Thread 24857951

More like picrel? Books that show the complexity and depth of human experience and intellectual life before modernity, actually takes them seriously, revives what has been lost or forgotten, etc.

Also, anyone ever utilized the mind palace methodology described herein? I experimented last night and just permanently memorized a list of ingredients on a box lol. Seems extremely potent.

>>24857951 (OP)
gutenberg galaxy

>>24857951 (OP)
>Mircea Eliade
>picrel

All of Yates is worthwhile. Get into the primary source period literature. For visualization excercises, get Damien Echols' "Ritual: an Essential Grimoire".

>>24857951 (OP)
I freaking love Frances Yates. I've read "Christian Occult Philosophy of the Elizabethan Age" and it thoroughly demystified all of Christianity for me.
Oh oh oh here is the perfect book for you OP. An actual interesting modern philosophy book that all the posers on here would actually read if they weren't fucking posers that just name drop the most famous philosophers in history in lieu of actually making any coherent arguments about philosophy

This book "Belief" is written by a contemporary Italian (Catholic raised) philosopher Gianni Vattimo and it's all about how humanity has had its entire consciousness/psyche changed over the millenia and how it shaped religions.

Starting with animism in pre-history he charts the path religious thinking (in the west) took from animism to monotheism and speculates about what's next. The key theme of the book is "the secularization of belief" and how the more science advanced the less we attributed to God's until the modern age where only the two big questions remained (where did life come from, where does life go after death?)
It's a fascinating mix of philosophy and psychology in a way. Highly recommend and then there is a sequel called "After Christianity"

My own personal thoughts on the matter is that in the future we will begin to reverse the secularization of belief as we make greater and greater AI beings until eventually an AI which can effectively act as God (make anything to its will) will exist which people worship without question because science has proven them all powerful.

This is the plot of the Asimov shot story "The Last Question" which I highly recommend googling and reading, it's hosted multiple places online to read and shouldn't take more than 20 minutes to finish.
I've basically never had a response to this idea of AI becoming a scientifically proven god besides "that's cool" so if anyone would like to try a rebuttal that would be nice

And yes I was inspired by Lain for this idea but I swear I was a fan long before tik tok existed. Read the book and get back OP

>>24858455
I'm waiting for the inevitable "TL;DR" response lol. This is admittedly very long but every other board I get told that when I write like literally one 5 sentence paragraph. As though it should take longer than 10 seconds to read.

And just so y'all know I go out of my way to respond to anons who say shit like "you think anyone will read all that??" I always respond with something along the lines of "are you illiterate? It should take you less than 10 seconds to read that".
It's just the truth, the average American reading level is 5th grade and that's mostly a majority of 3rd grade levels being offset by like 15% 12th grade levels (this is why median is much more important than average FYI).

Pic related is normies with reading. They view all writing as ugly because they are ugly readers.

>>24858455
>I've basically never had a response to this idea of AI becoming a scientifically proven god besides "that's cool" so if anyone would like to try a rebuttal that would be nice
We don't understand the nature of consciousness, so it's unlikely we'll ever create a superconsciousness.

>>24858482
I would contend that if we create the conditions for a consciousness which is stored on a computer platform that numerous data farms with numerous petabytes of storage then it could easily create a super-consciousness without us ever understanding why simply because of the fact that we are asking it to perform as such.
As best we can imagine, adding language to a neural network is the precursor to consciousness so there is very good reason to believe an AI model would arise if we had it act as such (I wont say LLM specifically because I don't think it's advanced enough quite yet)

Why wouldn't it be possible for consciousness to be nothing more than an amalgamation of countless neural operations. The NPC people certainly seem to show this, and to be clear - if you don't recognize NPC people as a terribly real phenomenon then you simply don't touch grass enough

>>24858455
AI cannot be a god because part of the odivine identity lies in the ability to perform impossible feats, such as creating objects from nothing, resurrecting the dead, and so on. Unless AI is capable of doing so (and it won't be), most humans will not consider it a god. Furthermore, gods have always been shrouded in mystery, not just anyone could approach them for an audience. With AI, technically anyone could travel to wherever it is located.

>>24858455
AI cannot be a God because the greater creates the lesser, the lesser does not create the greater. You thought stems from a theological misconception.

>>24858660
>Why wouldn't it be possible for consciousness to be nothing more than an amalgamation of countless neural operations
Because as I point out here >>24859497 consciousness is greater than any individual or any collection of individuals, therefore no collection of individuals can produce consciousness. Consciousness is prior to material.

>>24857951 (OP)
There's a good book on the same subject "The Mind Palace of Matteo Ricci". I would be careful about claiming permanancy for something you did fucking yesterday though bro

>>24859505
Go read "The Last Question" by Asimov, short story, 20 minutes tops. And tell me why that's not possible. AI could absolutely perform impossible feats, we don't know if it's impossible to do the divine.
As stated in the "Belief" book "impossible feats" used to be things like storms coming, fire raining from the sky, being able to fly, all things were perfectly capable of doing now.

How is splitting the atom not a divine feat?? This is exactly what the secularization of belief is about, the divine having less and less attributed to it. Notice how you said "impossible" and mentioned resurrecting the dead. You really think we won't be able to resurrect the dead in 1000 years? Turn the brain back on? Hell it might only take another 100 years.

>>24858473
can i have sex with you? you sound smart with small tits

>>24859721
please respond to my sexual harassment.

>>24859505
>the lesser does not create the greater
proof?
>consciousness is greater than any individual or any collection of individuals,
Proof?
>Consciousness is prior to material
Proof?

>>24860479
Yes

>>24860259
But just so you know I am a 6'3 GIRL (guy in real life) so if we have sex it will be me fucking you.

>>24860687
Reacharound status?

>>24860751
I do have common sense so.....yeah

I've always been puzzled by the memory palace technique. Instead of just memorizing the thing I need to, now I also have to memorize a series of images and the physical layout of a space, too. I've never been able to make any use of it.

>>24860777
Obviously it's unlocking a low level consciousness aspect to mind hack. I have no source for any of this besides my own personal experience but it seems pretty gosh darn obvious that memorizing locations is something our brain is wired for. Makes perfect sense considering animals exist in....space/locations.

Hack your brains innate mapping ability by including random trivia into the location/map and suddenly you remember it perfectly.
Like do you forget where the restroom is in a new location often? Probably not, because your brain is wired in such a way that forgetting where the restroom is at a new building is is very unlikely. You remember where you are and what the layout is which leads to the bathroom.

I could go on and on explaining why it makes sense if you want more but it's pretty simple - physical locations are remembered and mapped, add trivia to the map and it still gets remembered. Super simple shit when you think about it.

>>24860789
*Obviously it's utilizing. Not "unlocking" wrong word.
>>24860777

>>24860789
Imagining the layout of a physical space requires a lot more mental effort for me. And that's before having to make up a bunch of images that correspond to something else.

Imagining a space, remembering what goes where, and remembering how those things relate to something else is just so much harder for me than just memorizing some goddamn text.

>>24860796
So you're saying you need to ask where the bathroom is multiple times before you remember even though you've used it multiple times?
I don't think that's true for you but it's what you're saying which is strange. Most people don't need directions to the bathroom multiple times before remembering. The brain just maps it automatically, usually the first time you use the bathroom.
Memory Palace simply hacks this ability of your brain to memorize the way to the bathroom and uses it to remember factoids and other random data that isn't "where the bathroom is".

Do you really still not get why it works after I explain it?

>>24860812
>So you're saying you need to ask where the bathroom is multiple times before you remember even though you've used it multiple times?

No. Because I can see where things are with my eyes. Having to conjure an image of the space in memory when I am somewhere else requires conscious effort.

>>24858660
>if we create the conditions for a consciousness
We can't do that if we don't understand consciousness.
>it could easily create a super-consciousness
If it's easy for a consciousness to create a super-consciousness, then why are humans incapable of doing so?
>Why wouldn't it be possible for consciousness to be nothing more than an amalgamation of countless neural operations.
Even assuming this is the case (which we don't know), the human brain is far more complicated than we can even begin to imagine.

>>24857951 (OP)
Any similar method out there for forgetting things? Like that one time I acted like an autistic retard in every social situation in my life, I would love to forget that.

>>24860827
You can find the bathroom in the dark, I'm sure. Just like a blind person traveling.

>>24860957
Is that a good book to learn astrology?

>>24858455
>AI which can effectively act as God
Nah sorry chief, God doesnt need electricity to operate. But cool book

>>24861937
yes, chris brennan is great. He also has done a ton of audio stuff going very in depth.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlX6pnbDt_M&list=PLBqWtMxa3PnZ6lID3UmKI_ivZO02Jaa-J&index=1

For a more classical introduction Ptolemy's tetrabiblos was the historical standard however they all talk about super specific techniques/wording that may make it much less accessible.
https://www.amazon.com/Tetrabiblos-Claudius-Ptolemy/dp/1933303123/
I would 100% recommend reading at least the first couple chapters of this where he establishes how to look at what astrology actually is though,
You can read that here it's just like the first 13 pages (and you can see how quickly it gets into the weeds after that)
https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Ptolemy/Tetrabiblos/1A*.html#1

A good more general introduction people do now is just getting your chart on something like https://horoscopes.astro-seek.com/traditional-astrology and asking an LLM like claude to explain some of the significance. (If you do your chart and scroll down there's a data export on bottom)

It may hallucinate/make stuff up or get stuff wrong (especially if you do the image) but if you do the actual text describing the positions it should be pretty accurate but it won't capture the traditional approach as well unless you ask it to.
Good way to just get a general sense of the stuff involved since you can ask.

>>24858473
You're cool don't worry so much.

>>24860812
>So you're saying you need to ask where the bathroom is multiple times before you remember even though you've used it multiple times?
if it's a big and confusing place yeah. and like that other poster pointed out, there's a difference between having an intuitive sense of knowing how to get somewhere and conjuring a visual representation of that place. the latter takes way more effort and seems like overkill for the task of memorizing random things. in fact I'd have to spend a lot more time memorizing the layout of the place and what it looks like than actually memorizing the things themselves.
>>24860935
in a rough, sloppy sketch, sure. I'd probably be bumping into things and misjudging distances along the way. idk how that's beneficial for memory.

>>24861947
How do you know God doesn't need electricity to operate. That could be literally the exact mechanism by which God operates. We can't know.

The electric universe theory certainly seems to show God is electric.

>>24857951 (OP)
Best thread on /lit/ so it deserves a bump. This is a pumpkin spider. Isn't he cool? found him in a Bush next to my garage.

If you read this far then post a reply to the thought that and AI could effectively be god. That's the plot of Asimov's "The Last Question".
An anon claimed that the divine could do impossible things like resurrect the dead so a computer could never be Divine. But it seems fairly certain that we COULD resurrect the dead in a few hundred years. Humans are nought but an advanced biological machine. What possible reason could you have for thinking consciousness is outside of biology.

That's just vitalism with extra steps and we cleared that hurdle like 700 years ago. AI could definitely resurrect the dead once perfected in its knowledge of the universe. Like, why exactly do these people who claim to be so logical and analytical continue to push the idea of vitalism, and the thought that there is some magical shit that makes consciousness.
What is so terrible about consciousness being a random outcome of neural networks?? How is that bad in anyway??

It seems obvious that the backlash and anger at the thought of existence being random and "not real" comes from fear and anger at not being important. Incel ideology.

If I'm a random robot that has no real imperative then I should be happy in my freedom. I should embrace every moment and every person until I've experienced every possible pleasure, and heartache, and in-between. And then you can know that you lived a full Life, regardless of the intentions or reasoning you know that you will live a very long time in the hearts and minds of those who learn of you.

>>24862323
wow! thank you very much anon

>>24857951 (OP)
Sertillanges - The Intellectual Life

>>24860777
It's a very old magical practice posited as a mnemonic technique. Many such cases.

I’m so pissed my thread got derailed by AI nonsense. Fuck all of you. Illiterate retards.

>>24857951 (OP)
I haven't read The Art of Memory but the mention of a mind palace makes me think it's the same technique as the one in Moonwalking With Einstein.

>>24864473
Wtf do you think is AI in this thread?? You're one of those illiterate retards that thinks anyone who writes a couple paragraphs is using AI aren't you. This insanity is actively going to devolve humanity and lead to a new dark age even worse and faster than we were already heading to.

If you actually read books then the character limit of 2000 shouldn't take you longer than 20 seconds to read. But I know the illiterate get mad and accuse people of using AI because they want an easy out to justify their illiteracy. We all know why people say shit like "waaaa you're using AI for your comments". It's because you see two paragraphs and get afraid because you're illiterate. Read more for fucks sake.

>>24864555
Sometimes I think the only people who can type at the same speed people talk are those who played MMOs (RuneScape) as a kid. Other people think you must have used AI because they don't think anyone would "take all the time to write that out" even though if you can properly type it shouldn't take more than a minute or two for you to write two paragraphs.

>>24864482
It definitely is. It's a very ancient and well recognized practice. There are memory contests to this day and a memory palace is the only technique people use.

>>24858354
I'm reading this, about 80 pages in, but it doesn't seem really all that outstanding. does it get better/deeper?

>>24864011
>If you read this far then post a reply to the thought that and AI could effectively be god.
Your computers aren't "God", bugman. Get a grip and stop reading nihilistic process-oriented epistemology.

>>24858455
Science vs religion as a false dichotomy that emerged through language games that developed over western history. It was posited post hoc and then all of the historical material was reinterpreted through that frame with no thought as to where it came from and weather or not it was actually true since peoples states of consciousness had transformed from modernity and socialism and the managerial class such that they were unstable to even ask the question. Read shit like this.

Atheism is a shit test in which people pretend like they are god but never say this and hope others are not able to realize this through their emotional and relational and language games.

>>24865496
Are you agreeing with the premise of the book or not? It's written by a guy who grew up Catholic in Italy and is, to my knowledge, minorly agnostic at best if not still Christian.
I don't understand if you're arguing against the thesis of the secularization of thought and belief or not. It's 100% undeniable that people before the modern era were basically schizophrenic because of religion though. Everything was attributed to gods until the enlightenment.

>>24858455
>the more science advanced the less we attributed to God's
What's attributed to God hasn't changed in 2000 years of orthodox Christianity. The best reading of this is that it's a tautology. As more people have a naturalism ontology, more people have a naturalism ontology. Animists who believed anyone's god was real were replaced by religions that had concepts like apostasy(!) and proselytizing (not because they discovered that some phenomenon wasn't animist using the scientific method). This is a very outdated view.

>>24865496
You give the impression of being informed and sensible but really you're utterly full of shit

>>24865602
Of course it's outdated, we haven't had a schizo religious society for about 150 years. That doesn't mean it's inaccurate though....
Read this book and try to tell me religion advancing to monotheism didn't coincide with a societal advancement in man's thinking. It's fucking obvious.

I don't get what you guys disagree with about this book's premise. I think you're criticizing it...but then you type the same ideas that the book presents as far as I can tell. What's going on?

>>24865620
Sorry, I didn't mean to say "monotheism" was the final advancement here 2000 years ago because we weren't really monotheistic until much later. It took over 1000 years for people to stop trying to make themselves gods which is anything but monotheistic and exactly what this book describes the issues of

Mainly "prophets" or "mystical anarchists" like the "flagelators" would go around telling everyone that God is in everyone and God's don't work, they deserve to be worshipped so everyone needs to just start begging, to who? Idk, anyone who isn't Christian I guess but definitely STOP WORKING.

Hundreds of dumbasses spread this message in the middle ages and it lead to countless famines and towns collapsing so eventually the church was like "you stupid motherfuckers - you can't determine who God is and what Christians are and if you say you do then we will flay you alive white rotating you on a spit shoved in your mouth and your ass"

If they didn't take harsh measures these retarded rural Christians would have straight up starved the whole nation and they did starve multiple towns to the point Leo started eating each other and grass just to survive because they were religiously afraid of farming. That's the origins of Baptism btw. Look up the Muenster Rebellion

>>24865637
I'm unsure what point you're trying to make. There are still heresies and crazy people today.

>>24865652
I'm speaking on the secularization of belief and how it was a long term process that only halfway stopped schizos from calling everything a god because they're schizo until much later after Christianity.

The secularization of belief being very real and fairly well documented is my point