[sciborg2]

Never heard of those Krippner telepathy experiments, either. Since this is the first time I ever hear about them, they can't have been especially convincing, so excuse me if I'm still seriously doubting that telepathy exists.

Oh, I wasn't saying telepathy definitely exists, just that there's so many weird results like the ones Krippner got and so many things left to be found. My point was that there's still so much weird stuff out there, which is why I mentioned the placebo effect. Basically my point was Krippner, who's never been convinced by his own unusual results after decades of work, still was driven by the curiosity of what might be possible.

Part of the reason to stick around is to see what unfolds, and part of it is to experience things yourself. Why I suggested the ayahuasca ceremony. If you're thinking of doing drugs anyway might as well try and do something that could change the way you perceive things. Curiosity seems like a good reason to stay alive.

[Davias]

You describe your emotions and thoughts very well, Auriga and most of it mirrors my own thoughts and reflections in the last years a bit.
When I realized most of the things in the world aren't as meaningful and substantial, as many people told me, they should be, I fell in a hole. Like Nietzsche said: "And when you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you."
It began with the books I read. In the last years I couldn't read a lot comedy and satire books or somewhat "light", "positive" or "friendly" literature. Almost all my books I bought in the last years had a "dark" and "heavy" theme, a lot to think about, or need to be very grim and depressing. I can't read a book about true love or some positive way of life anymore.
I have a relatively negative view of the world and I'm really unsure about my own perspective of living since I have read Bakker's books, Ligotti, and other authors. It is feels like a long-drawn-out depression. I have thought to visit a psychiatrist or therapeut, because I'm often very sad or oddly bored of many things ( especially human interactions and similar things ). But everytime I say to me:"What can he tell me, that I don't know myself?" and I don't go.

In my job as a pre-school teacher I have a lot a lot of kids around me - mostly 20 or more, 3-6 years old - and all my colleagues are women with families and a a very clear conception of their way of life ( and all the Illusions and self-adulation which come with it in my opinion...) The work with the kids is stressful but also sometimes entertaining and funny. But in the conversations with my female colleagues I'm being infamous because of my cynical comments and "realistic" evaluations of situations and dialogues with the staff and the parents. And it is getting worse, I think.
From time to time I think, I'm beginning to lose my human empathy because of my negative and nihilistic opinions about life and human existence. This mindset seems to be REALLY out of place in my kind of job. What brings me through the day most of the time, is one hope: That I can teach the little kids some kind of basics, which almost none of my colleagues could not or want not to do: to be able to think critically in school and life in a few years, to conceive their OWN opinion about the world and their living, despite the typical indoctrination in the political, religious and cultural beliefs of their parents or teachers.

I have often dark ideas and thoughts and need to keep my inner demon at bay, sometimes the chains of reality barely holding up his struggle to throw me finally in a meaningless darkness. But every once in a while I NEED to say to me, there are a lot of things, which are interesting enough for me, to enjoy life: More Knowledge about history, write my own stories, see interesting places, meet interesting people and learn new, fresh ideas and so on. Some of the time it works well, sometimes it doesn't work at all.
But I keep struggling for now, I hope it will be enough.

[sciborg2]

But everytime I say to me:"What can he tell me, that I don't know myself?" and I don't go.

You might be surprised. I didn't think therapy could help but it can be pretty great just to talk to someone who isn't in your circle.

@Auriga:

First, definitely read the link suggested by Phallus Pendulus as it's an interesting response to Ligotti.

Minor point on Philosophers - I'm obviously more sympathetic to McGinn's "Mysterian" idea but I think we might conceive of questions without being able to conceive of answers...and our inability results in us retreating to the easy ones inherit in materialism.

Just seems the more I read/watch/listen the less sure I am about the supposedly obvious conclusions. Hoffman, who deals with perception, dares to suggest Idealism is possible while noting we're not in a position to figure it out:

Although the interface theory is compatible with idealism, it is not idealism, because it proposes no specific model of objective reality, but leaves the nature of objective reality as an open scientific problem.

Finally, regarding consciousness as an emergent phenomenon I've read critiques that this seems to lead to Chalmers' dreaded panpsychism anyway. IIRC the issue related to how the qualia of subjective experience emerge from non-conscious material.

[The Great Scald]

And finally we get to the aspect-emperor of the forum, the big cheese, the numero uno:

Madness:

I'm responding but I do want to note that please seek out every available counter-argument (including, and especially, direct criticisms of the authors who have affected this "negative enlightenment" in you)

I haven't found any convincing counter-arguments to any of them. How do you argue against philosophies that are grounded in actual cognitive psychology and empirical science? I don't especially want to be an eliminativist or a nihilist, but I can't disprove these views.

As for Bakker in particular...I've never seen any valid counter-arguments to The Argument, and I can't think of any. The only serious one I've seen was a review of Neuropath that basically played a semantics-game and redefined the concept of "self": http://www.shaviro.com/Blog/?p=698

Other than that, the most common criticism of Bakker's position seems to be "Bakker is a sexist poo-poo head, I hate him".

You've not seen the value I do in my views in other, similar conversations so I won't reiterate them here. I believe you are valuable in that you have unique experiences and knowledge unavailable to me and you've already expanded me much in your interaction here in the past (almost) twoish years.

Thanks, I guess.

To be fair, people say Neuropath is the amateur Ligotti. My main question of such thinkers is "are the criterion by which you establish meaninglessness a result of sociocultural organization as it has stood/stands?" If so, then every nihilist has an obligation to affect change in society and cultural to prove that every sociocultural arrangement actually does result in meaninglessness.

Interesting. Could you explain it further?

(The nihilist view, which I share, is that socio-cultural arrangements exist only for evolutionary purposes, which are ultimately meaningless and purposeless.)

However, why is the goal of suicide the result?

I'm not saying that nihilism = suicide. A real nihilist would be indifferent to life or death. I'm just saying that there's no actual reason why life is objectively better than death. From a purely rational standpoint, the choice of life isn't any superior to death. Looking at it from a nihilist/materialist point of view: if you want to kill yourself, there's really no reason not to.

Almost all my life, I've been a melancholic sort of person. This is far from my first depression, and I'll probably have many more if I live into old age. Why shouldn't I end it all?

How do you know that all those thinkers that contribute to this worldview aren't poor arguers

This is a non-question. How do I prove God doesn't exist?

You're basically asking me to tell myself: "I believe science is wrong because I want it to be wrong."

If what exists, if what we experience is inherently meaninglessness, what is to stop us, truly, from making that meaninglessness beautiful?

You first have to decide that "beautiful" is an objectively meaningful concept, lol. I don't think it is.

Why does the result always have to be incapacitation? Why does the reaction have to be one of apathetic futility?

I dunno. It's probably got a lot to do with the fact that people who have these existential doubts are usually introverted people. Quiet, thoughtful people who spend a lot of time in abstract thinking. They're not extroverted, energetic go-getters (those kind of people are usually more interested in other people than in abstract ideas) who have lots of motivation to change things.

Introverted people usually get overwhelmed by these kinds of thoughts, and become mentally paralyzed. 

Isn't it possible that there is coherency beyond what our human brains can perceive? Isn't it likely that humans don't actually know enough about anything for nihilism, religions, philosophy to be "the way things are?"

No. If we can't perceive or infer it, then it can't exist for us.

It doesn't matter if there's a coherency or purpose beyond what our brains can know, it's really a non-issue.

I want to engage life.

Good for you.

Auriga, I value your unique reality-tunnel and I still wish to spend a whole lifetime learning from differences between us.

Thanks for the compliment, I suppose, although "my" reality tunnel isn't really "mine" in any real sense - it was all a pointless delusion of being a person. 

Anyways, to end this debate:

"Since there's no personal God and no gods, no good and no evil, no right and no wrong, no meaning and no purpose, it means that there aren't any no values that are inherently valuable. There's no justice that is ultimately justifiable, no reasoning that is fundamentally rational, and no sane way to choose between science, religion, racism, philosophy, nationalism, conservatism, nihilism, liberalism, surrealism, fascism, asceticism, subjectivism, elitism, or ismism. If reason is incapable of deducing ultimate non-arbitrary human ends, and nothing can be judged as ultimately more important than anything else, then freedom is equal to slavery, cruelty is equal to kindness, love is equal to hate, destruction is equal to creation, life is equal to death, and death is equal to life."

[sciborg2]

Auriga, who said that last quote? I guess I've never really understood the idea behind big-M "Meaning", since things feeling meaningful always seemed subjective and thus a personal pursuit to me.

Why does the possible lack of Meaning prevent you from finding things that are personally meaningful?

(Also made a new thread to discuss stuff like Krippner's results here.)

[The Great Scald]

Auriga, who said that last quote?

It's from a suicide note (the world's longest one, the guy wrote more than 1000 pages before he shot himself in the Harvard yard). I agree with most of what he says.

Why does the possible lack of Meaning prevent you from finding things that are personally meaningful?

Because there is no "I" in any real sense. Once those comforting illusions are broken, I can't go back and live a lie.

Maybe I'm clinically insane. I don't know. 

First, definitely read the link suggested by Phallus Pendulus as it's an interesting response to Ligotti.

The critique of Ligotti is pretty well thought-out, but he completely redefines "Truth" for the sake of the argument (he writes that Truth is a completely subjective thing, and more of a heuristic experience than a divine commandment of Nature/God/whatever). His conclusion wasn't that impressive.

Maybe he does have a point - that there's some higher truths or realities that we're not able to grasp, while our brains are hardwired to constantly search for the truth. So every time we decide on a final ultimate Truth (whether it's Christianity or Nihilism or whatever), it will inevitably turn out to be flawed and unsatisfactory.

An interesting article, all in all. Reminds me a lot of the "total uncertainty" of Celia Green, in many ways.

Just seems the more I read/watch/listen the less sure I am about the supposedly obvious conclusions.

I suppose that's one way of dealing with existential doubts, lol. Overloading your brain with all sorts of different philosophies and scientific theories, until you just break down from the overload and throw up your hands in the air and admit "All I know is that I don't know a shit."

Finally, regarding consciousness as an emergent phenomenon I've read critiques that this seems to lead to Chalmers' dreaded panpsychism anyway.

Panpsychism makes no sense to me. If "everything is conscious", what even counts as a "thing"? If my shoe is conscious, is any part of it separately conscious too? Is the (arbitrary but valid) object consisting of my foot inside the shoe a conscious mind?

[sciborg2]

An interesting article, all in all. Reminds me a lot of the "total uncertainty" of Celia Green, in many ways.

Interesting coincidence that she's been recommended to me in varied circles this last week. The crazier subpersonals in my blind brain would dare to suggest it's Jungian synchronicity!

Thanks, will check her out.

Because there is no "I" in any real sense. Once those comforting illusions are broken, I can't go back and live a lie.

Maybe I'm clinically insane. I don't know. 

This makes me think of the question on Conscious Entities - If the I is an illusion who is being fooled? If there's no "you" who is suffering?

As for clinical insanity, I suspect many people are. I know my underlying feeling of indeterminism is a symptom of anxiety, but it does make things funner in the mental sphere as it leads to:

I suppose that's one way of dealing with existential doubts, lol.

Heh, I think my brain exploded after nonlocality and what is apparently the lack of time at the quantum scale which allows for retrocausality!

I haven't even gotten to Hume's critique of causality itself...

Panpsychism makes no sense to me. If "everything is conscious", what even counts as a "thing"? If my shoe is conscious, is any part of it separately conscious too? Is the (arbitrary but valid) object consisting of my foot inside the shoe a conscious mind?

Oh, I'm not an advocate for panpsychism, it's just that I recall a philosopher who noted emergence has to include proto-consciousness in matter. As I remember the critique regarding emergence is all physical emergent properties like liquidity/wetness are extant in some sense within the molecules that make things up.

Chalmers goes into a similar critique of emergence in Consciousness and Its Place in Nature (linking again for convenience)

[Phallus Pendulus]

OP, we can't solve the meaning of life for you. Do it yourself.

And for fuck's sake, stop reading other depressed people's texts. Tom Ligotti, suicide notes, etc etc. It'll just get you stuck in an endless loop of negativity.

I've known other depressive cases, a lot them seek out opinions like their own so they can wallow in their sadness and feel like WAH WAH NOBODY UNDERSTANDS ME and affirm their own negative beliefs (Holy moral certainty, Bakker!). Don't get stuck in that situation.

[Callan S.]

Auriga, I'm left wondering if something is screwing up your base enjoyment of the world and the 'loss of meaning' is just a sideshow? A false blame for that?

Where do you live? Apart from the medication, do you use drugs? What do you remember about being a child?

Regardless of what you think you know, if there is various interupting damage from these sources or to it in the latter case, this is is part of what is happening.

Perhaps bring a copy of neuropath for your psychologist...

And for fuck's sake, stop reading other depressed people's texts. Tom Ligotti, suicide notes, etc etc. It'll just get you stuck in an endless loop of negativity.

I've known other depressive cases, a lot them seek out opinions like their own so they can wallow in their sadness and feel like WAH WAH NOBODY UNDERSTANDS ME and affirm their own negative beliefs (Holy moral certainty, Bakker!). Don't get stuck in that situation.

I second this! Just looking for evidence for the conclusion you are already fixed upon is not looking for evidence at all, it's just looking for confirmation.

[Cüréthañ]

Honestly, you sound somewhat depressed.

Thanks, Captain Obvious.

I am not a doctor or therapist, although I have some experience dealing with depressives.  I am not about to make bald-faced diagnoses on people's mental health.  You did not state depression in your OP, so I cautiously present my opinion rather than risking offence by claiming your argument less valid because you are not of sound mind.

Depression means that one's judgement in situations like this cannot be trusted. It's not merely a feeling or conclusion, it is a condition.
Your argument for suicide makes as little logical sense to me as those I have heard from my brother (anxiety and depression) and my ex (bipolar), although your points are quite different.

Clearly, I have no intellectual or emotional authority to lend you in this matter, so I will opt out of the discussion lest I somehow reinforce your convictions.  But know that I value the small impact you have had on my life; I wish you all the best and hope that you can find a way to view your own life in a more positive fashion.

[Royce]

Because there is no "I" in any real sense. Once those comforting illusions are broken, I can't go back and live a lie.

The funny thing is that this realization has been around for ages, nothing new about it at all. You are kind of saying that since western science finally ended up with the same conclusion, it is finally ok to grasp it as truth. Why is it that people who arrive at the same conclusion (there is no I) end up on opposite sides of an emotional scale?  That seems weird right? some end up depressed, and some end up full of wonder, joy and awe of it all. I think the difference lies in how you obtain this realization. As I have mentioned before there is a huge difference between reading it and feeling it. By just reading you will not really understand it in the same way as someone who has felt it.

Have you tried to define what makes you reach out and seek help? What is that "drive" that urges you to talk about this with strangers? Why anti-depressants? Psychotherapy?  Don`t you think that deep down on a emotional level you most of all want to be convinced that you are wrong?  I think that this urge/drive you have actually is the will to live, and you prove that you have it by reaching out in your own special way. Keep your chin up sir and hopefully you will get through this.

[Wilshire]

And for fuck's sake, stop reading other depressed people's texts. Tom Ligotti, suicide notes, etc etc. It'll just get you stuck in an endless loop of negativity.

Sums up my thoughts nicely. Sounds like you mostly seek out stuff that you'll likely agree with even though you're trying to have a debate with yourself. Kind of a one sided debate if you only arm one side. As the sole debater, its your responsibility to find evidence for both sides else there really is no debate.

[Meyna]

My own reservations come from a sense of limited scope. I occupy such an insignificant slice of history (though I concede that I could be doing a lot more with yon slice). Maybe I would feel more fulfilled if I were to have access to more of existence, or maybe I should stop watching time-travel films.

[The Great Scald]

Don`t you think that deep down on a emotional level you most of all want to be convinced that you are wrong?

Of course I want to be convinced that I'm wrong.

(AFAIK, even Bakker himself said the same thing in the Neuropath foreword - that he's found himself in the bizarre position of wanting his own theory to be wrong, since it goes against all the pleasant fictions our brains tell themselves.)

I think that this urge/drive you have actually is the will to live, and you prove that you have it by reaching out in your own special way.

The will to live isn't necessarily a good thing.

[Alia]

Auriga, I'm left wondering if something is screwing up your base enjoyment of the world and the 'loss of meaning' is just a sideshow? A false blame for that?

Well, this could be something as simple as a neurotransmitter imbalance. Which is in a way scary, as it supports the concept that we are nothing but automata, governed by chemicals and electrical impulses.