|
There were some guest appearances like nannaferi, the zeumi sorceror, proyas, and the skinchanger. It's something. I definitely miss the more varied PoVs in the first trilogy as well though. I'm sad there were no cleric sections even if I get why.
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 16:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 08:18 |
|
|
General Battuta posted:I did like that scene! That scene was cool. I find most of his perspective really dull, though, and I think that's coming off the first trilogy, where we had: I would say you forgot "petty grasping prince with self esteem issues" but I think Saubon might be covered by "gently caress bird". E: my major problem with the second trilogy is how little we know about so many characters motivations. In PoN we see inside Kellhus' head enough that we can unpick his manipulations of other people in their POV chapters. But in TAE we have Maithenet being mysterious, Inrilatas being crazy, Cleric being crazy and mysterious, Kosoter being quiet and mysterious, Sarl being noisy and crazy. Theres so little for Esmenet and Akka to bounce off. Double edit: what do you mean by preconcious framing? Because I'd say Kel exploits that massively, but I may be misunderstanding the term. Strom Cuzewon fucked around with this message at 17:14 on Jun 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 16:53
|
|
|
General Battuta posted:I did like that scene! That scene was cool. I find most of his perspective really dull, though, and I think that's coming off the first trilogy, where we had: That's all right, I miss Cnaiür too  But I have to keep pumping myself for the sequels, now that they have a future.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 17:26
|
|
|
I'm still secretly hoping Cnaiur is alive somehow.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 18:49
|
|
|
Reason posted:I haven't heard of this before. The op mentions it is 'brutal', is it grim dark brutal hardcore for the sake of it? Are there elves? It's brutal in the sense of being incredibly bad to read
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 02:13
|
|
|
General Battuta posted:The problem with all of this is that it's a very old conception of how social neuro works, individual-to-individual or individual-to-crowd effects, and twenty years of brutal and often depressing research suggests that Kellhus has completely overlooked the very area he needs to master - the real 'darkness that comes before', the unconscious brain subsystems that deal in primes, statistical prototypes, and preconscious framing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 02:43
|
|
|
I don't really know  We just read a shitload of papers.The thing about psych is that it's rotten with bad statistics and underpowered experimental designs. As a rule of thumb, don't believe anything you read in a single paper. Focus on the stuff that's been replicated over and over again. My work was about racial bias in police shootings and the control of preconscious bias, so I know a lot about the implicit association test, affect misattribution, and poo poo like that. The study of how social forces alter our split-second decisions without our awareness.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 06:00
|
|
|
General Battuta posted:Bakker's great at writing fantasy that feels as horrible, sweeping, and soul-searing as the Bible. I don't know if you intended to do this, but you totally just convinced me to read Prince of Nothing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 07:30
|
|
|
General Battuta posted:The short version is that I was a social neuro oh god why I am in a phd program what's wrong with my life guy at NYU for a while, and Bakker deals with neuroscience and psychology in a very basic way. He's interested in the psychological ramifications of the illusion of pure agency, but nothing he writes about is really grounded in the specifics of science. He writes about psychology the way gurus write about quantum theory. I say this with good confidence because I just reread all the PoN books, and Kellhus' capabilities are pretty Freudian. He imputes subconscious desires and fears from facial microexpressions, reveals them, and uses them as levers. He's capable of modulating his own voice and expression to create emotions through feedback. He analyzes structures of tradition and belief and figures out how to exploit them to ratchet up his own authority. And that's...pretty much it. The Probability Trance is awesome but pure fantasy. The problem with all of this is that it's a very old conception of how social neuro works, individual-to-individual or individual-to-crowd effects, and twenty years of brutal and often depressing research suggests that Kellhus has completely overlooked the very area he needs to master - the real 'darkness that comes before', the unconscious brain subsystems that deal in primes, statistical prototypes, and preconscious framing. I can see where you're coming from. I don't agree with your thesis that Bakker's fear can be reduced to a conservative fear of the unknown. I also don't agree that BBT having been "obvious for decades" undermines the point. The idea that we are Just Brains is more profound to me than you make it sound, and even though it's an easy conclusion to reach for anyone who's studied it, it's deeply unintuitive and hard to think about, and I attach a lot of value to fiction that can explore the ramifications of that. Yes, you can be compelled to do things while believing that they're volitional. I don't think that's the end of the point he makes - the point is that there is no difference between compulsion and volition. You can try and look at his books as being about mind control - whether explicit (Neil's Machine, the Cants of Compulsion, Inchoroi pheromones or whatever the gently caress) or implicit (Kellhus's words) - but in all of them he emphasises the thin line between making someone do something, and how they normally do that thing. Some of these feel like abhorrent violations of our will, and others don't. Why is it different? I still don't have the answer, but Bakker tries to pull those concepts out. I don't think it's purely a philosopher's terror - or at least, that's not what I get out of his writing. I think it's the best kind of sci-fi, which thinks about the way the future's going and makes you confront the issues that will come up in time. What is the difference, really, between mind control and a friendly chat? Both are a way for someone to influence your cognition and affect and behaviour in a direction that they want. Right now we ignore that - and yet we do have a vague sense of discomfort about the mind control exerted by advertising, by clickbait, by gamification, all of which sidestep our normal resistance mechanisms to some degree. Sure, you can't fall for it if you don't want to - but really good advertising can sidestep even that. And where is the line between that and the forms of social interaction that fall within our normal routines? Hell, I want more books that focus on this, because it's criminally underexplored, even if it's emergent from only the core principles of cognitive science. It's interesting that your criticism of Neuropath is the total opposite to what usually gets me riled up in this thread - which is "Of course brains don't work that way, the human mind is totally privileged and I wouldn't fall for these psychological tricks, why would you write a book about it?", yet you say "Of course brains work that way, it's so elementary as to be common knowledge, why would you write a book about it?". I have literally just picked up Peter Watts's Blindsight, so I'm going to read that and come back here. Although my favourite thing to compare Neuropath to now is actually Altered Carbon, and that might serve your point more than mine. Neuropath is about a society just on the verge of realising that we are Just Brains, and the horror that results from the gradual and pessimistic realisation of this truth. Altered Carbon is about a society that has long since realised it, and everything is more-or-less fine. Humans have discovered immortality but it hasn't changed the ability of humans to be dicks to each other; it's solved some problems and created loads of others and in general people just go on, and brush the philosophical implications under the rug. It's kind of refreshing - even though it makes a distinct effort to avoid the neurophilosophy of things like the Star Trek Transporter Argument, it just focuses on the social tremors caused by that technology.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 11:56
|
|
|
Boing posted:I don't think it's purely a philosopher's terror - or at least, that's not what I get out of his writing. I think it's the best kind of sci-fi, which thinks about the way the future's going and makes you confront the issues that will come up in time. What is the difference, really, between mind control and a friendly chat? Both are a way for someone to influence your cognition and affect and behaviour in a direction that they want. Right now we ignore that - and yet we do have a vague sense of discomfort about the mind control exerted by advertising, by clickbait, by gamification, all of which sidestep our normal resistance mechanisms to some degree. Sure, you can't fall for it if you don't want to - but really good advertising can sidestep even that. And where is the line between that and the forms of social interaction that fall within our normal routines? Hell, I want more books that focus on this, because it's criminally underexplored, even if it's emergent from only the core principles of cognitive science. Anasūrimbor Cartman
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 14:44
|
|
|
One theory I've always had is that Akka is going to eventually reach another level in his magic by going blind and combining the pshuke with the gnosis. Back in TTT Kellhus talks about how the gnosis is like the meaning of gods words while the pshuke is the passion of his voice. Combine the two and probably you get super magic. This is further supported by Bakker's short story The False Sun, a story literally about a blind gnosis using supermage. This also would finally give Akka a chance against Kellhus.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 15:14
|
|
|
A parallel to Xinemus? Is that a stretch?
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 15:19
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:A parallel to Xinemus? Is that a stretch? There was that whole minor thing about how he and xin look practically identical, that never seem to come to something beyond the clunky "they are both Proyas' father figures" Also Iyokus (more like eyeless-yokus amirite?) is implied to be better at the Daimos now he's blind, not because he's adapting the Psukhe, but because he's achieved greater clarity of meaning without the mess of vision getting in the way.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 16:39
|
|
|
I quite like the series' handling of magic. The Cisaurim in particular feel really weird and arcane and interesting...so of course they had to go. I almost wish they hadn't made Kellhus an uber-sorcerer, because it somewhat takes an already OP character way over the bend. Do they ever clarify just how rare/plentiful Chorae are? The big power can afford to put them on crossbow bolts to deal with wizards, granted, but still. Part of the reason they crushed Sorweel's city-state is that it had a big Chorae hoard, so I assume it's a big thing. But yeah, combining the sorcery of raw intelect and meaning (Gnosis) and the sorcery fueled by passion and sentiment (Cisaurim) might be the endgame if (when) Kellhus goes full MegaSatan. And Mimara's Judging Eye maybe helping do...something?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 21:59
|
|
|
Three books of "Esmenet could be so smart and effective with some education and respect" and then we get a 'frantic' 'shrill' mom empress who can't handle a fat senator. I think Bakker said this was part of his master plan to show how hard it is to escape structural sexism but it's boring to read and I don't believe it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2016 17:22
|
|
|
General Battuta posted:Three books of "Esmenet could be so smart and effective with some education and respect" and then we get a 'frantic' 'shrill' mom empress who can't handle a fat senator. I think Bakker said this was part of his master plan to show how hard it is to escape structural sexism but it's boring to read and I don't believe it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 14:51
|
|
|
Khizan posted:I don't know if you intended to do this, but you totally just convinced me to read Prince of Nothing. Intended or not, someone convincing you to read this series is a huge favor if you love reading, especially SF&F. Once you get into this series it just has so many varied ways that make rereading it and analyzing and theorizing about it so rewarding. the trump tutelage posted:I read it more as "Esmenet could have been so smart and effective..." As in, the potential was there but it was stunted by the world she was born in to, and that's not changing regardless of how capable she is. And beyond just the restraints of the world she was born into, there's also the 20 odd years of Kellhus fuckin with her mind and motivations, dealing with her different half Dunyain children's various levels of insanity, and also her half Dunyain bro-in-law. On top of that Kellhus himself may have set up his empire to fall to ruins in his Great Ordeal's wake.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 22:53
|
|
|
And it's all poo poo to read. With luck TGO will do something interesting with Sorweel and the flat Empire storylines. (Sorweel is pretty much guaranteed good because of Ishterebinth). Unless you want to posit that the metaphysics of bakkerplanet extend beyond enforcing lesser moral worth on women into actually making them less competent, Esmenet had everything she needed to be an interesting dynamic character. Bakker just isn't interested in writing that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 00:34
|
|
|
To each their own, I guess. I find her interesting and dynamic.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 02:16
|
|
|
the trump tutelage posted:To each their own, I guess. I find her interesting and dynamic. Same
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 03:38
|
|
|
~my children~
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 05:07
|
|
|
I'm literally just past the BLACK DEMON SEED's first appearance. These books are pretty cool.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2016 15:11
|
|
|
Predictions for The Great Ordeal: Kellhus is going to destroy the Consult, and seize their work for himself. The only way to achieve the true Self-Moving Soul is for him to recreate the No-God, which is the final step of Moenghus' Thousandfold Thought Kellhus' great revelation during PoN is that there is only one soul. Just as the gods are merely fragments of the God, human souls are also fragments of the God. This is the explanation he gives to Akka about how Sorcerors are able to work magic, by remembering what it is to speak with the God's voice. Incariol echoes this, talking about humans as fractured souls unable to perceive the whole, and Samarmas believes he sees the same soul in the eyes of the people he murders, so this is clearly more than just a tale Kellhus is spinning to control his new religion. This doesn't invalidate any of the teachings on damnation - fragmented Gods war against each other as fragmented men do, and they gleefully feast on human souls. Mimara's Judging Eye allows her to see the sins and virtues of people, unlike the vague sense of unease from Sorcerous marks she gets actual, verifiable information on people's crimes, which leads me to thinking that morality is an objectively definable thing. Besides, Bakker's not boring enough to fall into moral relativism. The Consult have stumbled onto the answer, but haven't fully understood it. The Inchoroi have murdered hundreds of worlds but still find themselves damned. The Consult are creating the No-God as a sort of AI (somewhere between the Geth and Chinabrain) - unifying all the Sranc into one will, but what they've actually done is create an artificial demon. The No-God behaves exactly like the Ghost of Cil'Aujis - it's immune to chorae, and speaks by possessing multiple people at once: the Ghost possesses Akka and one of the Skin Eaters, and the No-God possesses all sranc everywhere at once. It also gives an explanation of the Death of Birth that the No-God causes. It's clearly not magical, or chorae would stop it, sorcerers would see its mark, and only the Few would be able to sense it's presence. But extremely powerful demons are able to bring part of the Outside with them, which would allow the No-God to affect the whole world. It would also explain how it causes the topos at Mengedda - like the Ghost it wore a hole into the Outside. Moenghus only walked part of the way along the Thousandfold Thought. He never grasped the fact of his damnation, so he simply developed his master plan to save Earwa from the Consult. But Kellhus is going to go one step further, and save their souls. If the fragmented souls of men can be yoked together like sranc souls are, then a new Ur-god can be created, and a new Outside, a new afterlife. The Dunyain idea of a self moving soul is utter nonsense - you can't reject both outside influences AND your own passions - and so many of the characters (Inrilatas/Conphas, Thelli, Cnauir) show that there is simply no way to function without allowing something to influence you. But time doesn't exist in the Outside in the same way it does in the world - how else could the White-Luck Warrior see his future selves? (as an aside - this is weirdly close to the Nonman religion, but I can't see a direct connection) how else could the Judging Eye be a result of a still-birth that hasn't happened? How else could Celmomas II prophesise Kellhus? This gives the Dunyain a way to cheat. By creating their own God they can step outside the circle of cause and effect. All the Biblical language (logos is obvious, self-moving soul is a riff on Aristotle's unmoved mover/primum movems) points to a suitably Biblical conclusion.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2016 21:32
|
|
|
Spotted TGO at B&N today. I didn't buy it since I figured I'd get it on Kindle or wait until TUC is out. TGO isn't released on kindle until next week. Edit: I guess it isn't released until next week in any form. I wonder why B&N had two copies. Huzanko fucked around with this message at 08:55 on Jul 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2016 08:51
|
|
|
I thought the kindle wasn't til September? I'm loving importing the hardback from the states.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2016 10:01
|
|
|
I can't remember, did they start eating sranc meat in the last book, or is it something new?
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2016 13:06
|
|
|
Kellhus gives the order at the end of the white luck warrior and it ends basically right there.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2016 13:24
|
|
|
Darlan Flame posted:Kellhus gives the order at the end of the white luck warrior and it ends basically right there. Time for a quick reread, I guess. Hope they brought some BBQ sauce.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2016 13:28
|
|
|
Strom Cuzewon posted:I thought the kindle wasn't til September? I'm loving importing the hardback from the states. Yeah, I guess UK doesn't get their copies until Sept. Mostly non-spoiler spoilers since I flipped through the book some. Esmenet continues to be a dummy damsel. Non-man mansions continue to be creepy and cool. Akka and Mimara [sp?] find some stuff out about the duneyain [sp?]. I didn't stumble upon many Kellhus parts. Mostly just Proyas QQing about war and stuff. All in all a lot of plot movement seems to happen. I should've just bought it yesterday. I may just go get the book today or tomorrow. I found the last two books incredibly boring and this, at first glance, seems to be pretty good. There's also another reveal that will make a lot of fans pretty happy. Personally, I'm thinking of waiting until TUC is released to read this one. I'm torn.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2016 17:07
|
|
|
General Battuta posted:His Blind Brain Theory is the syllabus summary of an undergraduate class. It's the beginning of modern neuroscience, not the end. Your desire to feel smarter is at least muddying your judgement. If BBT is the beginning, why is not widely accepted? Of course BBT won't shock someone in the field who studies neuroscience and is accustomed to the various theories and interpretations. The debate is very alive and it goes on all sort of directions. What is sure is that we are NOWHERE close to final, satisfying explanations that clear the field from other speculations. No one has won that lottery yet, even if many claim they did (like you, apparently). If you think that lowly of Bakker then what do you think of Nagel? Your big error is this desire to draw very distinct lines between what you judge as valuable debate and what is instead just baseless speculation. But you're just trapped in the same pattern: you're applying your biases, you determine your identity and claim some superior judgement. You know how the brain functions and every other theory is unsatisfying. The field of neuroscience and philosophy is interesting BECAUSE it splinters in all directions. BECAUSE it gets people to think and discuss with very different backgrounds. BECAUSE it is contaminated and cross-disciplinary. That's why what Bakker does is important even for the scientific side. It helps opening it up, since this discussion is NOT one that has to be circumscribed to just the scientists and the specialized. This is something Bakker actively fights against. He writes "fantasy" to breach into readers, to prove that these arguments matter for everyone and shouldn't be closed in a lab. The argument isn't exhausted after you finished reading a paper. It begins there. It opens to the world outside. the trump tutelage posted:Are there any good Modern Neuroscience 101 type textbooks that address these concepts? A simple Google search doesn't turn up much and also I'm lazy. You could go at Bakker's blog and starts from wherever, it tends to be redundant in what he writes about : https://rsbakker.wordpress.com/ But his writing can be very dense and filled with jargon. If you want an easy introduction there's a recent short story that is very good: https://rsbakker.wordpress.com/2016/03/22/the-dime-spared/ There are a million of blogs commenting this field, another good one is: http://www.consciousentities.com/ I also thought his (self-published?) book is very good (and short and a good introduction): https://www.amazon.com/Shadow-Consciousness-Little-Less-Wrong/dp/1507869177/ Neuroscience isn't a monolithic thing you read in a manual. It's active research and it is extremely cross-disciplinary. I think the problem with General Battuta is that he studied something certainly interesting, and now he uses that lens to dismiss everything else. It happens to everyone. We always cling to our certainties and will put up an incredible fight before consenting to let them go. He got his own tool for comprehending stuff, and now he uses it for everything. Even where it's not pertinent. Isn't Bakker writing about this too? I'm just the same. I believe the stuff I studied provides the best explanations, and I always read Bakker's stuff through that lens. The only difference is that I naturally try to recognize patterns and similarities to build a bigger pictures. Whereas General Battuta seems just interested to praise his own superior knowledge and prove he's one step above, as if he has to prove to us he's smarter than Bakker. That's the problem, very often it's hard to find something that isn't just childish bragging, and it's not easy to take it seriously. Abalieno fucked around with this message at 17:36 on Jul 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2016 17:13
|
|
|
Bakker's not helpful in starting discussions because he hasn't said anything new to scientists. He's a philosopher and what he thinks of as a Big Deal is the demolition or marginalization of the philosophy of mind by neurosciences. That's only important if you're invested in philosophy of mind or lay theories of cognition. Lay speculation on how the mind works is also irrelevant. No number of blog discussions will make any progress. A better grasp of experimental statistics is what the field needs right now. Bakker's a popularizer, although not a very good one, because his treatment is so shallow. I've been rereading the series and while I generally think the first trilogy is pretty great, it's astounding how many times he repeats "people think they know why they do stuff, but actually, they don't! How crazy is it to confront the true depth of an action's causal history?" Read Bakker for the superb tone of deep abominable history and killer war-slash-intrigue. Dude knows how to make a world feel big and old and interesting.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2016 17:22
|
|
|
My copy arrives today. (thanks dude on ebay selling your ARC). I'll post vague impressions when I have them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2016 17:39
|
|
|
I don't understand this criticism. It's like pointing out that Lord of the Rings didn't break new ground in the field of linguistics.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2016 17:40
|
|
|
General Battuta posted:Bakker's not helpful in starting discussions because he hasn't said anything new to scientists. He's a philosopher and what he thinks of as a Big Deal is the demolition or marginalization of the philosophy of mind by neurosciences. That's only important if you're invested in philosophy of mind or lay theories of cognition. Uhm, the difference between scientists and philosophers is that scientists only talk to other scientists, whereas philosophers talk to all of US. How on earth you came to believe that writing a Fantasy book would have made a worthy contribute to NEUROSCIENCE RESEARCH? Close all the labs and go read Prince of Nothing? quote:Lay speculation on how the mind works is also irrelevant. No number of blog discussions will make any progress. A better grasp of experimental statistics is what the field needs right now. Are you serious? Bakker is not stepping in a lab and saying "Stop everything! I have the solution!" Bakker is not a scientist, nor pretending to be one. He doesn't open brains to put probes into them. He's not "in the field", he's not trying to steal your job. quote:Bakker's a popularizer, although not a very good one, because his treatment is so shallow. He's so shallow that he describes your persona accurately. "Shallow" is a relative term. What's shallow for one guy is an immense depth for another. There's no universal measure that distinguishes "shallow" from "deep". So what's the point of all you're writing? I tell you: the point is to prove your own personal status. You want to declare Bakker's stuff is "shallow" because you're interested to prove you're smarter. It all bogs down to penis size measurement and taking it personally between you and him, and it is quite ridiculous. The superb tone is the one *you* use, don't you notice?
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2016 17:51
|
|
|
the trump tutelage posted:I don't understand this criticism. It's like pointing out that Lord of the Rings didn't break new ground in the field of linguistics. That's a fair comparison! I'm responding to the idea that Bakker's work is good because it offers the reader insight into modern cognitive theory. It doesn't - it's about neuroscience the way Dune is about environmentalism. That doesn't stop it from being good in other ways.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2016 17:56
|
|
|
I'm reading the end of White Luck Warrior and I just realized the inchoroi are literally the aliens from Independence Day 
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2016 17:59
|
|
|
Abalieno posted:Uhm, the difference between scientists and philosophers is that scientists only talk to other scientists, whereas philosophers talk to all of US. Not where I live. German philosophers are more known for using impenetrable language to make sure only other philosophers can understand them. Also there are multiple science magazines you can buy at every street kiosk, while I can't remember ever seeing something similar about philosophy. Our scientists like people reading about science, it turns out. I don't know in what crap country you are forced to live, but over here the situation is reversed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2016 19:13
|
|
|
Libluini posted:Not where I live. German philosophers are more known for using impenetrable language to make sure only other philosophers can understand them. Also there are multiple science magazines you can buy at every street kiosk, while I can't remember ever seeing something similar about philosophy. Our scientists like people reading about science, it turns out. It's basically the same in the Anglosphere, except for maybe a few popularizers or philosophers who have crossed over into popular debates, like Daniel Dennett. Pop-science magazine are a thing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 00:41
|
|
|
General Battuta posted:I'm reading the end of White Luck Warrior and I just realized the inchoroi are literally the aliens from Independence Day I haven't seen Independence Day in so long that I can't really remember what the aliens were like but I'm going to take a guess and say that they're not nearly phallic enough to be the inchoroi
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 02:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 08:18 |
|
|
The stupid fantasy man's books wouldn't be good even if they were completely accurate to neuroscience
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 06:59
|
|