One of the most evil books ever written. We need to ban neuroscience.
>>25194876we really are regressing, huhyou would have thrown rocks at darwin
>>25194912At least Darwin had the common decency to leave alone the realm of our own lived experiences as a last refuge for the human spirit. Now we well and truly can have nothing and be nothing.
>>25194954Whatever
doesn't this guy just dully re-iterate the philosophy of Descartes, but dresses it up in a load of sciencey language to make it sound like a 'discovery of science.' I read a very funny response to his work by a philosophy professor who just drags him through the mud for that.
>>25194876Mm'kay
>>25194963No.
I had Anil Seth with your Mom
>>25194977yes
>Anil SethThat's what Mike Tyson had in prison
>>25194988I'm only two thirds through but I could not think of a worse description than your post.
>>25194998I'm sorry my friend, you've been wasting your time, switch to something else.
>>25194876Qrd?
>>25195009We are ChatGPT. I'm only slightly memeing.
>>25194876Probably no less worse than that cretin Saplosky
>>25194980Lol
>>25194876>we need to le ban everything that makes me uncomfortable and hurt my fee fees Poor baby :(
So is anyone going to drop a tl;dr? It’s not like the prose is remarkable or some shit, so there is no reason to read it personally. Just tell us what it says.
>>25194954what's your problem anyway? I didn't read the book, but I don't need any science to enjoy my consciousness, be it an illusion or not.
>>25195050You exist within a hallucinatory Bayesian generative simulation of the real world which is only kept coherent by electromagnetic signals that your brain associates with certain stimuli from that actual real world. Your sense of self, emotions, thoughts even the feeling of being an "observer" inside your head are all illusory and generated by compounding mechanisms within your head. Emotions are essentially just the mind spinning a story about your current physiological condition. "You" are hardly even one coherent entity. Also functionalism is fake, there is no escape from the flesh. Also if your brain were somehow reconstituted from the same atoms a billion trillion years from now it would not be the same stream of consciousness. Have fun.
this is completely pointless. i should kill myself.
>>25195119people get depressed by that? I think it's interesting. We have no true idea of why we exist and what's the point of this world. Our consciousness needs to work in some way, and if that's the way it does, I'm fine with it and ride along with the illusion. I think some people are in their own head so much, that they don't realize, how vibrating and full and incredibly beautiful this world is, even if they can't see it.I drop some acid every few weeks to not forget it.
>>25195119Oh my science.
Bayesian as in Bayesian abductive inference. The world is an assumption built on previous assumptions.
Real causes are fundamentally unknowable.
>>25195142Shut the fuck up.
So how many of Quine's dogmas of empiricism does this pseud commit, i'm willing to be it's both
>>25195154>the assumption of an assumption of an assumption
>>25195142reddit is that way, retarded pseud faggot.
>>25195194>>25195163reddit is what way? what's even your point? our consciousness has to have some architecture and it's obvious that it's not like we as the observer instinctivly think it is. I don't see how this could ever be disenchanting or depressing.I'm not sure what exactly your problem with my post is, though. Maybe you can tell me.
>>25195197>and it's obvious that it's not like we as the observer instinctivly think it is.>.....IT JUST ISN'T, OKAY?!
>>25195214what do you even mean? I genuinely don't get it. Are you trying to say that it's not obvious that there are layers beyond our consciousness that we don't understand?If that's your point, I think you're hilariously narrow minded.
>>25195222>Are you trying to say that it's not obvious that there are layers beyond our consciousness that we don't understand?"Layers beyond our consciousness" = Basic bitch eliminativism
>>25195119yeah, life and shit. now put the fries in the bag, buddy.
>>25195119if you find this depressing you are actually a fucking moron.>wahhh consciousness is a physical phenomenon in the brain and not le epic mystical transcendent soul piloting a meat suit>you're telling me..... subjective experience has neural and physiological causes and is influenced by environmental cues..... it's LE OVER>now how am I supposed to feel special :(
>>25195951Just an awful post. Almost reported you for low quality. Hope a janny gets you.
>>25195963nice job proving you don't have the emotional maturity of a 10 year old. did you also shit your pants when you heard that love is just like, brain chemicals and sheet?
>>25195951>being a more complex version of ChatGPT is actually based and redpilled
>>25195119But this doesn't address the hard problem of consciousness. It's (arguably) just articulating the physical processes associated with consciousness. Yes, if I get hit on the head with a hammer, I die. If this gives you some sort of existential crisis then you're retarded. There is a baseless jump to the conclusion that experience must be 'illusory', it's just classic materialist dogmatism asserting what they want to be true.
>>25195983>NOOOOOO WHAT DO YOU MEAN I'M A BIOLOGICAL ORGANISM THAT FUNCTIONS LIKE OTHER BIOLOGICAL ORGANISMS????? WHAT DO YOU MEAN DECISION MAKING ISN'T AN INEXPLICABLE PROCESS WITH NO NEUROLOGICAL CORRELATES???? MOMMY MAKE THE BAD MAN GO AWAY
>>25195119>>25195154No offense, but it sounds cringe as fuck. Like a teenager watching The Matrix for the first time.
>>25194876just a complete non-insight, neuroscience still fails to explain anything you could already deduce from your own experience
couldn’t*
>>25194998Then how does the first two thirds refute Descartes?
>>25195119I missed the part where that’s my problem.
>>25195119>Your sense of self, emotions, thoughts even the feeling of being an "observer" inside your head are all illusory and generated by compounding mechanisms within your head.How is it "my" head if that is all just an illusion and who does the illusion serve, if "my" observations are just illusions themselves?
>>25195214He addresses this exact thing in the book multiple times. I can't pull it up right now but he quotes a dialogue from some German or Austrian philosopher that goes something like this:>Why did people for so long think the Earth revolved around the sun?>Well, I suppose, it's because it looks as if it is going around us.>What would it have looked like if we were going around it?
>>25195978>did you also shit your pants when you heard that love is just like, brain chemicals and sheet?yes
Meh, this is all bullshit because I said so, quite frankly. I don't know what you all are, but I get to continue on after this is done. I pray that you make it however.
>>25195119this is probably the most try hard shit i've seen in a while, imagining the smug faggot redditor that wrote this wearing a smug face all the time makes me sick
>>25195119This doesn't feel like a novel take at all, that's more or less been my feeling since I was a teenager
>>25195119doesn't that last part go against materialism?in a materialistic universe I am just a set of signals so recreating those signals would also recreate me
Meanwhile, media has been dropping clues about the nature of reality and this being an illusion for some time. But is it really the end.
>>25196166Wasn't the guy who wrote that a dweeb afraid of women that also killed himself
>>25195009The author's name reads like somebody with a lisp trying to say "anal sex", and I, along with many others, find this quite hilarious indeed.
Why do materialists think that smugness is a substitute for evidence? Most of them seem to believe that if they pretend their beliefs are some super scary truth that they're cynically resigned to then you just have to accept their assertions without any real evidence. I could say "sorry but Cthulhu is real and he's going to eat your face in 20 minutes, have fun," but my trying to sound smug while saying it doesn't make it true.
>>25196379I am also unsure why he "intuits" functionalism not to be true, but the next couple chapters seem dedicated to AI so he's probably about to explain it.
>>25195991>baseless>every single sensational experience can be turned off or made to hallucinate with the right chemicals
>>25195032Why is it ok to hurt his feelings and not yours?
>>25195119Buddhists already figured this out about the self without any neuroscience, see 'the problem of the self'. Their solution is pragmatic, like William James' pragmatism: it is useful to still use the concept of 'self', so they'll use it anyway; even if attempts at a reductionist definition all point to its nonexistence as an actually existing 'thing'.
>>25196477Because he's a faggot.
>>25196479> Buddhists already figured this out about the self without any neuroscienceThey were refuted by the Advaitin Shankara (pbuh), only a constantly-present abiding awareness can satisfactorily account for our experience, the standard Buddhist no-self is just a hylic dogma and is contradicted by our immediate experience of alway-present self-evident awareness.The non-hylic schools of Buddhism like Nyingma Dzogchen and Ch’an also admit like Advaita that there is an unconditioned, non-arising, constantly-present luminous awareness but they rework it into a non-dual ontology of emptiness and luminosity. The Tibetan polymath Mipham, regarded as the premier logician of the Nyingma school, basically repeats verbatim Shankara’s criticisms of the standard Buddhist theory-of-mind and says that without a constantly-present self-knowing awareness any “atomistic” or “momentarist” epistemology becomes completely-incoherent and leads to vicious regresses that would make knowledge and experience as we know it impossible.
>>25195119>the world you experience is a pale shadow of the real worldWe needed 2500 years and billions in research funds to reiterate Plato.
>>25194876>>25195119Hylic bullshit for midwits
>>25195154sounds like a STEM-friendly interpretation of Baudrillard who is much better
>>25198376You sound spooked and raped
>>25194876retroactively refuted by Husserl
