Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Jabberwock03

Pages: [1] 2 3 4
1
Neuropath / Re: Countering the Argument with Thorsten
« on: December 08, 2019, 11:02:36 am »
I've gone through some of Bakker's stuff, and eliminativism did seem like a live possibility but then I read Alex Rosenberg's stuff about Intentionality in Atheist's Guide to Reality where he says we simply have to be wrong about having thoughts:

Quote
"A more general version of this question is this: How can one clump of stuff anywhere in the universe be about some other clump of stuff anywhere else in the universe—right next to it or 100 million light-years away?

...Let’s suppose that the Paris neurons are about Paris the same way red octagons are about stopping. This is the first step down a slippery slope, a regress into total confusion. If the Paris neurons are about Paris the same way a red octagon is about stopping, then there has to be something in the brain that interprets the Paris neurons as being about Paris. After all, that’s how the stop sign is about stopping. It gets interpreted by us in a certain way. The difference is that in the case of the Paris neurons, the interpreter can only be another part of the brain...

What we need to get off the regress is some set of neurons that is about some stuff outside the brain without being interpreted—by anyone or anything else (including any other part of the brain)—as being about that stuff outside the brain. What we need is a clump of matter, in this case the Paris neurons, that by the very arrangement of its synapses points at, indicates, singles out, picks out, identifies (and here we just start piling up more and more synonyms for “being about”) another clump of matter outside the brain. But there is no such physical stuff.

Physics has ruled out the existence of clumps of matter of the required sort...

…What you absolutely cannot be wrong about is that your conscious thought was about something. Even having a wildly wrong thought about something requires that the thought be about something.

It’s this last notion that introspection conveys that science has to deny. Thinking about things can’t happen at all...When consciousness convinces you that you, or your mind, or your brain has thoughts about things, it is wrong."

The idea we don't have thoughts about things, Intentionality....it seems to me the correct conclusion is materialism is false not that Cogito Ergo Sum is a mistake.
I don't understand the argument. Couldn't you just as easily make an analogy consisting of say, a robot with a camera? The camera takes as input photons from the surroundings and creates an output consisting of an array of pixels or something upon which further computations are then done in order to make some decision according to some goal function. There's no infinite regress here. Generally I don't like comparing a human brain with a piece of software but I think this is one case where the analogy makes sense, except you have a lot of higher order representations, computations etc. going on because you literally have like a trillion interconnected cells.

Regarding our similarity to other organisms...I mean bees apparently understand the concept of Zero so perhaps mentality goes down further than we think, maybe even as deep as the panpsychics suggest.  ;)


Lol at the dog - but re: software...isn't this just an instantiation of a Turing Machine, in which case the calculations only have the meaning we give?

I mean any bit string can be interpreted differently, which is not to say every string of 0's and 1's can be every program imaginable but at the very least it seems any such string can represent a countably infinite number of programs?

I guess I don't see much difference between a computer and an abacus in terms of holding some aboutness in the material?

If we consider that a human brain can be (even just vaguely) associated to a computer (and personaly I think the association make sens in this case), you don't need to give meaning to the calculation.

A software receive one (or many) input and return an output. The output is the "physical" manifestation of the calculation, independently of the "meaning".
We can think of the brain the same, we have stimulus/inputs through our senses, and we output some actions.

I don't see how the fact that our brain is freaking complicated, and that its internal trillions of neuronal activities/"operations" per seconds trick itself into "consciousness" change anything or counter the Argument.

But in the end, philosophy won't explain anything, all we can do is wait for science to give an answer. We can speculate but it's just that, speculation.

Except you do have thoughts about things, which is where the meaning question comes from as it refers to  Aboutness of Thought (what Bakker & other philosophers call Intentionality) which Bakker thinks can be reduced to a physics explanation (matter, energy, forces, etc).

To me Eliminativism toward Intentionality is the central point of Bakker's BBT, so everything turns on this issue. So because the correctness of a program depends on the intention of the programmer - it's the only way to tell the difference between an accidental bug and deliberate sabotage - I'd say programs cannot explain away Intentionality.

Admittedly there are other issues at play, like the nature of causation and mental causation, but given that we use Intentionaltiy to find interest relative causal chains it's probably a good starting point to refute the Argument. Which is - IIRC - all I was getting at there.

As for whether science can decide this issue...I'd agree with you if you're talking about something like a revised version of the Libet type experiements (the current set apparently got debunked), but not if we're talking about eliminativism of Intentionality. I just don't see how someone can do anything but find correlations since -as per above- finding a causal explanation for Intentionality would require Intentionality.

>So because the correctness of a program depends on the intention of the programmer - it's the only way to tell the difference between an accidental bug and deliberate sabotage - I'd say programs cannot explain away Intentionality.

That why analogies are just anologies and nothing more.
The correctness of a program isn't the issue here, first because even a bugged/sabotaged program will get inputs and return outputs independently of the original intention. Then because we are obviously not programs but complex random evolved chimestry, and not programmed to do something specific by someone else.

So in my opinion, programs can explain it away if we accept the prelude that we are complex physical machines.
The only other option I can conceive is that their is some magic giving power to the brain over the physical world. But I won't accept it as I don't see any proof that it might be the case (just like I don't but garlic on my front door because nothing indicate the existence of vampires).

The brain being to blind to know it react instead of actually doing is moot to me as if it's actually the original of actions it would break causality.

2
The Unholy Consult / Re: [TUC Spoilers] Sorweel
« on: November 23, 2019, 01:41:35 pm »
Personally I didn't really liked or disliked Sorweel. He was too normal for my taste. But I love when he had the helmet (can't remember the name) on his head in the mansion.
When reading fantasy, I love out of norm characters (or I would read realistic novels). I don't especially mean non-human characters, for example Cnaïur is one of my favorite as he is some crazy MOFO knowing the truth.

About the gods, I don't think his fate is better than anyone else. My understanding is that being faithful to Yatwer is just seasoning you for Yatwer taste. You are being eaten for all eternity in the end, just by a god and not a deamon.
My interpretation of the books is that gods are just deamon who succed in making humans believe they are good, just because they like chilli pepper instead of classic pepper on their souls.

3
The Unholy Consult / Re: [TUC Spoilers] Esmenet the Angelic Ciphrang
« on: November 23, 2019, 01:20:23 pm »
Reading this thread, I just got a crazy idea! I don't know if anyone already thought of this in this forum, but here it is:

We know that what come after can determine what come before.
What if somehow, all the events happening in the books, ends up creating the gods, and so creating the events itself (a loop of events)?

It's probably not the case, but I can definitly picture some weird device (similar to the inversed fire, or even the fire itself somehow), created to fight the gods, fucking around with mortal souls and ending up creating ciphrangs/gods.

To put it more graphically:

The gods exist for all of times ==> The Inchoroi want to avoid damnation ==> They create devices to fight them (one of them being able to turn mortal soul in cyphrang, intentionally or not) ==> They come to Earwa ==> Books event happens ==> Books characters trying to defeat the Consult ends up being turned into gods ==> The gods exist for all of times

I love that hypothesis, even if it's a bit far stretched (plus it has some scientific basis as, from what I read, mathematicaly at least, a closed time loop would be possible).

4
Neuropath / Re: Countering the Argument with Thorsten
« on: November 23, 2019, 12:58:49 pm »
I've gone through some of Bakker's stuff, and eliminativism did seem like a live possibility but then I read Alex Rosenberg's stuff about Intentionality in Atheist's Guide to Reality where he says we simply have to be wrong about having thoughts:

Quote
"A more general version of this question is this: How can one clump of stuff anywhere in the universe be about some other clump of stuff anywhere else in the universe—right next to it or 100 million light-years away?

...Let’s suppose that the Paris neurons are about Paris the same way red octagons are about stopping. This is the first step down a slippery slope, a regress into total confusion. If the Paris neurons are about Paris the same way a red octagon is about stopping, then there has to be something in the brain that interprets the Paris neurons as being about Paris. After all, that’s how the stop sign is about stopping. It gets interpreted by us in a certain way. The difference is that in the case of the Paris neurons, the interpreter can only be another part of the brain...

What we need to get off the regress is some set of neurons that is about some stuff outside the brain without being interpreted—by anyone or anything else (including any other part of the brain)—as being about that stuff outside the brain. What we need is a clump of matter, in this case the Paris neurons, that by the very arrangement of its synapses points at, indicates, singles out, picks out, identifies (and here we just start piling up more and more synonyms for “being about”) another clump of matter outside the brain. But there is no such physical stuff.

Physics has ruled out the existence of clumps of matter of the required sort...

…What you absolutely cannot be wrong about is that your conscious thought was about something. Even having a wildly wrong thought about something requires that the thought be about something.

It’s this last notion that introspection conveys that science has to deny. Thinking about things can’t happen at all...When consciousness convinces you that you, or your mind, or your brain has thoughts about things, it is wrong."

The idea we don't have thoughts about things, Intentionality....it seems to me the correct conclusion is materialism is false not that Cogito Ergo Sum is a mistake.
I don't understand the argument. Couldn't you just as easily make an analogy consisting of say, a robot with a camera? The camera takes as input photons from the surroundings and creates an output consisting of an array of pixels or something upon which further computations are then done in order to make some decision according to some goal function. There's no infinite regress here. Generally I don't like comparing a human brain with a piece of software but I think this is one case where the analogy makes sense, except you have a lot of higher order representations, computations etc. going on because you literally have like a trillion interconnected cells.

Regarding our similarity to other organisms...I mean bees apparently understand the concept of Zero so perhaps mentality goes down further than we think, maybe even as deep as the panpsychics suggest.  ;)


Lol at the dog - but re: software...isn't this just an instantiation of a Turing Machine, in which case the calculations only have the meaning we give?

I mean any bit string can be interpreted differently, which is not to say every string of 0's and 1's can be every program imaginable but at the very least it seems any such string can represent a countably infinite number of programs?

I guess I don't see much difference between a computer and an abacus in terms of holding some aboutness in the material?

If we consider that a human brain can be (even just vaguely) associated to a computer (and personaly I think the association make sens in this case), you don't need to give meaning to the calculation.

A software receive one (or many) input and return an output. The output is the "physical" manifestation of the calculation, independently of the "meaning".
We can think of the brain the same, we have stimulus/inputs through our senses, and we output some actions.

I don't see how the fact that our brain is freaking complicated, and that its internal trillions of neuronal activities/"operations" per seconds trick itself into "consciousness" change anything or counter the Argument.

But in the end, philosophy won't explain anything, all we can do is wait for science to give an answer. We can speculate but it's just that, speculation.

5
The post is old, but as it is up again, here is my views (not on all points tho):

Quote
2) What do you think the overall plan would have been had Skuthala not been guarding the Intrinsic Gate? Serwa and Kayutas meet up with Kellus in the golden room to face the consult? If Kellus has the ability to become Ajokli he didn't really need them.
But Kellhus is just really smart, not all seeing (and we all know how it ended for him). So, althought not needed, why not have Serwa and Kayutas as backup plan?
And I think the first plan was really to wait for them but Ajokli kinda was impatient and manipulated Kellhus to go alone.
I believe Kellhus gave in part of his mind to Ajokli in exchange for the power to destroy the consult and stop the resurgence of the No-God.

Quote
4) Does Kellus change plans while he's in the golden room. Originally the plan was to get to the ark and destroy the consult, ending the threat of the second apocalypse. But once he becomes Ajokli he tells the Mutilated he will use them as a threat of terror for the world. So what does that mean? It certainly sounds like he's decided to keep them around.
I love the fact that we don't know Kellhus plan explicitly and we can speculate as we want. Great discutions on this forum.
So, for me, Kellhus had plan to become Ajokli all along. He wanted to switch place with Ajokli in a win-win situation: Ajokli want to leave the outside and Harvest the world, while Kellhus access the outside in place of Ajokli and become a god.
And from there he can fight the other gods and conquere the outside (with the help of the power harvested by Ajokli? tricking the trickster?) and go closer to the absolute as he is free of the physical world.
If I remember correctly, Bakker said somewhere that Dunyains collect power for the sake of collecting more power. God Kellhus even might not care at all if Ajokli turn the planet into a big torture fest as long as he's the boss in the outside.

Quote
What does everyone think?
tl;dr
Kellhus made a deal with Ajokli to switch places in order to defeat the consult.
Ajokli doesn't fully follow Kellhus plan and go full apocalypse a bit too soon.
Ajokli is now a god on earth. Kellhus is now a mortal ascended god doing Kellhus stuff in the outside.
==> Kel come and fuck everythings up

Also, not related, but as I said in another thread, I still think Ajokli is just really Cnaïur ascended to godhood. I love this theory.

6
General Earwa / Re: Thought about other supports?
« on: August 14, 2018, 08:33:10 pm »
Even if the book are enough for the main story, wouldn't you like to see a spinoff in another format?
As a general rule, I detest spin-offs. It they involve other authors, I don't acknowledge their existence altogether.

In my mind, it was obvious that Bakker would be at the story part of the new media.

7
General Earwa / Re: Thought about other supports?
« on: August 14, 2018, 03:34:35 pm »
Just having the book series is fine for me, but what it does need is more publicity and a broader audience (not that the books themselves should accommodate for this, they just need to be promoted more), and importantly, more fan-art.
I like it when I just need to quote someone and not bother with writing my views down! The books are enough for me, too.

Even if the book are enough for the main story, wouldn't you like to see a spinoff in another format?
Why not a comics about a scalper or something?

8
General Earwa / Thought about other supports?
« on: August 14, 2018, 02:23:24 pm »
Hi guys,

I was wondering, on what other support would you like to see The Second Apocalypse adapted (TV show, comics, video game)?

From what I understood, the TV show will never happen (and I can't really be sad about that, not sure you can adapte something that heavy on TV).

Personnaly I would love to see the books adapted in an Animé format (as a netflix original for example, they do a good job at respecting the original content IMO), with short seasons of 12/13 episodes. For me, this format would allow the best possibilities for the philosophical parts (narative internal thoughts are better done in animés than series), and visual part (landscap, magic, gore, etc).

I would also like a video game of those book, specifically some sort of Total War in Earwa. I want my Ordeal to fight countless srancs!

And you, what do you imagine? Be creative!

P.S. Sorry if the topic already exist, I did search the forum but didn't found anything except for TV show.

9
The Unholy Consult / Re: [TUC spoiler] - About the end of TAE
« on: August 14, 2018, 02:09:49 pm »
I disliked it. Bakker killed off all my favourite characters and spared the ones I don't like. And I disliked how dense the prose got towards the end; I'm still not quite sure what happened, I don't think I'll be until he explains it in the next book. I understand it's just become his style, but I'd appreciate a clearer prose.

I agree, though, this series has just begun. I mean, it's called the Second Apocalypse, and that's literally what began in the last book.

That's why it's awesome! It's kinda unexpected from a classic fantasy POV.

Perhaps, but it's hard to follow a story when you're not that much invested in the characters that are left alive.

Not that I'm not following, though...

I can't really relate to this. I hardly ever invest myself in the characters of books. I read books more for the story, I mean the events happening, than for the people doing the things.
I can like or dislike a character, but in either case I like following them as long as it's not boring.

10
The Unholy Consult / Re: [TUC spoiler] - About the end of TAE
« on: August 07, 2018, 02:12:20 pm »
I disliked it. Bakker killed off all my favourite characters and spared the ones I don't like. And I disliked how dense the prose got towards the end; I'm still not quite sure what happened, I don't think I'll be until he explains it in the next book. I understand it's just become his style, but I'd appreciate a clearer prose.

I agree, though, this series has just begun. I mean, it's called the Second Apocalypse, and that's literally what began in the last book.

That's why it's awesome! It's kinda unexpected from a classic fantasy POV.

11
The Unholy Consult / Re: Another (perhaps) simple question
« on: July 29, 2018, 06:31:22 pm »
Watts for Scifi and Bakker for Fantasy are my current two favorite authors!
This. They are like, I dunno, columns and rows in the table.

They should team up on a two face novel! Each of them writting the same story from a different POV.
How is this not a thing already?!

12
I would love to have an unique point of view in writing style. Something weird like the No-God (p-zombie) or Ajokli (timeless) POV.
Also I want Malowebi and Kellhus POV (whatever they have become) !

I agree there needs to be more non-human/Dunyain POVs, seems like a wasted oppurtunity not to have interesting POVs of other races like dragons and maybe semi-sane Nonman, perhaps even some Ursranc.

Dragons seem like a no-brainer though. For example they seem to all refer to themselves as "we" (excluding Wutteat). Would be cool to see why that is from a first hand perspective.

Oh damn! I would love to have a scranc POV!
Something very instinctivly driven, and struggling with the NG orders (whatever Bakker feel that could be, I'm good with it: worship or submission or mind control, whatever).
The story of a Sranc for the entire book and in the end... killed by a nobody in a massive battle! Haha!

13
The Unholy Consult / Re: Another (perhaps) simple question
« on: June 27, 2018, 08:17:22 pm »
Wait, is that Blindsight? Amazing book.
I just started reading blindsight right now. Fkin amazing.

Sent from my SM-J700T using Tapatalk

Watts for Scifi and Bakker for Fantasy are my current two favorite authors!
Hard to read anything from anyone else these days.

14
I would love to have an unique point of view in writing style. Something weird like the No-God (p-zombie) or Ajokli (timeless) POV.
Also I want Malowebi and Kellhus POV (whatever they have become) !

15
The Unholy Consult / Re: Serwa seen with the Judging Eye
« on: June 14, 2018, 06:29:55 pm »
I see the thread derailed a little, but to answer OP :

I think intention is the main cause for her Ciphrang condition.

Because she is Dunyain, she is damned by default. Then she use metagnostic which damn her even more.
So that's already huge for the damnation part.

But, in contrary to her father, she is part Esme/human and have a heart (she does actually love). Where Kellhus is like a robot, and do horrible stuff but with no intentions (it's just the shortest path), she have to mean all the horrible stuffs she does. And that's why she is view as a deamon and not just damned... damned a lot!
Plus I tend to think that the mere possibility of what she's capable of is enough to "Ciphrangize" her even more. Like she knows she is capable of, let's say, killing an entire country to achieve her ends ; and as she has to intend it to happens...

And that would explain why Kosoter or Cnaïur are viewed as Ciphrang too (they will to do bad). But Nil'Giccas is just damned because he kind of is a good guy (non-guy?) but practiced sooooo much sorcery.

tl;dr
Good guy doing bad stuff/sorcery ==> damned
Bad guy doing bad stuff (with or without sorcery) ==> Ciphrang
Special mention to Kellhus: Neither good or bad, just acting zombie following circumstances ==> who knows?

Pages: [1] 2 3 4