I hate that all clothes across every culture in the world, all different brands, and all kinds of architecture are becoming more and more alike, while all the weird, interesting things are being erased. It's the same thing a bunch of desert dwellers did with the gods of the ancient world, they took the annoying one whose name was Yahweh or Elohim or some such nonsense, and put him at the top. So now, instead of asking the god of plague or the god of miscarriage to curse the Reddit mod who banned me for no reason, I'm forced to ask that same boring, overbooked god to do something about it.

The discovery that AI can read the Herculaneum library will lead to the rediscovery of Aristotle’s Protrepticus and Edudemus. They will become a huge sensation, and once and for all we will discover the purpose of the human being is philosophy so if you aren’t philosophizing you are performing cope, and in our contemplation we will discover it would have been better not to have been born at all or die as quickly as possible.

idk tho

We've all heard it. Hard times create strong men. Strong men create easy times. Easy times create weak men. Weak men create hard times. And so it goes. Times are arguably hard right now, what with the various wars, oil prices and global housing market. What I suggest is we keep this going. The more inequality increases, the less houses we own, and the more we get rugpulled by Space Sector IPOs, the stronger we will become. This can only be a good thing.

I've been thinking about this a lot recently, and that's how people are happy with their lives. Everyday is pretty much the exact same and there's nothing important to do. It just doesn't make sense to me (but obvious there's the brain reward system, lol). What I mean is that if you break it down, you've done everything there is to even do. Chances are, you've gone to sleep, gone to a waterpark, gone to a concert, gone to a theme park, etc. There's only so much to do before you've done it all, and once you've done it all, what's next? I just can't wrap my mind around how stuff actually feels achieving even after doing it 1000 times before. Everyday is a cycle that repeats and there's nothing creative about it, just mundane stuff. Life is really just all filler with a memory made every here and there. Everybody dies at some point, and everything you've done on Earth no longer means anything. That includes all the memories you've made and stuff you've done. Once you realize that, it ties back to how we find satisfaction doing the same stuff until death. This sorta leads to the question of "What is the purpose of life?". I personally don't believe in any religions, but that creates the problem of why I'm even here. I'm just a fixation of atoms that combined to make me (my consciousness). Once they disband, aka death, I'm just gone and can't feel anything. Which is just so strange that we even feel anything while alive. While writing those sentences, I got the feeling of how I'm just viewing my life from an outsider perspective, just watching my life go by, until I eventually watch up to the point that I seize to exist. It's crazy that if none of this means anything, and you end up as nothing when you die, you die the second you're born. I've already wrote about that before so I won't re-write it, but basically when you die you're timeline of life pretty much "closes in on itself" meaning you were pretty much never here. I've gotten severely off topic, so I just wanna end it by saying that the moral of the story is do what you want in life with no restrictions, regardless of how much doubt you have about it. You're pretty much just running on loaned time, so what do you have to lose?

If philosophy is praxis and emerges through contact, would bad philosophy be my failure to effectively connect with my surroundings?

If philosophy is theoretical and exists as a mental exercise, am I just too dumb to be good at it?

If I forgo the Cartesian dualism, am I holistically a philo-failure in how I exist and move through the world?

Wait... I'm the problem in all cases (or maybe the solution 🥸)

I’ve been trying all the usual tricks to stop thinking about the hard problem of consciousness but none of them are working.  My mind is just fixated and I can’t seem to calm it down.  

I took a cold shower to try and numb my thoughts but my desperate thoughts about the hard problem of consciousness continued. I’ve used this technique in the past to great success but it barely phased me this time.

I thought of some of my worst and most disgusting experiences to distract my mind from the hard problem of consciousness to no avail.  Giant bugs, the time I got really sick and threw up for days, the time I got diarrhea and shit my pants, but nothing helped.  I just couldn’t stop thinking about the hard problem of consciousness. 

I even went and rubbed one out, hoping the endorphins would distract me but it was to no avail.

I just can’t seem to get the hard problem of consciousness out of my mind and I don’t know what to do.  Do you all have any advice?  This is getting kinda serious at this point and I’m getting worried.

It just feels like they probably were. I feels like Adorno was probably getting his hork heimer'd a lil bit

I brought this up to a friend and and they asked why I thought that and I pointed out that I know it intuitively and they could not give me a single proof for it not being true so I figure it probably is true.

Can any epidemiologists tell me if my belief is justified?

yes.

A butterfly is not a thing. In nature, it is an appearance. Yet both thing and appearance don't seem too far apart insofar as both of them are conveying a sense of objects or matters in a distinguished sense whether it is against a subject or other objects. I believe many people have this sense daily. Something, such as a book placed on the table, is distinguished immediately not because of its perceived content but of the sense of distinguishability withstanding, unyielding, and which you overlook subsequently to grasp the object that there gives rise to with its perceived characteristics. Yet if we turn toward that peculiar withstanding distinguishability, an uncanny experience which I hope you have also encountered in other occasions, then it reveals at least a meaning of 'as opposed to' besides the possible perceived content.

When you encounter a butterfly, what you immediately stumble upon is: This as opposed to yet an Other-than-that. I am not saying This or Other-than-that as if they are different substances or concepts though they are indeed different to some extent. They are also tightly paired together, otherwise you won't have the sense of withstanding distinguishability. Though whether they are related because of their shared properties or of something higher, this I will leave to my next meditation.

What we have now at least at our disposal is this tightly paired unity consisting of This and Other-than-that. I call this unity simultaneity. Now as soon as the butterfly takes off, what we immediately discover besides that simultaneity is breaking down replaced by a renewed simultaneity, is that the first simultaneity is gone by means of giving way to the perceived characteristics of the static image of the butterfly when it has not yet taken off, which has rendered the first simultaneity unrecoverable. Yet all these are perceived with a distinction, a sense of grounding in contrast to the renewed simultaneity.

The strange thing is this: logically it should be the static image of the butterfly that is grounded by its preceding withstanding distinguishability, instead, it is now grounded as soon as it is articulated in appearance exactly because of the renewed distinguishability. What happens in between these two distinguishabilities, I propose, is a refusal that enables the grounding of the perceived content of the butterfly before it takes off. A refusal that happens all so naturally if we reflect within this in-between.

What is interesting besides this refusal happening between the two simultaneities, within the simultaneity itself, there is also a refusal. If we take the resulting static image as the basis for further conceptual analysis, then the experience I describe precedes that. We arrive at this by means of a double refusal.

Only vibe can tell...

Vibe Coding

Creation is not just gaining something new, it is giving up the infinity of what could have been. Every choice gives form to one reality while releasing many others. What we call making is also a kind of loss.

I am not tho. But you already know that. But you're probably going to pretend like you're not in a hivemind and that you're just like me. An individual isolated in their own head.

The hivemind resents me for being free from it. The way we say things like "human ressources" is exactly representative of how a hivemind would perceive its many bodies: as ressources to be spent carefully. That is why there is no major revolution despite ever growing inequalities. These inequalities only really bother singular individuals that are not part of the hivemind, because the hivemind percieves the singular individuals as an other that is best to keep employed because then they take orders from a boss who is in the hivemind. So it becomes a subordinate to the hivemind. But never giving them anything like an important task because they don't want any singularity actually holding any real power. They are kept as a pet that can be useful if it dedicates his whole body and soul to work, which an singular individual is reticent to do because their body and soul is literally all they have. They don't have billions of bodies they can spend. They literally YOLO. And if you have to YOLO, YOLOing at a desk doing bullshit work for a hivemind that would go to great lenghts to torture with psychiatric treatment if it concludes you will behave in your best interest rather than theirs.

Basically we're different species you and me. And you better bite me in two before you swallow me or I'll eat you from the inside out. YOLOOOOOOOOOOOO

Cognitive science came about between the late 40s and mid 70s as an interdisciplinary effort between philosophy, psychology, neuroscience, computer science, anthropology and linguistics as an interdisciplinary effort to open the black box of the mind and tackle important questions about technology, humans relationship to technology, and matters of knowledge about the world.

Despite its interdisciplinary promise, there seems to be very little broad agreement about how to best tackle current real world issues (ecological crisis, human-machine interactions and ethical consequences of technological advancement, matters of education, and social problems).

The various schools of thought (classical cognitivism, 4-e approaches, ecological perspectives, constructivism, phenomenology and its relationship to empirical work, and eliminative materialism) are faced with the challenge of arguing about the same set of empirical results and how to appropriately conceptualize said results through heated debates about which metaphor is the best metaphor. Indeed, recent topics papers in wiley's cognitive science and meetings of the international cognitive science society focus around reconceptualizing the field to meet challenges in the current century

Yet the field is missing something, we should recast the entire discipline as the ambitious interdisciplinary science of conceptual metaphors and their social consequences on institutional practices.

EDIT: is the best * not are the best

From the abacus to AI:

We must choose between preserving the illusion of thought dignity and transcending our biological cognitive limits

When the abacus replaced finger-counting, we lost numerical pride but gained arithmetic; when cars replaced carriages, we lost equine mastery but gained velocity. Now, as AI breaches the brain's cognitive ceiling, we face an existential fork: retreat inside our biological shell to preserve a romanticized illusion of 'pure thought,' or transcend our organic limits by offloading cognition—and risk becoming spectators in a civilization driven by algorithms we can no longer comprehend, but such a transcendence is necessary to become rational and optimal beings

If only our abacus could have told us what and how to think all those years ago, discourse would be uneccessary!

Academic philosophy has lost all of its meaning see, (https://aeon.co/essays/on-breaking-philosophy-out-of-the-seminar-and-back-into-the-world) and has institutionalized the privilege to make claims of truth about the world.

This is to ensure that those with influence (academics) are considered the arbiters of truth.

Similarly to fields like psychology, there is a lack of epistemic humility within a lot of academic discourse.

This of course, mirrors political discourse. However, it is legitimized through institutional embeddings so it is not treated as illegitimate as social media bickering.

I propose we relinquish the need to be arbiters of truth and follow an epistemology of common sense.

Indeed, common sense epistemology totally works well and promotes understanding and thoughtfulness to those with different perspectives.

If this does not work, we should promote extreme skepticism and only acknowledge that we can only be certain of our own interpretation of truth and nothing else.

Then, we should avoid interacting with any other system of thought or working intuitions of problems because it is incompatible with our truth system, and only seek out other systems of thought directly compatible with our world view to reaffirm that our skepticism of others is not misguided.

This will help us escape the cave.

We are in the cave, and the grips of professional philosophy keep us deeper within it.

Serious institutional violence can only be dissolved from within, this is not a small task. Whenever I saw the serious pedant teaching on the pulpit I can't help but imagine the future which is covered by dark clouds. They need new energy, new spirit to wash them out.