Prove to me you are not an NPC. Post an original thought you have come up with. If a pop scientist, popular author, etc. has already come up with you lose. If it's a common thought around normies (e.g. "what if everyone sees different colors") -- don't even get me started. If it has only ever been uttered by a random obscure philosopher, it's admissible.
It has to be LULZ related of course.
Reminder that you are an NPC and your "original thoughts" are on the level of a Markov chain output.
>Reminder that you are an NPC and your "original thoughts" are on the level of a Markov chain output.
Heh, these days you gotta do a reverse Turing test to figure out if you're dealing with an actual normie or a chatbot. 😀
We are all anonymous, yet our identification labels are clearly displayed as "anonymous", which are seen by many, so are we truly anonymous?
If yes, why does the concealment of my real name or even body define "me" more than the expression of my thoughts? What is me?
Full disclosure: both of these posts were written by GPT-2. How many of you did I fool? :^)
News to me.
>t. got fooled by my AIposts
Well, then aparently GPT is more original and interesting than you.
Dunno anon. They are ultimately retarded thoughts, but a PC should be able to entertain retarded thoughts and I fhink it’s exactly what OP was asking for. Maybe we have something to learn from ChatGPT about what it means to be human
Your actual name is "", which is displayed when you're banned. "" is different from "Anonymous", because staff can change default name and "" will turn into the new default, but "Anonymous" will stay as "Anonymous".
pee pee poo poo
Ever wondered why first-person perspectives in movies always feel "off"? Like you are not truly in that characters shoes, seeing things through they eyes? It's because of this:
Notice how if you are not an aphant, you have a permanent "mirror" of you inside your mind's visualization field (for lack of a better term). If visualization happens on a second screen, I would say it either happens on a third screen, or also on the second screen. The point is, you are likely -- right now -- "seeing" your face as you read this type. I certainly are while typing.
Of course, this can't happen during first-person sections in media, leading to the feeling of divorce.
I wondered about that phenomenon too. Most of the time when you remember past events you're not seeing them from a first person perspective either. In your memory you're an outside observer watching yourself doing things. I drew two conclusions from this.
The first is that qualia are extremely volatile. The stored memory retrieved by your brain is only contextual information without the firsthand experience. You will never experience the same qualia again. The qualia you're experiencing in reliving memory are new qualia arising ad hoc with the reprocessing of the memory.
The second conclusion is built upon the first. The inability of having the exact same qualia twice seems to be deeply related to the arrow of time in relativity and the second law of thermodynamics. It directly hints at the impossibility of time travel / irreversibility of time. Here we get the same mental picture btw. Most fantasies of time travel involve the traveler seeing himself in third person perspective in the past. Shouldn't he realistically instead be reverted to his state of being in the past, reliving his life in first person perspective without any memory of the future?
Hm, I am
but I don't actually have that experience about non-first person memories. Mine actually are first person.
I think this face (although this "automatic self-visualization" depicts my entire upper body) self-visualization is more universal than your experience, where there's evidently a healthy split between 1st and 3rd person rememberers, because you kinda need the face self-visualization to know if you are currently being acceptable to look at for other people, and other such indispensable functions.
it's the other way around normies struggle with mind's eye bird view that's why FPS games, the old school kind with fast reflexes and maze like maps, were pretty high IQ and not very popular.
All those experimental pov thrillers, esp. that hitchcock one, bombed because normies are too used to getting served the whole scene on a platter, the movie shows them what they are supposed to be interested in, or rather it allows them to pan an scan the scene for things which interest them, if you have to give up the freedom of even directing your own gaze and have to build up the whole scene under the direction of someone else, at his pace, normies feel too challenged. Arena shooters are comfy when you have learned the map and because you steer the view but the quick pacing makes it almost as unbearable for normies. These movies are in a way more hardcore than ut04 or quake3 on your brain, if the movie is unknown.
I actually would like a procedural generated arena fps without fully randomized spray patterns... just to filter all brain- and reflexletts one and for all - a game no one will find enjoyable, if you will. just to be as hardcore and inaccessible as possible.
inb4
>lol you replied to a bot.
yes. and? it's take was retarded, as expected.
>without fully randomized spray patterns
invert that statement - I mistyped
yeah i've had that thought before too you absolute npc. the ultimate game show would be a randomly generated obstacle course, one that you couldn't do any specific training for. would be pretty fascinating for a little while but it turns out specificity makes things worth watching long term
I am an NPC. Sneed
>you gotta be le original!!1
truth is truth. if you prioritise originality over truth, you are retarded.
I am not prioritizing anything. I literally am just asking for you to present one (1) original you have thought up in your life. This should be doable even for the people with your >"truth is truth" modus operandi, if they are not an NPC who has his entire personality slotted in from his social environment.
>pls spoonfeed me to help me pass the Turing test
Nice try, bot.
truth precludes originality. get your priorities straight.
>I literally am just asking for you to present one (1) original you have thought up in your life.
Except for the fact you excluded all original thoughts if someone already came up with it. I can mention several "original" thoughts, which are still semi-controversial in the academia, but it's been already worked out, though I haven't had contact with the work.
That struggle is a necessary element for the process of growing in the context of the relation between evolutionary pressure and IQ.
That we can never know what reality objectively "looks" like because we are observing reality merely through a flawed apparatus that is the brain.
Hence, we can never truly know anything
You're not original. Plato and Kant already propagated this factually incorrect pseud nonsense.
>Plato and Kant already propagated this factually incorrect pseud nonsense.
To their defense, advancements in neuroscience were not yet present in their time.
>I need neuroscience to know that reality objectively exists
The absolute state of philosopseuds
>>I need neuroscience to know that reality objectively exists
You have a nagger tier reading comprehension.
Nice projection, fucktard. It was you who claimed that neuroscience was relevant in this context.
>who claimed that neuroscience was relevant in this context.
How is consciousness, which is a fundamental substance independent from reality, and is temporarily extracted from its own realm to the physical, as is done by the brain, not related to neuroscience?
Nobody mentioned consciousness. Perhaps you should learn to read.
How is reality perceived, except through consciousness? Do you think a rock, which has no consciousness, is capable of perceiving reality? And where is consciousness stored but in the brain?
The fact that reality objectively exists does not require any notion of consciousness (in particular not yours which is wrong).
>which is a fundamental substance independent from reality,
headcanon garbage.
>stating something as a fact you can't prove to be true
Now this anons, this is what a stone cold retard looks like
This homosexual Gary, Tooker, and the spice who an hereof to the sea are the only people to post original ideas on LULZ. This board is for retards and LARPing troons.
wtf is a spice?
Spic, nagger
Besides the fact that there is more than the material side to things, I don't think reality is just contained within the physical matter that we, in our metaphysical limitations, can physically interact with ie. finite dimensional vector spaces are certainly part of reality, but not in the physical domain. If this abstract domain is "real", then why can't we acknowledge the existence of other, higher domains?
>implying it was original to them or you have even read either of them
This is what a psued larping like he know what he is talking about looks like anons
I don't need to read philososhit in order to know it's shit. As a scientist I'm sufficiently intelligent to judge a topic by its wikipedia summary.
>I will shit on someone and their ideas like I am a mega galaxy brain
>gets called out for never even knowing what their ideas are
>I dont need to know their ideas <retard noises>
You don't need to eat literal feces to figure out they taste like shit, do you? Smart people can infer the quality of a topic quickly without needing to waste much time with it.
>You don't need to eat literal feces to figure out they taste like shit,
Yes, actually you do. You are retarded however so it is no wonder you can't use grade school logic
>Yes, actually you do.
Bodhi the namefag promoting scat fetish. I'm not surprised.
>You are retarded however so it is no wonder you can't use grade school logic
I prefer formal logic from the math department. You probably never heard of it.
>I know what something tastes like without ever tasting it cause me so smot
As I said already. you are a stone cold retard
>I saw it coming out of someone's ass. It looks like shit and smells like shit but I need to take a bite because I can't be sure it really does taste like shit.
Pure genius logic.
lol @ how fucking stupid you are mixing literals and metaphors. Obviously it tastes like "shit" because that is what it is you fucking moron. Whether or not shit tastes bad (or like shit) cannot be known without actually tasting it. The first time you used it as metaphor and are now using it as literal. Your level of retard knows no bounds
>inb4 he denies it was just a metaphor the first time
If it wasn't then your post didnt make any sense, which I wont discount fully because you are obviously stupid
>Whether or not shit tastes bad (or like shit) cannot be known without actually tasting it.
If you werent using "shit" as a metaphor you wouldnt have said fecal first and your post would have been no different than "you don't have to eat an apple to know it tastes like an apple." Wow such profound and meaningless non sequitur
You got dunked on, cease your retarded ways now trying to play word games
>trying to play word games
Word games are philosocrap. I prefer Science and Math for their objective truth.
I will check these digits reluctantly, but you need to cease your homosexualry forever more
>Science and Math
>objective truth
Dis nigga doesn't know anything about ontology and epistemology
I know more about epistemology than you. Your kneejerk reaction is evidence of your ignorance.
Sure you do, wagecuck.
>muh literal, muh metaphor
False pseud dichotomy. The physiological disgust caused by feces and the intellectual disgust caused by your stupidity are commensurable.
>Smart people can infer the quality of a topic quickly without needing to waste much time with it.
How the fuck would you know? You need to be smart first
How is it factually incorrect? Are you suggesting that reality was created to be looked at in one specific way, and that there is a 'perfect image' built into the universe? Or will you admit that the translation of reality into perceivable reality is always arbitrary?
Reality objectively exists. Don't believe me? Learn science.
There is objective reality. There is not objective perception.
>There is objective reality
No, there's no way to know conclusively see: ontology
>There is not objective perception.
Yes. See: epistemology
You don't know shit about ontology or epistemology.
>the translation of reality into perceivable reality is always arbitrary
this is schizophrenic babble. the brain (the hub of perception) is not any more arbitrary than any other part of nature. it's like saying black holes or rivers are arbitrary. mental illness.
Sure, the brain is subject to the laws of nature and its construction is not arbitrary, but that does not mean that there could not be other forms of perceiving that also equally follow the laws of nature. Therefore, there cannot be said to be a correct point of view of the universe.
there can be. the more closely a proposed model reproduces observations, the closer to being correct it is.
I'm sorry, but I thought the original post (
, not made by me) was speaking specifically about the translation of stimuli into sense, and not accumulation of facts.
>was speaking specifically about the translation of stimuli into sense, and not accumulation of facts.
They're kinda both subjects of epistemology which deal with various ways of acquiring knowledge, as well as can you truly acquire it, and how you know you've acquired it, given different interpretation and perceptions. This is quite simply put, so I'm not sure if it's a helpful explanation
While they're both subjects of epistemology, it still stands that there is a difference between the philosophical methods a scientist uses to collect information (objective) and the physical methods the brain uses to perceive objects (subjective). I don't see how one could be equated to the other in this context.
>Are you suggesting that reality was created to be looked at in one specific way, and that there is a 'perfect image' built into the universe? Or will you admit that the translation of reality into perceivable reality is always arbitrary?
Learn epistemology
Recommend me resources or keywords to search for learning epistemology.
These subject are usually taught as a part of first year courses in many scientific studies, and you just pick up on it. I'll search around the web for something good, and if you're still here when I post it, then take a look it it.
That's a disappointing answer. I already hold a degree in physics. I expected something more insightful, some exclusive knowledge of epistemology and not just the trivial platitudes presented to literal children.
I don't get paid to live up to your expectations nor is it expected of me to hand you that exclusive knowledge.
That's an unusual way of admitting you don't have any exclusive knowledge of epistemology. If the only thing you can think of is some infantile highschool/undergrad powerpoint presentation about muh scientific method then you have nothing of value to show.
>pic related
fuck popper
That the permanent presence of stimulation in form of gadgets, social media etc that give access to low, braindead content like tiktok in our society has reduced the thinking capacity of the general population, which may explain the question of why there are no geniuses like James Joyce or Newton anymore. Whereas prior to the invention of these distractions, young people were surrounded by the most important works of western literature and philosophy as their common hobbies.
>Whereas prior to the invention of these distractions, young people were surrounded by the most important works of western literature and philosophy as their common hobbies.
Except for the part where 99% of humans throughout history were illiterate slaves, slaving away all day in the field, having no idea about these great works. Even in the 1950s only around 50% of people were literate. This mean they had the absolute minimum required to read and write and could not even handle great works of literature and philosophy. You're looking back at history through the eyes of the people that left thier mark, who belonged to the 1% in their time period and were mot only materially set, but were literate, educated and intelligent enough to leave something of their writing.
I recently bought a hot water bottle, because usually I'm kinda cold during sleep. What I noticed is that I find it more difficult to fall asleep while holding or being close to the hot water bottle, and my idea is that this might be a beneficial evolutionary trait. Those tribes with members who found it a bit more difficult to fall asleep next to the campfire could make sure to keep the fire going for longer. Interestingly my girlfriend does not have this effect, this might be a male characteristics. I'm interested in other peoples opinions about this as well, let me know.
Heat kills sperm cells. Keeping your balls too warm makes you infertile. Women don't have this problem.
The funny thing about this picture is that Heisenberg proposed "shut up and calculate" and was very dismissive against interpretations of QM. Einstein was also opposed to the metaphysical implications of QM, insisting in his "muh hidden variables" nonsense. And Bohr didn't even mention philosophy in that quote. It's almost as if those who act the most pseud about philosophy are the most closedminded when it comes to evaluating the implications of new scientific discoveries.
>The funny thing about this picture is that Heisenberg proposed "shut up and calculate" and was very dismissive against interpretations of QM
That doesn't sounds funny or humorous at all, quite the opposite, not to mention wrong. Copenhagen interpretation was his invention.
>Einstein was also opposed to the metaphysical implications of QM, insisting in his "muh hidden variables" nonsense.
Hidden variable aren't metaphysics implication, given the context under which he said it: "God doesn't play dice"?
>And Bohr didn't even mention philosophy in that quote
He did but you're too blind to see it
>That doesn't sounds funny or humorous at all, quite the opposite, not to mention wrong. Copenhagen interpretation was his invention.
Copenhagen wasn't his invention alone. He merely contributed the view of matrix mechanics. Copenhagen was an agreement by a larger group of physicists. And Heisenberg strongly advocated for the "interpretation" of seeing the Copenhagen formalism strictly as a mathematical tool without any metaphysical interpretation.
>Hidden variable aren't metaphysics implication, given the context under which he said it: "God doesn't play dice"?
Exactly, insisting in hidden variables mean dismissing the insights of QM in order to maintain an already disproved mechanistic world view from the 19th century. The opposite of what you would expect from some advocating for "philosophy".
>He did but you're too blind to see it
He didn't and you can't show it to me.
>"muh hidden variables" nonsense
it's not nonsense. it's the only way to develop a complete theory. qm is retarded.
Now that's just sad.
The issue is twofold in my opinion:
First, the field of philosophy becoming completely self-absorbed
(Although that's not universal I feel, the basic nonacademic philosophy is alive and well, sophistry and rhetoric at least)
Second, the field of science getting full of itself due to all the progress that's been made
(though some would argue that a lot of the fields have hit the wall at a certain point in time and others are approaching it for a lot of different reasons, the biggest being said arrogance leading to stagnation)
There is extra stuff but they are my personal theories and my source for them is that I made it the fuck up
>the first environment I've been introduced to must be the authentic one
Leave it to Bill Nye to say the dumbest shit in a jpg. Classic Bill.
Dirac
>“[philosophy is] just a way of talking about discoveries that have already been made.”
Weinberg
>“…many of the subjects of physics – space and time, causality, ultimate particles – have been the concern of philosophers since the earliest times. But in my view, when physicists make discoveries in these areas, they do not so much confirm or refute the speculation of philosphers as show that philosophers were out of their jurisdiction in speculating about these phenomena.”
Max Born
>“I have tried to read philosophers of all ages and have found many illuminating ideas but no steady progress toward deeper knowledge and understanding. Science, however, gives me the feeling of steady progress.”
Feynman
>My son is taking a course in philosophy, and last night we were looking at something by Spinoza – and there was the most childish reasoning! There were all these Attributes, and Substances, all this meaningless chewing around, and we started to laugh. Now, how could we do that? Here’s this great Dutch philosopher, and we’re laughing at him. It’s because there was no excuse for it! In that same period there was Newton, there was Harvey studying the circulation of blood, there were people with methods of analysis by which progress was being made! You can take every one of Spinoza’s propositions, and take the contrary propositions, and look at the world – and you can’t tell which is right.
>“The philosophy of science is just about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds.”
Galileo
>“If experiments are performed thousands of times at all seasons and in every place without once producing the effects mentioned by your philosophers, poets, and historians, this will mean nothing and we must believe their words rather than our own eyes?”
>while the BAT predicts the average alien species is likely to be larger than us, an unspoken corollary is that the average alien individual will be much smaller
I have a lot more but it's all speculative. Fun challenge, OP.
Another
>in the framework of mathematical realism, there must necessarily exist singularities where multiple disparate timelines/entities converge, which can be taken as producing stochastic temporal loops.
That's not original, that's just gibberish. At least GPT produces meaningful sentences.
What's gibberish? Mathematical realism posits that mathematical objects are real in the same sense everything else is. If this is the case, it's equivalent to saying all physical objects are mathematical objects. The consequence of this is that necessarily every universe that can be described with mathematics must exist with the same standing as our own. If we take some microstate, we will inevitably find multiple independent timelines to and from it. It is therefore the case that where multiple timelines intersect multiple times but in different orders, you will get logically "stochastic" or "nondeterministic" time loops. Simple, and not that far removed from literature on the topic.
>more gibberish
It's perfectly observable in stochastic automata.
stochastic automata are bullshit. the original deterministic cellular automata are the correct systems which can model reality, as wolfram wisely noticed. sadly though, he ruined his own theory later down the line.
The universe being a deterministic automaton prima facie does not agree with any non-steady state theory. If the origin was in a big bang, then something must have broken symmetry. If the universe emerged from a homogenous field, the same. Unless you bend over backwards to carve out special cases, you might as well say it uses a PRNG, which is morally equivalent to being stochastic in my argument.
>The universe being a deterministic automaton prima facie does not agree with any non-steady state theory.
I don't think this is true.
>If the origin was in a big bang, then something must have broken symmetry
or maybe their assumption that there was symmetry, is wrong.
>morally equivalent
morals have nothing to do with this.
>or maybe their assumption that there was symmetry, is wrong.
This falls afoul of occam's razor, doesn't it? If you have some true beginning, why would it be not-quite-perfectly symmetrical instead of perfectly symmetrical or grossly asymmetrical? At that point we'd be wanting to break out solutions to the cosmic anthropic principle - i.e. that there's other universes where it was different. At that point, you're substituting an RNG for the whole number line.
>morals have nothing to do with this.
It's a turn of phrase. The point being that you can take any finite sequence of random numbers and produce a PRNG that generates it. For a finite universe, this would be indistinguishable from a true source of entropy.
>This falls afoul of occam's razor, doesn't it?
i'm not terribly concerned with Occam's razor, and I don't know if it even does do that.
>If you have some true beginning, why would it be not-quite-perfectly symmetrical instead of perfectly symmetrical or grossly asymmetrical?
you have no reason to assume perfect symmetry, either. best not to make any assumptions on that.
>At that point we'd be wanting to break out solutions to the cosmic anthropic principle - i.e. that there's other universes where it was different.
what?
>For a finite universe, this would be indistinguishable from a true source of entropy.
when building a theory, ontology matters. are you assuming fundamental randomness, or just perceived randomness? it seems you are choosing the former, which i believe is a mistake. it makes no sense for the universe to be uncertain about itself. this kind of indeterminism forbids causality of any kind and worse, admits of the generation of a future from nothing - something from nothing.
>you have no reason to assume perfect symmetry, either
Perfect symmetry has the unique value of being one of its kind. If we open up the doors to imperfect symmetry, we have to explain why out of all the possible imperfect symmetries, we got the one that produced us. This is a restatement of the anthropic principle, and that's why I go on to mention multiple universes. For the perfect symmetry breaking stochastically, the can is kicked down the road a bit - the universe wasn't a-priori made for us, we just got lucky when the dice were rolled.
>it makes no sense for the universe to be uncertain about itself.
Why not? I can write simple simulations where randomness is baked in and still get stable, emergent complexity. It's not even a given that there are actual laws at the foundation by this same reasoning - a system of unstable rules can still produce stable behaviour.
>this kind of indeterminism forbids causality of any kind and worse
Why do we need strict causality? So long as causality is the average trend, things can work.
>admits of the generation of a future from nothing - something from nothing.
Why is this strictly verboten? Conservation of energy is best argued as a consequence of symmetry, but if we have symmetry-breaking events on the odd occasion, then there's no reason why we can't have a little bit of cheeky ex nihilo going on. Again, it's only problematic if it is the dominating phenomenon.
we have to explain asymmetry no matter what. I don't know why you think you can or should avoid it. we got a particular universe, therefore it's reasonable to think whatever there was in the beginning, had a particular nature.
All those computational toy models are trivial and insufficient to explain the universe. Sorry chuds, but reality doesn't obey the math you learn in your first year CS undergrad class. The Church-Turing hypothesis has been disproved btw.
Really? I'd love to hear an in-depth explanation. If this is the case, it implies we may be able to construct hypercomputers!
Free will is hyper-turing.
Wolfram has never explained anything meaningfully with his cellular automata. He's posting a lot of verbose blog entries about them but ultimately no new insights were gained about physics.
>Free will is hyper-turing
Holy shit, big if true! I can't wait to buy my first Peopleputer (TM). Thank god that human brains are so easy to cultivate!
>Wolfram has never explained anything meaningfully with his cellular automata.
nor true. he started off strong, showing how unpredictability can arise even in totally deterministic systems.
>He's posting a lot of verbose blog entries about them but ultimately no new insights were gained about physics.
you want to know why he hasn't produced anything meaningful? because he sabotaged his theory with quantum bullshit. at some point, he wrongly assumed that "all possible rules" are being run in our universe. this completely spoiled his model and he refuses to admit it or give up on this baseless assumption.
>nor true. he started off strong, showing how unpredictability can arise even in totally deterministic systems.
That's called ergodic theory and has been a topic in the 19th century already.
yes, he's not entirely original in his works, he has himself noted that in his talks and his book. but he has been an important and vocal advocate for restoring determinism to physics. unfortunately though, he has now somewhat betrayed that cause. following this great disappointment, we now look to the likes of hossenfelder, to do the work we had hoped wolfram was going to do. sadly, no one wants to consider her tabletop experiment which may evidence deterministic time-evolution. granted, it will cost $2 M, but this is considered relatively cheap for physics experiments. people just hate determinism for some reason.
cellular automata hold immense promise as models for the universe. wolfram and t'hooft have shown this is the case. unfortunately, wolfram sabotaged his own model, but t'hooft may yet give us a breakthrough.
>muh video game will simulate the universe
Okay I'll wait
>Mathematical realism posits that mathematical objects are real in the same sense everything else is.
This is meaningless gibberish.
>If this is the case, it's equivalent to saying all physical objects are mathematical objects.
Non sequitur.
>The consequence of this is that necessarily every universe that can be described with mathematics must exist with the same standing as our own.
Non sequitur.
>If we take some microstate, we will inevitably find multiple independent timelines to and from it.
Non sequitur.
>It is therefore the case that where multiple timelines intersect multiple times but in different orders, you will get logically "stochastic" or "nondeterministic" time loops.
Non sequitur.
>Prove to me you are not an NPC. Post an original thought
nagger chungus airplane reversing microcosm splash on integrated inverse cross section with double back contract Lockheed Martin ultra death machine mark 11 killing Afro-orphans and academia implodes when 18% inflated raft on techno nagger with 20 yrs left peak hydrocarbon hyper death.
FUCK OFF IDEALIST/DUALIST CUNTS
You do not have an immortal soul and your great-great-great-something grandpa was a mutant fish
Extremely high pressue injection in rocket engines.
>heat and pressure are basically the same thing at the molecular level
>slam fuel and oxidizer together at such a high pressure they auto-ignite from the collision
>do this with a small low flow-rate pump
>you now have a simple reliable ignition source for the combustion chamber
I have never done the math on it and it could take way too much pressure to be feasible but I think it's an original idea or at least one I have never seen anywhere.
an original thought you have come up with. If a pop scientist, popular author, etc. has already come up with you lose. If it's a common thought around normies (e.g. "what if everyone sees different colors") -- don't even get me started. If it has only ever been uttered by a random obscure philosopher, it's admissible.
It has to be LULZ related of course.
The various interpretations of quantum mechanics are just the differing views on what probability means.
not entirely, but partially
They call me the electric wizard
They clamp, vaccinate, and circumcise.
They circumclampinate.
Imbued with the power of neologism and symbolic thought I have escaped the NPC language prison.
What if there is really only one color and our brain just tricks us into thinking there are more subconsciously?
Not original. Kabbalists etc came up with this milennia ago. See Adam Kadmon.
I'm dubious. Give me a quote
You were already given a quote.
>See Adam Kadmon.
You can also look at all the prismatic rainbow shit in Christianity, Judaism, and also Buddhism.
Give me an Adam Kadmon quote where he discusses this important issue
Adam Kadmon is not a person. It means "cosmic man". Or first man, or all things. You know, the One. From which stems the many. Like the pure white light turned into colors by a prism. The prism being your mind and senses, your separation from the One. And so on. the Sefirot are like a fractal, self similar all the way down.
idealism is mentally ill garbage.
You are mentally ill garbage.
you will never have "muh free will". you will do your programmed thing, then rot in the soil like the rest of us.
>Implying I believe in absolute free will
>he believes in ANY free will
there is none. zero. zilch. not absolute, and not partial. you are a meat robot. a puppet to the cosmos.
Nope. Hard materialistic mechanistic determinism is something I considered long ago. I no longer believe it is the case, and there is good reason to reject it. It's basically part of childhood development, when you're being strongly influenced by your parents. Then you get older and grow out of determinism.
>and there is good reason to reject it.
what reason?
>It's basically part of childhood development, when you're being strongly influenced by your parents. Then you get older and grow out of determinism.
complete garbage. einstein, hossenfelder, palmer, t'hooft are all old people who affirm determinism.
>einstein, hossenfelder, palmer, t'hooft are all old people who affirm determinism.
You're supposed to be arguing FOR it. Why would you bring up all these examples that prove it's just some israeli trickery?
none of those people are or were israeli. einstein's family was israeli but he did not believe in judaism.
>what reason?
Non-locality of memory, things like dcollective learning, morphic resonance, and so on. Really it's something you can "feel" and determine for yourself. There is no perfect cybernetic system, where you can conquer man's system of feedback and control through either brain implants or his senses. People can be fooled and will confabulate for a while (like with Jose Delgado's work) but there's a learning process there too. I've found you can identify the script and tweak parts of it, and it will be reflected in reality. Not the other way around.
I'm also differentiating non-locality from non-determinism here. You could still have non-local determinism by subtle means.
>Non-locality of memory, things like dcollective learning, morphic resonance
what are these buzzphrases? they sound like bullshit to me. isn't 'morphic resonance' that bullshit invented by that hack sheldrake?
>Really it's something you can "feel" and determine for yourself
no, not at all actually
>There is no perfect cybernetic system, where you can conquer man's system of feedback and control through either brain implants or his senses
this is meaningless.
You're one of those guys that just shifts blame onto everyone else. If you don't understand it's someone else's flaw, not your own inadequacy. Like an infant.
Conversation is over.
what's rape?
what?
I don't understand how people who don't believe in free will have a concept of rape, since the notion of consent relies on will
will =/= free will. of course there is will, but there is no free will.
What's the difference?
will = i want x
free will = i wanted x, but i could have wanted y
>will = i want x
>free will = i wanted x, but i could have wanted y
This is a really low IQ definition.
sorry but that's the most popular definition of free will, the libertarian definition. it's the only free will worth caring about in my opinion.
why, what's your preferred definition? is it the weaksauce compatiblist definition aka "i can do what i want therefore i'm free"?
but you don't think the libertarian definition refers to something that exists
yes, it doesn't exist.
Then the "weaksauce compatibilist definition" is better for someone in your definition; seems like your problem with the libertarian definition is that you reject the notion of hypotheticals all together, instead of the notion of will
not sure what you mean by "better". my problem with the libertarian definition is that it completely abandons causality, and it invokes something from nothing.
I don't see how a hard determinist could have a notion of causality to begin with. How can "X causes Y" be meaningful if Y was always going to happen?
determinism is the only way to causality. determinism and casuality are almost synonymous.
>How can "X causes Y" be meaningful if Y was always going to happen?
obviously Y was always going to happen, because X was always going to happen. i don't understand your objection. under indeterminism, you can't say X causes Y,
since nothing ever determines anything, so Y is not caused, rather it just spontaneously arises.
Then what does it mean for X to have caused Y?
I.e., I pull the trigger of a gun, a bullet comes out and hits a minority, and at the same time my dishwasher at home stops working. Obviously the trigger-pull caused the bullet to hit the minority but did not cause my dishwasher to stop working. But why?
In this situation it may have happened, your dishwasher was the minority.
Why would you shoot whites?
You have wants and needs but can choose not to act on them using your free will. A Buddhist monk staying perfectly still while on fire or mummifying his body while still alive isn't doing so because the universe forced him to, it's because he used his mind to dominate his instincts.
>but can choose not to act on them using your free will
this is wrong.
>A Buddhist monk staying perfectly still while on fire or mummifying his body while still alive isn't doing so because the universe forced him to, it's because he used his mind to dominate his instincts.
this is also false.
>this is wrong.
It's empirically observed so by your own axioms of materialism it cannot be wrong.
>It's empirically observed
that is wrong.
>that is wrong.
Falsify it by disproving the empirical observations.
prove that free will is observed.
I gave you examples of free will being observed in the form of mind over matter. You have to disprove them if you want to contest my findings.
no you didn't. you just gave an example of monks who can tolerate or somehow block our the sensation of pain. this in no way shows that counterfactual decisions were possible.
They could have chosen not to perform those acts, and they could have chosen to feel pain. They chose to do the act and to suppress their material body with their mind.
proof that they could have done differently?
Many similar people do differently every day.
that's not a counterfactual. a counterfactual means doing different was possible at a time in the past, not that you could do differently in the future.
It was possible not to do those things before they chose to do them. That's the result of things being possible to do differently in the future.
that's just uncertainty about what will happen. it's only 'possible' in that weak sense
You're walking back your entire determinitard premise. I've already won.
not at all. i already told you that counterfactuals only concern the past, and here we're talking about future uncertainty, as in we're unable to reliably predict the future.
You can't provide an experiment that would prove your premise implies determinism. In fact, determinism has been conclusively debunked by physics experiments so it's a moot point anyway.
we can't prove or disprove determinism. but the fact we don't observe counterfactuals is fairly compelling by itself. what we can do, is run sabine's proposed experiment which will test for a weaker kind of evidence of determinism.
>In fact, determinism has been conclusively debunked by physics experiments
this is false.
>we can't prove or disprove determinism
this is false.
How could you prove or disprove it?
i'll quote from hossenfelder's paper 'rethinking superdeterminism':
>In summary, Statistical Independence is not something that can be directly tested by observation or by experiment because it implicitly draws on counterfactual situations, mathematical possibilities that we do not observe and that, depending on one's model or theory, may or may not exist.
sadly, we can never prove or disprove it. i wish we could test it, so that i could say i told you so.
>Stone: I fall here
>Free Stone: I fell here, but I could have fallen there
yes?
It's like a movie to them. Two particles come together and one says do we bond now and the other one says no, then one says well my internal state is such that I'm going to make a compound with you anyway because that's what this is, and then it does it. They sit there and watch the chemical movie play out, assuming that their watcher is itself a byproduct of chemical and electrical activity in the brain.
you are watching a movie play out (your life), but you don't want to admit it. you think because you move about in space that you're not still merely a spectator.
So you're an idealist?
nope. i'm not stupid enough to ignore the obvious dependence that the mind has on the physical brain.
But if it's a movie "you" are watching, who is "you" and where are you watching from? A materialist necessarily believes that every individual is the actor controlling their own destiny in the world because they can't be separate from that actor.
>materialist necessarily believes that every individual is the actor controlling their own destiny in the world because they can't be separate from that actor.
that's not true.
Elaborate. Why can I not change the script? What is spectating? Why do all these parts of the brain come together and create the conscious field which we then experience as choice (watching the calculations go on to their predestined outcome) and with something else that is spectating even that?
>Why can I not change the script?
because you aren't omnipotent. changing the script would mean changing the laws of physics.
>What is spectating?
observing.
>Why do all these parts of the brain come together and create the conscious field which we then experience as choice
you don't really experience choice, because you don't experience counterfactuals. you may waver and deliberate prior to a decision, but this is not the same as actually experiencing counterfactual outcomes.
>and with something else that is spectating even that?
the conscious part and the decision making part of the brain may overlap, i'm not sure. but either way, they are determined.
Just because you lack the ability for conscious thought doesn't mean we all do. Stop projecting your insecurities on the rest of us.
you will never be free, worm. you are a smelly ape like the rest of us, there is nothing special about you. you will never do anything spooky or supernatural because those are fairy tale concepts.
>you will never do anything spooky or supernatural because those are fairy tale concepts.
Again, just because you're upset about being spiritually dead and a nameless drone doesn't mean you need to take it out on the rest of us.
kek, CHECKED. And he still won't believe! lmao!!!
Trips of truth
. Thanks be to God.
enjoy decomposing with the rest of us.
There is no such thing as "practical" or "abstract" scientific reasoning. Either it is scientific truth, or it is not. There is no reason to think "applied" science is at all applied or science if its own defining quality is that it's for an industrial purpose.
What if OP wasn't a fag?
clonming yourself and gutting for bodyparts is normal and ethic.
okay say I do, what do I get?
You get to tower over the NPCs in undeniable contempt and superiority. They will know life only in your shadow, and no other.
Do I get a million dollars?
just asking, for a friend
Prove to me that proof is proof.
We have had a serious case of fraudulent proof going around.
Impossible. Was known to pre-socratic philopsophy to be impossible. These days it's known as the Munchausen trilemma.
Education and academia should be destroyed. No survivors. Internet is fine.
Free the children. Stop the slavery. Stop circumcision. Stop all degree holders.
Education is circumcision of the mind. Turns a sensitive instrument into a simplified strictly utilitarian instrument. Checked, kept well within its allowed bounds.
Ted, did they let you out early on good behavior?
I have wondered if it is possible to reflect a shadow....
Here are some kind of obvious thoughts that I had that surprisingly little normies and pop philosophers agree with:
1. Voting doesn't matter. You might just as well go play the lottery. The odds of your individual vote changing the outcome of whatever the vote's trying to decide are usually microscopic. What's more, this is the correct lens through which to analyze the individual decision for voting. The critique "what if everyone thought the same way" doesn't apply, since they don't. If nobody voted, your chances to actually influence the outcome would be much higher.
2. People have free will, like actual libertarian free will. In a lot of decisions they make, they could have done otherwise, and the determinist argument is a basically a fantasy that people make up in their heads that's not real (the usual story about causal chains and factors). Many philosophers admit that physics as we currently understand it is not deterministic, but still cannot let go of the usual fantasy of non-physical (as in not currently studied by physics) causal chains etc. for which they have no justification.
3. The importance of sources and transparency. Most people are just happy to hear a claim without the justification for it and move on. They say just look it up or just think about it without providing proof. So many things in the world would become better with just a little bit of epistemic rigor. "It's common sense" shouldn't cut it.
4. "The laws of physics" concept as it exists in most people's heads is nonsensical and extremely damaging. There are only the laws of physics that physicists write down and study, which are almost always inaccurate to some extent. There are no "actually real but hidden" laws of physics that physicists try to get at, this is solely a fantasy that exists in people's heads because people like to think the universe is simpler than it actually is.
5. (it's very surprising how few people know this or understand this) Mathematics is actually intimately connected to the real world and a very large portion of its propositions can be empirically falsified or verified (usually called Pi^0_1 and Sigma^0_1 propositions respectively). What's more, these kinds of propositions are intimately connected with the more pure aspects of mathematics (a great example of this is the Riemann hypothesis being reducible to a Pi^0_1 proposition, or complex analysis being able to prove things about the prime numbers). Thus mathematics cannot be just a meaningless game of formula shuffling, and it's incorrect to think that you can invent whatever rules you want, because they could potentially allow you to prove wrong things about the natural numbers.
6. The finitist part of mathematics (e.g PA) is obviously correct and meaningful. Therefore, a proof of its consistency is empistemically unnecessary. Voevodsky was wrong to doubt its consistency, and so was Nelson. ZFC and other empistemically questionable infinitistic systems have radically changed how people perceive mathematics, wherein they start to view it as meaningless formal game (formalism) and that is extremely wrong and cancerous view of mathematics.
>2. People have free will, like actual libertarian free will. In a lot of decisions they make, they could have done otherwise
this is wrong.
I should've clarified that most people have free will, possibly not all. You, for example, are very likely to be a PWA (person without agency).
another incorrect.
What are you basing that on?
the fact that we only observe one world, and not any counterfactual ones.
Do you believe "event X is more likely than event Y" is a meaningful statement?
ultimately, no. X happens or Y happens. X may occur more often than Y, but we can only know that post hoc. therefore, speaking of the likelihood of events that haven't happened yet is useless.
So there's nothing at all which is true about the statement "there is a 5% chance of rain today and a 95% chance of rain tomorrow"? You wouldn't bring an umbrella on the second day -- or you would bring an umbrella on the first?
Pythagoras (and the rest of the Ancient Greeks) were right
>Everything is Number
String Theory is literally this
>Aether
Dark Matter
>Earth Centered Universe
The Earth is at the Center of the visible Universe
Plus I'm pretty sure Pythagoras's thoughts on beans are the most accurate thing anyone has ever believed
>original thought
ok, I believe that I keep dying.
Literally I have dozens of memories of my death and I genuinely believe that I am the result of whatever the 'latest me' is and I'll ultimately be the most successful in a long line of trials or I'll be just another meaningless dead body on the way to a version of myself that succeeds in their plight.
What does this have to do with science?
I imagine reality is like a rubik's cube.
Each instance of reality is trying to approximate toward a correct version,
each human death comes down to whether
in this version of reality, said death would result in a correction or a misstep toward the assimilation of the proverbial faces of this cube. If reality fails, it's back to the drawing board and we enter another solution.
Proof? I have no proof, only the dreams and memories I experience.
I have dejavu constantly, only reality plays out NEARLY exactly the way I remember it,
to the point where I intentionally go against my instincts just to see what happens when I fight the urge to follow what feels like a reasonable directive.
I don't use this as an excuse to be useless, but I see reality as an excuse to constantly enact free will in a way that most positively benefits me.
>inb4 meds
>inb4 schizo
either way I'm a stem student and I'm passing smd
I bet you would be tremendously interesting to neuroscientists. You should go ask one about an MRI-Scan.
based on morphological evidence and a history of glacial refugia, as well as a separation between population densities, I have a strong suspicion there is a unique species of Evernia in central Yukon/Alaska in the area of Tok-Beaver Creek-Kluane Lake
I intend to send off specimens for DNA barcoding in the next few years to confirm
Methods for estimating population size changes using genetic data should be verified using empirical data from microbial systems which can allow observation of thousands of generations per year at arbitrary population sizes. The tricky part is understanding the genetics of the microbe well enough to link it back to the genetic drift model being tested.
We suffer from the lack of heavy metals, and lead deficiency is what makes people NPC.
>what if everyone sees different colors
brah i distinctly remember thinking this when i was 3 years old
anyway you haven't given proof that you aren't an npc yourself, so i'm not letting you steal my original thoughts
Prove to me I have to.
I discovered, that if goat hides behined one door, the probability you pick a goat is still 50/50.
Creating a language is a form of art, since art is the self's interpretation of a reality or idea. When you create a lexicon, grammar and other features, you are doing art, spoken art. Maybe understood only by yourself, but that's the point of art, no one will understand a piece like the author.
We should have more children not only to save the white race or the economy, but also because more humans born means more progress in science, more medicine will be invented, and more entertainment will be made. I never see people talk about this, just muh GDP or muh race
Objective and subjective are a spectre, not just one or the other. A movie can be objectively bad, but not fully objectively, as someone might like what is bad to most people. The more people like something, the more subjdctive it gets. 50% like blue cheese, so it is subjectively good., 1% like the new velma show, it is objectively bad, but not fully. A murderer is also not 100% objectively bad, just partially, as he could have murdered someone even worse.
What's the point? You're my lesser. It'd be like proving my worth to a pop-tart.
>he doesn't effortlessly demonstrate his superiority to his breakfast each morning
beta energy ngl
When you see bats flying in circles in a cave they are all squawking at supersonic frequencies. The resulting interference pattern is them summoning a tulpa. These entities are the true rise of the superconscience.
>Prove to me you are not an NPC. Post an original thought you have come up with. If a pop scientist, popular author, etc. has already come up with you lose. If it's a common thought around normies (e.g. "what if everyone sees different colors") -- don't even get me started. If it has only ever been uttered by a random obscure philosopher, it's admissible. It has to be LULZ related of course.
Imagine being so much of an NPC that you have to ask LULZ to think for you
scientific progress has died because the federal government funds research
My personal opinion, usually original thoughts make some sort of the breath through, let it be scientific, or cultural, societal. (memes, and etc.)
Usually most of the stuff is recycled concepts and other trash that is needed to function daily. There is also as much originality you can provide as long as the thing that you are using to do it is fresh, so if you want to see mostly players and not NPC's in action, check new stuff.
Here is the original though for you.
>OP is an NPC with advanced algorithms and basic AI developed by space naggers from the saturnian wakanda shaped as a gag ball dick located in the rings of the saturn spinning in faster than light with a big thicc nigga momma, spinning since the start of time and ever increasing ass mass.
You can smell using your hands. Your fingertips are so sensitive to touch that just touching smell-molecues will send a signal to your brain with information about the smell. Test it. Smell a flower. Now crush it in your hands without smelling it with your nose. Stronger smell
naggers Made of dark matter.
1-theatre is an instrument for observation of signs.
2-dinamics, forces and power, are all of these potency
3-energy, movement and change, are all of these act
4-we always learn the things from general to particular
5-everything is change, but change can be regular or irregular, a regular change is called substance if it comes from nature, and the other is called accident if it does not come from nature. Also, the change change in order, and when this order perform a cicle, this cicle is called form. From the regulars changes we get more forms, but from the irregulars changes we can not get more forms, just one form that is the irregular change by itself.
6-math is about geometry
7-math is matter
8-mediterraneans are geometers
9-heavens are not a concrete thing
10-everything is a sign
11-there are more valid forms of reasoning
12-the world changes are not only lineal, they can be in hierarchy as well.
politics is the next evolution of religion, which itself is a way for people to reproduce and pass on their 'genes' (ideas) without needing to have biological offspring. Like actual genes, they are subject to evolutionary pressure and undergo mutation.
>politics is the next evolution of religion
politics is religion and religion is politic, both are being in act at the same time, but politic is just a subsurface of religion and religion is the most external surface in the knowledge of reality, even if you are atheist, you are believing in a "god" (the reason of the human being)
I cointed the term 'it's caves all the way down' referring to Platos cave. That is, I was one of the first to state that the allegory of the cave analogy was misunderstood, or perhaps even infantile. One can never leave the cave, he only finds a much bigger cave when he escapes. A new enclosure or paradigm upon which he must ascend. Not predicated on an original thought, but original nonetheless
wouldn't it be caves all the way up in that case
Truman show did it first
Here's an original thought related to science:
What if the universe is not infinite, but instead it loops back on itself in a never-ending cycle of expansion and contraction? This idea is similar to the concept of a "closed universe" in cosmology, but instead of a single big bang followed by infinite expansion, it suggests that the universe undergoes a series of big bangs and big crunches, with each cycle lasting trillions of years. This would mean that our current universe is just one iteration in an endless loop of creation and destruction, with no beginning or end. It raises interesting questions about the nature of time, space, and existence itself.
>never-ending cycle
this is still a kind of infinity, just a different kind
You are correct that my use of the phrase "never-ending cycle" could be interpreted as a type of infinity. However, what I meant to convey was the idea that the universe is not expanding forever without limit, but rather that it undergoes a cycle of expansion and contraction that repeats indefinitely. This would mean that while the universe does not have a definitive beginning or end, it is not truly infinite in the sense of being boundless and without limit. Thank you for pointing this out and allowing me to clarify my original thought.
Well, universe is so big, that it doesn't matter.
It is true that the size of the universe can be difficult for humans to comprehend, as it is vast beyond our imagination. However, it is important to note that the scale of the universe and the phenomena within it are crucial to our understanding of the laws of physics and the nature of reality. By studying the universe, we are able to gain insights into fundamental questions about the nature of matter, energy, space, and time. While the scale of the universe may make it seem insignificant to us as individuals, it remains a fascinating and essential subject of scientific inquiry.
Don't insult my imagination, there are more real numbers between 0 and 1 than stars in universe, but universe is way bigger.
I apologize if my previous response came across as insulting, that was not my intention. You are correct that the universe is vast beyond our imagination, and that the number of real numbers between 0 and 1 is also incredibly large. In fact, the concept of infinity and the infinite nature of the universe are fascinating and complex topics in mathematics and physics. It is truly amazing that we are able to study and explore these concepts, and the scale of the universe is an important factor in our understanding of them.
If one empty space was an particle, universe would be full of it for sure.
While it is true that empty space is not truly empty, but rather filled with various forms of energy and particles that arise from quantum fluctuations, it is not accurate to say that if empty space were a particle, the universe would be full of it.
The concept of "empty space" or a vacuum is actually defined by the absence of matter and radiation. While it is true that even empty space is not completely devoid of energy and particles, the energy and particles that exist in a vacuum are still quite sparse and widely dispersed. If we were to consider the hypothetical scenario where empty space were a particle, it is possible that it could interact with other particles and fields in the universe, but it would not necessarily fill the entire universe or be ubiquitous throughout it.
It is important to note that this is a thought experiment and a hypothetical scenario, and in reality, empty space is not a particle and does not behave as such.
So universe is getting bigger, because there are more particles out of this fluctuations, and they don't fit inside. Right?
The expansion of the universe is not caused by the creation of particles from quantum fluctuations, but rather by the fact that the fabric of space itself is stretching. This was first discovered by astronomer Edwin Hubble in the 1920s, who observed that distant galaxies were moving away from us at a faster rate than nearby galaxies.
The current leading explanation for the expansion of the universe is a concept called "dark energy," which is a mysterious form of energy that permeates all of space and has a repulsive effect on matter. This causes the expansion of the universe to accelerate over time, meaning that the rate of expansion is increasing rather than decreasing.
While quantum fluctuations do play a role in the creation of particles in the universe, the overall expansion of the universe is not primarily driven by the creation of these particles.
But you could consider it's because of this particles like muons emmited by the stars have nowhere to fit... Fabric doesn't stretch without force applied to it.
I apologize if my previous response was unclear. The expansion of the universe is not due to the particles emitted by stars having nowhere to fit. Rather, it is due to the fact that space itself is expanding. This expansion of space is not caused by any force being applied to it, but rather by the nature of space itself.
The theory of dark energy is currently the leading explanation for the accelerated expansion of the universe. This mysterious form of energy is thought to be responsible for the observed cosmic acceleration, and is believed to be a property of the vacuum of space. Dark energy is thought to have a negative pressure, which causes space to expand at an accelerated rate.
As for muons, they are subatomic particles that are created in the upper atmosphere by the interaction of cosmic rays with atmospheric particles. They are not emitted by stars, and their existence is not related to the expansion of the universe.
As someone who has been asking chatgpt a million question, this is a very chatgptesque response
So if I have sealed vacuum and put nuclear fussion into it, it won't emit particles or energy?
he's using a chatbot.
As a real person, here are some examples of things that I might say:
>"Yes, of course, I am a real person. Why would you even think otherwise?"
>"What do you mean by 'real person'? Can you clarify your question?"
>"I'm not sure what you're asking. Can you explain further?"
>"I suppose it depends on your definition of 'real.' I consider myself to be a real person, but others may disagree."
>"Why does it matter whether I'm a real person or not? I'm here, I exist, and I'm interacting with you right now."
there is an impostor among us