You can basically consider the following book as having come from my mind. You will note that there are many quotations and some subject matter which is the same, but this book extends upon the underlying theme of my own book:
This book comes from the same writing group as Mike Hockney and associated authors and philosophy of Ontological Mathematics. The following is the summary on Amazon, and I will have a few comments to make afterwards. But read this well:
“Here’s what science tells you:
You are pointless.
Your existence is meaningless.
You have no purpose.
Your mind is an illusion that emerged from mindlessness.
Your life is an illusion that emerged from lifelessness.
Existence is an illusion that emerged from non-existence.
Existence, such as it is, spontaneously jumped out of non-existence, for no reason, via no mechanism and will culminate in pointless Heat Death.
You have no soul. You are a mere ephemeral collection of lifeless, mindless atoms.
Free will is an illusion.
Consciousness is an illusion.
The unconscious is an illusion.
You have no choice. Choice is impossible.
Human existence is empty. Human beings are husks, hollow beings with illusory minds.
Consciousness has no causal efficacy. It can never overrule the laws of materialist physics.
Consciousness is a pointless illusion, a meaningless epiphenomenon. It is of the order of unreality. It is a purposeless emergent property.
Nature produces redundant illusions.
Science presents a picture of humans as “philosophical zombies”, hypothetical beings that seem indistinguishable from normal human beings but actually lack consciousness and sentience. They simulate these things. They do not possess them.
Existence, says science, is governed by chance, accident, randomness, acausation, indeterminism, indeterminacy, probability, statistics and emergence.
Physicist Max Tegmark said, “A conscious person is simply food rearranged.” This means that your consciousness is reducible to food. This means that all food is potentially conscious, and at the very least contains the seeds of consciousness.
Science is a shallow, banal subject mired in materialism, atheism, skepticism and nihilism. It is a ferociously anti-life ideology. Lifeless matter is, after all, the essence of non-life.
What kind of people go out of their way to deny meaning and purpose, to trumpet that existence is pointless, that we have no free will and that our consciousness is an illusion?
The central thesis of this book is that science is a worldview born from autism, from people who struggle with communication, empathy, free will, consciousness and all things mental. Scientists prefer to see themselves as machines or as products of random chance. Their lack of a strong psyche translates into an affinity for matter, the opposite of mind. They feel at home with theories that exclude mind, that require no mental components whatsoever. That’s because they themselves are enormously deficient in mind.
The intellectual agenda of the world has been seized by autistics. They control science and computing, which now drive the world. Everyone in the academic world now falls into line with their anti-mind ideology. People even believe that machines can be as conscious as human beings (how would that be possible unless humans themselves were just glorified machines?) and that consciousness can be uploaded to computers and stored there.
Philosophy has been destroyed by autistic science. All academic philosophers feel the need to parrot the nostrums of scientism, and to deny the reality of a world of purposeful minds.
It’s time for the People of Mind to strike back, to take back the intellectual world from the autistics, to replace materialism and empiricism (the ideology of the senses) with idealism and rationalism (the doctrine of reason and logic).
Reason is the essence of mind. Only minds can reason. If you agree that existence is rational and intelligible, you are on the side of the mindful and against the mindless (the materialists, the zombies).”
So, are you a philosophical zombie? Are you an accidental, random, purposeless arrangement of death and non-existence that manifests will, reason, desire, hopes, thoughts, dreams and HAVE actual dreams for no reason, by no mechanism, for no purpose, by no utility? Can you be dead and alive (which is just a special type of death) at the same time? Can a bomb be exploded and unexploded at the same time? Is existence not real? Are you not real? Do you have no purposeful thoughts, no meaningful thoughts, no directed thoughts? Are you an automaton that would continue to function just fine without the nuisance of the totally unnecessary epiphenomenon of mind and free will?
Another scientist reported that they thought that my book just seemed like an attack on science that the average person might become convinced by and thereby lose their respect for science. I told him that that was exactly what I intended, was for the average person to see just how ridiculous modern science is, that it accepts and offers flat Earth theory as its most important work in modern times!
There is nothing in the scientific mindset that anyone can legitimately point to and say which offers a healthy perspective on human existence. Nothing. It seems that the entire edifice of modern science and related academia is an attack vector on the human species, on the human mind.
When people refer to the value of science, they are merely referring to their gadgets, their technology, their ease of life, their useless distractions which science has produced which incidentally is claimed are bad for existence because they require energy and our energy emits carbon dioxide which is therefore evil and will destroy the planet with weather, even though carbon dioxide is the basis of life.
The gadgets that science has produced has only dehumanized us, has removed interpersonal interaction, have been used for mass propaganda through mass fake news, and have indeed made us into automata which blink at the entertainment upon a screen. What science has produced for humanity has made us disgusting, even on its very own terms since what science has produced is a carbon-emission intensive life style (not that that is actually a bad thing!)…
Ask yourself: What kind of sick people believe that bombs can be exploded and unexploded at the same time? What kind of sick minds willingly subscribe to ideas which relegate their lives as unreal, purposeless, meaningless, mindless, accidental, random and valueless? How perverted and sick must one be to adopt such thinking about oneself and of existence? What kind of sick people believe that flat Earth theory absolutely tells us important things about the way that the Earth and physics functions? What kind of mental disease does one have to be subject to in order to think all of these things?!
What science merely did was to create these ridiculous ideas and blatant logical paradoxes in order to protect itself and its academic racket from inspection, from anyone checking to see if they’re actually doing anything useful. It created these stupid, ridiculous ideas and told normal, healthy people on the outside that if they couldn’t understand it then the reason was because they lacked the intelligence, that they were “stupid”, and that they lacked the smarts to engage. The truth, that all normal people know, is that paradoxes cannot actually physically or meaningfully exist, and science and academia presented their ability to adopt cognitive dissonance and sophistry as their bar for acceptance and “intelligence”. Normal, healthy people weren’t allowed to engage with science anymore if they wouldn’t renounce reason and reject paradoxes before beginning – you could only engage science on science’s own invented terms, terms which had nothing to do with the intellectual tradition and intellectual philosophical history, or reason, or consistency, or coherence, or coherence even to science’s own supposed standards itself, but only the terms of cognitive dissonance.
The only reason the average person has any respect for science is because 1) it gave them gadgets and pretty pictures, and 2) they have been led to believe that there is an intellectual barrier to cross in order to engage with science that they themselves do not qualify for, when in fact that barrier is entirely smoke and mirrors, entirely the front of pretending that really stupid and impossible and sophistical ideas are the truth, which then merely confuses the normal person and causes them to shrink away while they give the benefit of the doubt.
As I discussed in my book, and as Tanner shows in his book, is that science has no rational or coherent basis whatsoever, even on its own terms. Science ostensibly holds the Falsifiability Principle as paramount, and holds “to observe” as sacrosanct, yet, you cannot observe an exploded/unexploded bomb, and neither can you falsify (or prove) an exploded/unexploded bomb. Science violates its own terms and conditions at its very basis, in its most “important” theories, etc.
You’re not looking at a rational or productive enterprise here with modern science…rather, you’re looking at an attack on consciousness, at an attack on the mind, at an attack on people and trying to convince people that their lives are meaningless!
Does science give society a healthy philosophical orientation around which its people can think of themselves and to develop under? The very question is absurd…science seeks nothing but to destroy humanity and consciousness…it is the most directed attack against humanity as a whole which has ever occurred, which humanity has ever had to survive. The philosophy of genocide, of ultimate self-extinction, is the immediate end-point of modern science.
While Hockney provides the entire philosophical basis of the ridiculousness of modern science, I have provided a real-world and easy-to-understand example that exposes the sheer magnitude of idiocy of the entire edifice of the scientific academic establishment. They are, almost to the last man, flat Earth theorists, and they will go out of their way to defend it!
When the rare scientist engages with me on these rational questions, they only seem to take it as, and only ever accuse me or question me of, simply attacking science for some unknown reason, that I must be a science denier. That’s as far as their thinking goes, that seems to be the ultimate depth of their ability to reason things through. They seem unable to identify or to grock that what I’m criticizing, and what I’m attacking, are bad ideas such as flat Earth theory being the basis of climate alarmism, and bad ideas like bombs being both exploded and unexploded, and bad ideas like life must be meaningless and purposeless (which is a direct result of the exploded/unexploded bomb fallacy believe it or not!), etc.
I am a scientist, and I make a living in science. What motive would I have in simply “attacking science”? They seem entirely unable to consider that I might have a legitimate motive focused on improving science, based on criticizing science’s existing silly ideas like the flat Earth theory of climate alarmism, and the meaninglessness and purposelessness of exploded/unexploded bombs which fly in the face of the scientific method in the first place. They seem unable to detect the incoherences I am plainly point out and instead think I must simply wish to attack science…when what I am attacking is science “accidentally” accepting flat Earth theory, science “accidentally” accepting cognitively dissonant philosophy and ideas at its basis. They simply seem to be not thinking at all…not capable of reflection and logical analysis, or imaging purposeful criticism, etc.
At this point, sure, I am attacking science, because science is obviously in a very bad way if it is unable to reflect upon the logic of flat Earth theory, the logic of exploded/unexploded bombs, the logic of being 100% dependent upon mathematics but then ridiculing that mathematics has anything necessary to do with reality, etc. And so, sure, you’re goddamned right I’m “attacking” science, if that is all of the imagination that you’re able to generate and ponder on someone who criticizes extrapolations from flat Earth theory as being valid physics.
So what has science produced? It has produced a grotesque, lazy, anti-spiritual species that hates itself, that lives for gadgetry and gadgetry alone, and playing with gadgetry, and becoming more intimate with gadgetry than with other people, etc. Look at “science” producing life-like blow-up dolls for male companionship.
This outlook of meaningless and purposelessness are the most soul-crushing ideas ever produced by humanity…and while you may rightly criticize religions, at least most religions wanted you to live, wanted you to have some purpose for living. This religion of scientism, the religion of scientific materialism, is indeed a religion for philosophical zombies, and one can only consider that it is indeed some form of philosophical zombie, i.e. the “autistics” as Tanner identifies them, which created it. Some machine species.
We damned well have to fix this, and we know exactly where to start. I showed it and talked about it my book, and Tanner and Hockney (etc.) have likewise identified precisely where we need to start. And it is obvious where: science’s stupid ideas, like exploded/unexploded bombs, and its irrational hostility towards mathematics and Idealism in general.
Footnote: The few times that Tanner, in this book, trashes Trump and “the right”, you will certainly recognize cognitive dissonance here and those phrases are put there for a purpose: because machines cannot recognize contradiction, or cognitive dissonance, etc. They’re put in there to confuse the machine-people enemy. The idea that today’s left, which is synonymous with and the result of Scientism, has any connection to reality, reason, rationality, empathy or sympathy, kindness, or General Will to the good, is obviously a farce. I’m pretty sure that the Hockney writing group or some extended branch of it is in some way connected to the Q operation and the Trump presidency, and Tanner actually makes that case, although not directly, in another one of his books.
PLEASE read Tanner’s book. Human civilization, and your very soul, depend on it. Seriously! That’s not an exaggeration. I’m 100% serious. That’s the war we’re facing today, the war we’re in today.
Choose! CHOOSE! CHOOSE!
Meaninglessness and purposelessness of the philosophy of scientific materialism.
The best of all possible worlds, the best of all possible outcomes, the greatest meaning and purpose imaginable from Idealism and Rationalism, expressed in reality through our very own lives via Ontological Mathematics.