your hippie shit.

[Anonymous No.12101119]

That's ontical. Consciousness is that "for" which entities "are." The being (are/is/etc.) of entities cannot explain the for-which of consciousness, because the for-which of consciousness is the ground of the being of entities in the first place.

Attempting to solve the problem of the metaphysical constitution of for-which by onticizing it, that is, by treating it as an entity in the aforementioned way, is always what Fichte calls "dogmatism," adopting the term from Kant. It is dogmatism because it attempts to describe the essential or noumenal, the metaphysically real reality that is behind our phenomenal presentations, by extending our phenomenal presentations and presuming that they are adequate to it. The opposite of dogmatism is idealism, which begins with an analytic of the subject as world-constituting, being-constituting, etc. In one form or another this is the approach of Kant, Fichte, Schelling, Hegel, and so on, up through Heidegger and Wittgenstein. "The Being of beings is not itself a being" = "the subjectivity for which beings, i.e., phenomena, are possible, cannot itself be understood as another being; because this would beg the question."

This still leaves hanging the question of what the true metaphysical constitution of the subject (or Dasein) is, or how that knowledge could ever be reached. But that agnosticism or ignorance is at least more philosophically correct than simply onticizing the subject and creating a little mythic/metaphoric/linguistic account of it.

The most common attempts at such accounts try to sidestep the problem of onticality by using certain privileged myths/metaphors/words, like "noumenal," "substrate," "psychical," "force," "energy," "potential," "becoming," etc. But the point isn't what words you use, the point is that words are words, words are phenomena, words are beings or entities. The condition of the possibility of words is the subject, for whom words always already make sense (in interpretative gestalt of some kind). You can't explain the condition of the possibility of the subject by returning to words, because this begs the question, even if the words are very impressive, like, "Matter is a noumenal panpsychist substrate and conscious beings are functions, or the actualization of the potential, of certain ground-properties of that basic material." This is a muthos and it has been known since Plato that muthos is not true knowledge, muthos is provisional and pragmatic at best.

[Anonymous No.12101785]

>>12099780
I never understood the "capital as sentient being" meme. capital does not have a physical presence of its own, it is a second-order valuation in motion

[Anonymous No.12102926]

>>12101040
>But seeing as how certain areas of the brain light up as we think specific ways it logically follows that it is in fact corporeal.

Yes but if consciousness was not corporeal wouldn't it logically follow that there would likely be something which acted as the main interface between it and the body? If consciousness hypothetically was incorporeal it would seem even more unusual if there wasn't some any mechanism (such as the brain) by which it could be linked to controlling movement, if there was no correlations at all between them the idea would seem even more implausible.

[Anonymous No.12103006]

>>12099698
it’s a logical particle of a wholy demarcating, negative function and nothing more.

[Anonymous No.12103018]

>>12103006

[Anonymous No.12103038]

But that's fucking wrong, OP--mind in general performs that function, 'consciousness' is a really specific function of mind.

[Anonymous No.12103048]

>>12101785
>capital does not have a physical presence of its own
wtf are you talking about? Have you never had a job?

[Anonymous No.12103055]

You’re as stupid as flatearthers

[Anonymous No.12103167]

E
Eee
Ee
eEeeeEee
EeE

What if I told you that the world is a mental creation of an omnipotent God? And that all of existance is just thought given form? The "substrate" is God himself, and God is indivisible, meaning our world is no less divine than any other of his aspects.
God is infinite and omnipotent, so the world surely isn't a mere a simulation. But what death mean when "we" are mental creations existing upon a divine "substrate"? It means reassimilation. Giving up the illusion of perception and selfhood to return to unity.
In this view of the world, everything possesses some aspect of the divine by being composed of it. The density of this divine aspect, however, changes between types of matter. Humans, having the highest known form of consciousness, would also have the highest density of the divine aspect. In achieving a higher density of the divine aspect, matter can more closely resemble its originator. In this sense, a singularity would not only be sentient, but divine in and of itself.

Eeee
EeEe
eeeeeeE

[Anonymous No.12103674]

>>12103048
capital is immaterial

[Anonymous No.12103774]

>>12103167
If we were to be part of that God again, would be be sentient too?

[Anonymous No.12103923]

>>12099698
Well it sure isnt material

[Anonymous No.12104100]

>>12099765
based and red-pilled alex

[Anonymous No.12104985]

>>12099765
>>12099762
based

[Anonymous No.12105795]

>>12103774
Human perception is a concequence of increased density of the divine aspect. So a return to God would be analogous to heat death. We would constitute an infitesimal corner of the collective consciousness, but our individualized selves would disappear. In the words of some 90's weeb shit, "It all comes tumbling down".

[Anonymous No.12106915]

>>12099698
Got there through critique of pure reason & unironically agreed

[Anonymous No.12106922]

>>12099780
I'm more am the for in all do.

[Anonymous No.12107596]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgsoI4ZUkUA
Physicists have proven time is an illusion, every point in this physical substrate is fixed in time and space therefore consciousness, because of its quality of becoming, is necessarily independent of the universe. Conscious experience of the universe is God (collective consciousness) inducing change according to His will. We live inside a flip book.

[Anonymous No.12107938]

>>12106915
It's funny because it's always the Kant-fags who barge into eastern thought/mysticism/neoplatonism threads to complain that we don't realize Kant refuted it already (lol)

[Anonymous No.12108033]

>>12101119
this is why I still occasionally visit lit

[Anonymous No.12108093]

>>12101040
>X happens whenever Y, so it’s reasonable to believe X causes Y
cannot overstate what a brainlet post this is
by this logic umbrellas cause rain

[Anonymous No.12108750]

>>12107596
>implying change is real

[Anonymous No.12108910]

>>12108750
The perception of your immortal soul is real.

[Anonymous No.12109167]

>>12099698
I don't think consciousness has anything to do with spacetime.
Indeed, the thing that weirds people out the most about intense altered states of consciousness is the dissolution of spacetime as the absolute framework of reality. The non-existence of time is an idea you will find in any tradition that pursues consciousness expansion. Also non-local events, information-without-signals bouncing around, that sort of thing.

Ultimately pursuing the question of what it is is pointless. We can think about the mind, but that is not the same as perceiving from an external POV. We are the eye that cannot look at itself.

[Anonymous No.12109258]

>>12101119
>It is dogmatism because it attempts to describe the essential or noumenal, the metaphysically real reality that is behind our phenomenal presentations, by extending our phenomenal presentations and presuming that they are adequate to it
If you were missing some of the context of OP's post I can imagine how it might seem that way. If you were well-read in eastern philosophy though you'd know that OP was almost certainly referencing the understanding of Consciousness described by the Upanishads which is in actuality the exact opposite of what you assumed OP was talking about. The Upanishads specifically explain that Brahman is beyond the range of words and mind and that it is not an object nor can it be one. Instead of extending phenomenal presentations it negates them 'not this, not this' etc, the all-comprehensive totality is never an object, for among other reasons that totality as understood by Vedanta contains and includes (in addition to existence) all (infinite) possibilities and the infinite possible configurations of existence and non-existence.

>The opposite of dogmatism is idealism, which begins with an analytic of the subject as world-constituting, being-constituting, etc. In one form or another this is the approach of Kant, Fichte, Schelling, Hegel, and so on, up through Heidegger and Wittgenstein.
One of the more major Hindu schools of thought to center itself around the Upanishads would be Advaita Vedanta (which people sometimes reference implicitly when talking about the Upanishads) which has been described (inaccurately but with a grain of truth) as monistic idealism. This school actually reached many of the same conclusions as many of the German Idealists but in the 8th century (and the Upanishads the school is based on talked about this in the 9th c. BC). The German idealists despite agreeing on some themes in practice disagreed on much and had a wide range of views. Despite this a good amount of them had similar ideas to Advaita, in particular Shelling and to a lesser degree Shopenhaur, Hegel (and the Neoplatonist, Hermetic texts, Bohme etc that influenced much of these guys). Vedanta possesses a similar attitude to the Idealists with regard to analyzing subject as the constituent etc. which probably in part explains why they are similar in general.

[Anonymous No.12109266]

>>12101119
>"The Being of beings is not itself a being" = "the subjectivity for which beings, i.e., phenomena, are possible, cannot itself be understood as another being
The ideas OP is referencing don't propose another being as a hypothetical or say X comprised of Y is a being but are about how there is actually only one being which is the unchanging witness of one's intellect and that this witness (falsely seeming to have identified itself with the witnessed viz. an individual mind and intellect) at the same time is the witness of everything. So it's not proposing an other or saying subjectivity is a being but that the literal being-conciousness of everything is in fact only one which is itself the only thing that really exists and that like an illusion it appears to be multiple like how the moon appears as innumerable moons when reflected in many puddles at the same moment.

>This still leaves hanging the question of what the true metaphysical constitution of the subject (or Dasein) is, or how that knowledge could ever be known
By directing knowledge/awareness into itself (e.g. by allowing it to remain within itself), Advaita holds that objects of thought and experience are always other than the witness which is conscious of them, and that when you really examine Being one finds this principle applies to everything except conscious awareness itself, which is really the unchanging and undivided infinite awareness which is totality of God.

'So He manifests Himself to Himself in a form which is provided by the place in which He is seen. He would not appear thus without the existence of this place and His manifestation to Himself in it'

[Anonymous No.12109322]

>>12101785
Maybe this will help explain it to you.