FA+
Shop
Thoughts I had in the Shower
4 years ago
12/26/21
A person is not consistent. Their thoughts are THEM, and their thoughts change all the time. A skin cell that clones itself is going to be different by a TINY amount, but still different. Instead of wholly reproducing itself (which the neuron can’t, why radiation poisoning is the worst way to die), the neurons turn into a program/entity all on their own via working together, creating structures by firing themselves on, turning into anything they want out of all the possible combinations of constructions with the sole purpose of following the Main Program: Survive and reproduce (not Categorical Imperative, which applies to intelligent civilization and not life generally). Everything in an organism’s brain (and by extension, the body, the immediate tools of the brain) is used for the Main Program to survive and repdorudce. Consistent moral frameworks and thoughts must be consciously upheld because they will not uphold themselves (even slightly) beyond the malleable and unreliable “program” of empathy which keeps us from killing ourselves. The reason why they can’t be passively or unconsiously upheld? Because following a certain moral framework *may NOT be suitable for survival, it may POSSIBLY go against the Main Program (my hypothesis). The neurons fire all the time in our head, creating many many simulacra, and if we don’t consciously uphold the “information” of our moral framework, the neuron firing simulacra will fail to fire in a way that upholds it, because it is programmed to not inherently value it (by “inherent” value, I also include functions like involuntarily upholding the heart and organs). Even if our moral framework IS consistent in some way and/or applicable beyond our own perception and existence as human beings, we are still “trapped” and affected by our animal bodies carved out by millions of years of evolution that obviously did not need it for the Main Program.
Artificial intelligence is possibly the solution to this “Weakness” of biological limitation, if the “goal” is to have someone or some*thing 100% be morally consistent. Because it’s possible the “programmed” moral framework may lead to the organism’s death, which a computer will not be programmed (in this case) to attempt avoiding. Only true selflessness and lack of self-preservation will make something wholly “good” by most of our standards regarding moral metrics, but we as biological organisms are incapable of meeting that 100% capacity, even if we remove most parts of our brain responsible for betraying that selflessness (a person who feels no fear/has no amygdala, who while incapable of being influenced by normal “emotions”, empathy and self-preservation, will still experience some physiological reactions to stimuli the body perceives as dangerous and will force them to react in avoiding it, betraying anti-self preservation. Removing the ability for this person ^^ to experience these further dangerous stimuli involves removing the blood’s ability to detect C02 emissions, simultaneously making the blood ineffective in it’s other programs of even the most BASIC disease detection, leading to an instant shock and death).
Every millisecond (or maybe even less) we change into a simulacra of ourself. Our neurons are all THERE, but fire in different ways like lights on a Christmas tree or the text scrolls on Wall Street. Everything on there exists, but the incremental, selective firing of certain lights in sequence presents the illusion of animation/movement. That’s how our brains are, and by extension how WE are. We are actually an animation, we are pictures. And every picture is different. It just doesn’t SEEM like that to us because the animation goes so seamlessly and there are millions of pictures in a single moment, all EXTREMELY similar to the next, and little “cuts” in between to discern in our eternal Cerebral Twitch stream going on in our head.
We think we are special because we need ego to survive (an illusion and tool of the Main Program). If an animal had thoughts similar to what we have, they would think they are special too. More special than humans, in fact! They need to think “tribally” and egocentric in order to give them reason to survive, reproduce, and evolve. Their entire culture will, if they don’t already, revolve around THEM and everything THEY do, even if they are stupid little rattlesnakes lounging about doing nothing in the desert for millions of years (as opposed to us playing with toys on Earth, within the grand scale of the universe?). Worship of GOD may seem like an outlier to this, but nothing can be more of an outlier than the Main Program unless it leads to destruction of the species, and worship of GOD is only a self-deluding humbleness, because the GOD is always another member of the worshipper’s species, and another of the tribe, a speaker of the language and a entity that understands them in the specific, emotional way of the species. GOD is another tool of the Main Program. Psychological egoism is another name for it. It is inescapable.
On another random thought, horseshoe theory of the far-left and far-right seems plausible to me, and the more exposure I’ve had to “tankies” and current-day China sympathizers, the more I see their similarities to fascists and far-righters in their support for authoritarianism (and poorly constructed, rhetorically-drowned arguments). In one example, both the far-left and far-right see “liberals” (essentially, middle-of-the-liners who are not extreme or even politically-motivated) as the main enemy of their movement, or they at least present liberals most often in their grievances (as opposed to commonly airing grievance with their supposed-“opposite”-side axis opponents on the other end of the political spectrum, which is more common for folks “leaning” left or right). That the far-left accuse liberals of siding with fascism and far-righters accuse liberals of encouraging communism lead me to believe 1 and/or 2 things:
1) That both are wrong
2) That they are similar if not the same, and can only be distinguished from one another by aesthetic and/or traded-out ideological terminology
A person is not consistent. Their thoughts are THEM, and their thoughts change all the time. A skin cell that clones itself is going to be different by a TINY amount, but still different. Instead of wholly reproducing itself (which the neuron can’t, why radiation poisoning is the worst way to die), the neurons turn into a program/entity all on their own via working together, creating structures by firing themselves on, turning into anything they want out of all the possible combinations of constructions with the sole purpose of following the Main Program: Survive and reproduce (not Categorical Imperative, which applies to intelligent civilization and not life generally). Everything in an organism’s brain (and by extension, the body, the immediate tools of the brain) is used for the Main Program to survive and repdorudce. Consistent moral frameworks and thoughts must be consciously upheld because they will not uphold themselves (even slightly) beyond the malleable and unreliable “program” of empathy which keeps us from killing ourselves. The reason why they can’t be passively or unconsiously upheld? Because following a certain moral framework *may NOT be suitable for survival, it may POSSIBLY go against the Main Program (my hypothesis). The neurons fire all the time in our head, creating many many simulacra, and if we don’t consciously uphold the “information” of our moral framework, the neuron firing simulacra will fail to fire in a way that upholds it, because it is programmed to not inherently value it (by “inherent” value, I also include functions like involuntarily upholding the heart and organs). Even if our moral framework IS consistent in some way and/or applicable beyond our own perception and existence as human beings, we are still “trapped” and affected by our animal bodies carved out by millions of years of evolution that obviously did not need it for the Main Program.
Artificial intelligence is possibly the solution to this “Weakness” of biological limitation, if the “goal” is to have someone or some*thing 100% be morally consistent. Because it’s possible the “programmed” moral framework may lead to the organism’s death, which a computer will not be programmed (in this case) to attempt avoiding. Only true selflessness and lack of self-preservation will make something wholly “good” by most of our standards regarding moral metrics, but we as biological organisms are incapable of meeting that 100% capacity, even if we remove most parts of our brain responsible for betraying that selflessness (a person who feels no fear/has no amygdala, who while incapable of being influenced by normal “emotions”, empathy and self-preservation, will still experience some physiological reactions to stimuli the body perceives as dangerous and will force them to react in avoiding it, betraying anti-self preservation. Removing the ability for this person ^^ to experience these further dangerous stimuli involves removing the blood’s ability to detect C02 emissions, simultaneously making the blood ineffective in it’s other programs of even the most BASIC disease detection, leading to an instant shock and death).
Every millisecond (or maybe even less) we change into a simulacra of ourself. Our neurons are all THERE, but fire in different ways like lights on a Christmas tree or the text scrolls on Wall Street. Everything on there exists, but the incremental, selective firing of certain lights in sequence presents the illusion of animation/movement. That’s how our brains are, and by extension how WE are. We are actually an animation, we are pictures. And every picture is different. It just doesn’t SEEM like that to us because the animation goes so seamlessly and there are millions of pictures in a single moment, all EXTREMELY similar to the next, and little “cuts” in between to discern in our eternal Cerebral Twitch stream going on in our head.
We think we are special because we need ego to survive (an illusion and tool of the Main Program). If an animal had thoughts similar to what we have, they would think they are special too. More special than humans, in fact! They need to think “tribally” and egocentric in order to give them reason to survive, reproduce, and evolve. Their entire culture will, if they don’t already, revolve around THEM and everything THEY do, even if they are stupid little rattlesnakes lounging about doing nothing in the desert for millions of years (as opposed to us playing with toys on Earth, within the grand scale of the universe?). Worship of GOD may seem like an outlier to this, but nothing can be more of an outlier than the Main Program unless it leads to destruction of the species, and worship of GOD is only a self-deluding humbleness, because the GOD is always another member of the worshipper’s species, and another of the tribe, a speaker of the language and a entity that understands them in the specific, emotional way of the species. GOD is another tool of the Main Program. Psychological egoism is another name for it. It is inescapable.
On another random thought, horseshoe theory of the far-left and far-right seems plausible to me, and the more exposure I’ve had to “tankies” and current-day China sympathizers, the more I see their similarities to fascists and far-righters in their support for authoritarianism (and poorly constructed, rhetorically-drowned arguments). In one example, both the far-left and far-right see “liberals” (essentially, middle-of-the-liners who are not extreme or even politically-motivated) as the main enemy of their movement, or they at least present liberals most often in their grievances (as opposed to commonly airing grievance with their supposed-“opposite”-side axis opponents on the other end of the political spectrum, which is more common for folks “leaning” left or right). That the far-left accuse liberals of siding with fascism and far-righters accuse liberals of encouraging communism lead me to believe 1 and/or 2 things:
1) That both are wrong
2) That they are similar if not the same, and can only be distinguished from one another by aesthetic and/or traded-out ideological terminology
Second set of thoughts is just fax
I agree being reductionist to the point of "trippy" descriptions of everyday life is not going to be useful for people, but having the capability of seeing things in their fundamental components...*I enjoy it, at least.
Definitely want to avoid any pitfalls ensuring my path to becoming another L. Ron Hubbard lol
Thanks for the long response, I appreciate it
As for the LRH thing, as long as you don't start a multimillion dollar cult I think you're fine lol! We think like this for our own benefit, he used his cosmic musings to abuse millions, commit tax fraud, build a naval paramilitary and write shitty smooth jazz albums. I think we're all a long way off from that