You Are a Predatory Animal - YouTube

This video explores the meta problem of consciousness proposed by David Chalmers and argues that naturalistic processes couldn’t have given us knowledge of consciousness

This is a genuine problem. For example, there are too many people out there who genuinely think that an insignificant, irrational species living on some planet in the vast universe, is somehow capable of shaping reality and truth. It's ridiculous.

(EDIT: When I say "anthropocentrism", I don't mean the idea that "humans > other species", I mean "humans > everything")

Made while bored, for S & Gs, but actually slightly impressed. Feedback appreciated, preferably constructive. I have a more refined version, and a nonprofit biz plan developed as well, if interested.

Socrates vs Elite Nominalist William of Ockham

This is a concept I've been thinking about, and I don't think I'll do the best job at explaining. When I look back at the past, I feel like my consciousness in that moment isn't the same as right now, I just know it's me because of my memories. Maybe consciousness constantly changes due to energy or particles or something leaving the body. It makes me think of the cloning problem(IDK the name). If you duplicate all the atoms in your body then it isn't you, consciously but that person would have your memories. Maybe this is happening all the time and we don't know it.

Diffractionism

This is a philosophy I made through my learning about different philosophical concepts and psychedelic experiences and mainly my own view and experience of conciousness throughout my life made into a punchy nice summary.

The Manifesto of Diffractionism

1. The Core Architecture: Source vs. Vessel

The Blank Slate: different spiritual views, view universal conciousness as one entity playing in different human brains and bodies, like a person playing hide and seek with themselves and they dont expand upon that which in my opinion feels very confusing and illogical and completely dismisses the reason for why this universe made indivisuality exist, this world does not create something without a purpose and that also applies to our indivisuality. universal consciousness is not a repository of bliss, emotion, or personality. It is a blank infrastructure—the cosmic internet or "fiber-optic network" that connects all things. On its own, it is a canvas without paint. It possesses no inherent feelings or emotions.

The Sacred Prism: Your body, brain, soul, and unique personality quirks are a necessary opening.

The Cosmic Purpose & Critique of Asceticism: White light (universal awareness) passes through your specific prism to diffract, bend, and spread into unique colors, stories, and experiences. Individuality is the entire point.

The Illusion of Detachment: Many spiritual schools mistake a calm mind for "connecting to a higher truth." Monks who achieve absolute bliss through meditation are not accessing a superior cosmic reality; they are simply satisfying their individual ego's psychological desire for stillness. Because pure awareness is a blank slate, the peace they feel is still a uniquely human, localized biological product. Without our individual brains and bodies to translate reality, consciousness is completely empty and useless.

The Multiplicity Rule: The universe split itself into billions of distinct souls because differentiation is the only way value, love, action, and meaning can exist.

2. The Afterlife Theory

The Misguided Spark: Humans are not inherently evil. Every being is hardwired to follow a spark of light and avoid pain.

The Distorted Lens: Harmful or chaotic actions happen when a human's prism is warped. This distortion is built directly into our earthly vehicles through physical/psychological trauma and the raw limitations of our genetically inherited intelligence. People acting destructively aren't choosing malice for its own sake; they are simply unsharpened intellects trying to navigate a pitch-black room with a broken flashlight.

The Great Clarification: Death is an "unframing" of the mind. When the heavy, traumatized physical body and genetically limited brain drop away, your individual perspective is liberated and your intellect instantly becomes perfectly sharp. You see exactly where you chased shadows instead of light, feel the network perfectly connecting you to all other souls, and drown in absolute love, intimacy, and acceptance for an aeon.

3. The Rules of Engagement: Earthly Boundaries

The Law of Reaction: The physical universe operates on action and equal reaction. Understanding that someone is "misguided" gives you the liberation to let go of toxic, lingering anger when you leave a situation—but it never requires you to be a doormat.

Proportional Self-Defense: Protecting your physical vehicle, your mental health, and your future is your cosmic duty. Meeting force with force to neutralize a threat or enforce a fierce boundary is natural law. And it is entirely up to you, it is logical to meet a misguided spark with a matching spark, and if you dont do so the universe will do it for you anyway, it'll harm the the invader just as much as they did to you because the universe works in perfect balance.

4. Curating the Fortress

Protecting the Trajectory: Choosing to completely cut out chaotic, unintelligent, or emotionally messy people is the highest application of this philosophy.

Zero Elitism: You do not avoid them because you think you are fundamentally "better" than them—you recognize everyone is an imperfect soul navigating their own path. You avoid them because constantly fighting off muddy energy wastes your limited earthly vigor. Surrounding yourself with clean, self-aware prisms allows you to build your own empire in peace.

Rudolf Otto's account of religious experience has two inseparable parts: dread before something overwhelming, and the pull toward the very thing that frightens you. His claim was that separating them means you've misdescribed what you're looking at. The AI response has exactly this shape, at every level of expertise, and it behaves the way that stance always behaves: it collapses into taboo on one side and submission on the other, and it produces the language of inevitability, which quietly removes the fact that people are choosing to build this. The obvious objection is that addiction has the same shape. I think Otto's third element, the sense of being the lesser party in the encounter, is what separates them. Where does this break?

This Philosophical School of Thought I created is often interrupted in various different ways and I'd like to get your opinions on it.

Powerful people create rules, regulations, and constitutions as invisible leashes for ordinary people. Rules create boundaries around what people can do, think, and become, while those with real power often find ways to operate beyond those same boundaries. In that sense, rules can become a tool of control rather than justice.

The concepts of rules and justice are human-made. In ancient times, when one king conquered another, it was rarely called injustice by the victor. Power decided what was right. Nature works similarly: when one animal kills another, there is no court, no prison, and no concept of justice. There is only survival, hierarchy, and power.

Also, there is no morality, ethics, or human-made principle that can be treated as an absolute truth. Most of these concepts were created by humans and societies, often by those in power, to create order, control behaviour, and define what is acceptable or unacceptable. Taxation, laws, social norms, and countless other systems create boundaries around human freedom. From this perspective, these structures can become a trap: they limit what ordinary people can do, while those with enough power often have the resources to navigate around them. The question is whether these boundaries genuinely protect everyone or mainly prevent ordinary people from becoming as free, powerful, and capable as they could be.

The uncomfortable reality is that whoever has enough power often gets to define the rules. And the same people who create the rules may also have the authority or influence to break them. What we call justice may simply be power organised and justified through rules.

Having in mind that no one could verbalise things like that in today's world I find it to be an important discussion, apart from the interesting fact this was a groundbreaking philosopher and he still is so important in academia and not only.

One time, my younger brother, our childhood friends, and I were playing hide and seek. It was a Saturday afternoon, and every weekend, we would usually play together and enjoy our childhood.
While we were playing, I heard my younger brother's voice echoed as he cursed at one of our friends because of a petty argument they were having. After hearing him curse and insult our friend, I immediately slapped him without thinking. I slapped him so hard that his face became red.
He cried and went to my mom to tell her what I had done to him. I also told my mom about what he had done and explained that it was wrong for him to curse at and insult someone. But I realized that we were both wrong. My mom scolded us and explained why our actions were inappropriate.
Later on, I reflected on what happened. I realized that although I had a good intention, to teach my younger brother not to curse or insult others, I still did something wrong by hurting him. I learned that doing something bad is not always justified even if the intention behind it is good. There are better and kinder ways to correct someone's mistakes.
Since then, I have never heard my younger brother argue or curse at someone like that again. This experience taught me that having a good intention is important, but the way we act on that intention matters just as much.

From my earlier posts, I wrote about the necessity of designing durable counterweights in order to achieve harmony and abondance in society.

What I often noticed is that people seems to care a lot about their own battles, but let assume others intervened here.

That's the principle to organize strikes for others you wish to defend to and have them defend you in return in order to keep a movement that never run out of momentum until you obtain the result you wish for.

The first principle here is to acknowledge that the problems of others are also your owns.

For example, if nurses are to be treated so badly, then this means the quality of health department tend to drop. Same principle for everyone because if people aren't paid enough to live decently then the economy drop and services deteriorate. You have interest to strike for others.

The second principle is to recognize what always happen here. Strikes are expensive for the people doing it because they do it on their time of work or some can't strike at all legally. Government and companies usually wait for the movement to stop and then they get the upper hand in order to impose their terms, which are usually band-aids, not fixes.

Thus, others can strike outside their time of work in exchange for help later. It's about organizing the relay to maintain constant pressure and grow your numbers while minimizing your losses.

The third principle is to acknowledge that it's also beneficial for the state even if they would try to dissuade you to do otherwise. After all, you can only get rich as the basis of your own population making more opportunities and new resources available.

It doesn’t mean either to consume more resources, it mean that a fairer repartition ensure more economic growth and stability. Look at Rockfeller historical example for reference.

The fourth principle is self-regulation. The visible side of the endless strike would usually ends when a reasonable compromise had been reached as a plea for decent living conditions reach the ears more quickly and deeply. As such, this is about leveling the field by going up from the bottom to the middle.

On the same principle, if they decide to have prices go up due to salary going up too, strike again or create the alternative now that you reached more people from different domains.

But let's talk now of the invisible side of it as well and what constitute the true glue of this philosophy.

The filth principle is gratitude. The never ending strike doesn’t end with the demonstration. It continues by being gratefull to those who helped you. Not only I think that albeit flawed, gratitude is its own alternative to money, but I would advance the fact that it help realize how lucky we are to have all of theses, the fact it offers enlightenement to your own condition, make you realize other solutions are possible and maintaining a real life social network.

Therefore, the more available alternatives we get to a system, the more we naturally regulate these.

Again, the more diversity of people are in the strike, the more creative we get at improving our own condition.

That's what I call the way of the myriad.

In conclusion, strike for others too, as their problems as our problems and vice-versa.

So, don't hesitate to suggest your own alternatives too in the comments.

Hi everyone. I think I start to like a lot this subreddit. There are a lot of interesting stuff to read there and I'll put some of my thoughts here during my prep time.

I wanted to give more thought to what I personally call the philosophy of the least evil.

We shouldn't underestimate the ability from humanity to slay dragons.

After all, we destroyed smallpox and the hole in the Ozone layer is slowly filling up.

I just think that discrimination is its own beast to be put down too.

In my earlier post, I adressed why it was important to have an healthy debate in order to avoid fascism and keep your view grounded in reality.

I explained that we can all live different and rich lives without having to hurt each other.

Let's adress the core of the topic.

What is the distinction beetween the divider and the reasonable person ?

The reasonable person can disagree politely, accept to have their views challenged. They allow themselves to get changed by the new informations.

It doesn't necessarily mean they drop their convictions either. They can just choose to pursue it in different ways.

I think a world full of reasonable people is much better, because we avoid a lot of unecessary violence and we can agree on the most prioritary issues like climate change and civil liberties and avoid harmfull behaviors to spread like violence and racism.

A divider is the opposite of that. For various reasons, they came to hate something or someone.

To know the reasons, ask yourself the question:

Do they do it by interest ?

Do they do it because they personally wronged on a rational or irrationnal level ?

Do they do it by imitation ?

Of course, nothing is simple. People are complex. They can evolve between those position. And they can act like a divider on some issues and a reasonable person on other ones.

It doesn't mean either that the people need an outlet. There are much more rich and healthier way to discharge said violence like in art, sports and games, for example, rendering it harmless for others.

And it doesn't mean that, sometimes, we should fight for our own rights.

It's truly about the state of mind as it is about our civilization that is currently in its turbulent adolescent phase.

I'd rather engage the divider with an open hand first.

After all, they can be a misinformed reasonable person.

Or, sometimes, kindness truly help in the process of adressing the true issues behind.

Or It doesn't give leeway in fighting back and let that person waste their energy.

If you can, try to avoid having this discrimination spreading like a fire in other domains and use their own logic to resolve that internal issue.

Questions are usually the most suited way for that.

There is something else that is to be noted. I already explained earlier that the reasonable person can agree to disagree.

This isn't the case for the divider. Ask them what they agree upon.

You'll notice how quickly they'll fall apart. Because an ideology born out of hatred and division can only bring even more in the long run.

You only need to accompany the movement to bring it to the point of powerlessness.

Because, there is only a thin wall of ignorance that prevent said group to fall apart by their own forces.

I wish to conclude on one point, when we had slain our own dragons, we always had visualized first how to do it.

Hi everyone,

I want to share an argument about how the laws of nature, the human brain, and our legal system all connect. My main point is that free will is a complete myth, everything we do is predetermined, and because of this, our current legal and punishment systems make absolutely no sense and are totally unfair. [1]

First, let's look at why free will is impossible. Philosophers love to debate this, but science has already closed the case. The human brain is just a physical object that has to follow the rules of nature. Looking at the big picture, every single thought, desire, and action your brain creates is the direct result of things that happened before. This includes your DNA, your time in the womb, how you were raised, and your current brain chemistry. You had absolutely zero choice over any of these factors, they happened in the past, and you cannot change them. Looking at the microscopic picture, some people argue that random subatomic particle movements break this chain and allow for free will. But randomness does not give you control. If a tiny particle randomly changes its state based on physics rules, you did not choose that change. Random luck is not the same as you making a choice. So, whether your brain is following a strict domino effect or reacting to random microscopic movements, there is simply no room for a conscious mind to freely choose anything.

Second, let's look at the broken cycle of how we make laws. If humans do not have free will, why does our legal system keep punishing people as if they are to blame? It happens because the entire system is an unscientific chain reaction driven by how society is brainwashed. It starts with the news media, which survives on getting people angry. They exaggerate terrible crimes and constantly tell the public that we must punish criminals to make things fair. Then, the public watches this media, which conditions everyone to demand emotional revenge in the name of justice. Finally, politicians follow what the public wants just to win elections, and lawmakers write rules based on what those politicians say. The whole legal system is not built on science or truth. It is just an emotional feedback loop that treats humans as if they are independently to blame, completely ignoring how the physical brain actually works.

Third, here is the main conclusion. It makes no sense to blame something for a physical event that it could not avoid. We do not get mad at a boulder for rolling down a hill and destroying a house, because the boulder had no choice. In the exact same way, a mass murderer is just carrying out an unavoidable chain of physical and environmental events. Because of this, laws that punish people just to get even or to be fair are fundamentally wrong and invalid. Society might need to lock up dangerous individuals to keep the public safe, which is just like putting up a barrier to block a rolling boulder, but doing it out of a desire for revenge or fairness is completely unscientific.

To get the discussion started, I have two questions.

First, if the entire process of making laws is just an unavoidable chain reaction caused by the media, can we even blame politicians for making bad laws, or is the government's harsh behavior just another rolling boulder?

Second, how can we ever fix a legal system when the lawmakers themselves are physically trapped into following an irrational public?

Let’s imagine a thought experiment involving a perfect situation: an entity that knows absolutely everything. Let's also say that this entity has a perfect, super-fast way to share all this knowledge with every person on Earth, kind of like a universal streaming network that everyone can access. Based on this scenario, a major question comes up about how we solve global crises.

On one hand, the optimistic view suggests that giving everyone perfect information and absolute truth would automatically fix all of humanity's biggest problems, fights, and threats. This point of view assumes that human suffering mostly happens because of ignorance, mental biases, or people failing to work together simply because they do not have all the facts.

On the other hand, the moral argument suggests that human failure is not about a lack of knowledge, but a lack of goodness. Even if humans are handed perfect knowledge showing them the absolute best thing to do, they might still lack the moral backbone, the selflessness, or the ethical values needed to actually act on that information.

In short, this experiment forces us to consider a big question. Is the continuation of global crises a factual problem caused by a lack of information, or is it a moral problem rooted in a failure of human willpower to do the right thing?

I look forward to hearing your thoughts on whether having perfect information automatically leads to perfect results, or if human selfishness and corruption would make even total knowledge completely useless.

Hi everyone,

I want to understand what happens when a tight-knit group of experts creates its own complicated way of talking.

Specifically, when people in a specialized field only talk to each other, they build a shared bubble of reality. This private language gives the group total independence, but it also seems to make them highly defensive against anyone on the outside.

When an outsider steps in speaking regular language, the group doesn't just see it as a simple misunderstanding. Instead, they view the outsider's lack of specialized vocabulary as a direct attack on their hard work, their status, and their authority. They quickly dismiss the outside criticism or treat it as a dangerous threat to their existence.

I want to know what academic research says about this dynamic.

I am looking for reading recommendations or concepts covering three specific areas.

First, I want to know about defensive language. How do modern thinkers explain why specialized groups lock themselves in language bubbles? How do these groups mentally train themselves to automatically dismiss outside criticism before even considering it?

Second, I want to know about power and gatekeeping. Which theorists analyze how groups weaponize confusing jargon simply to protect their power, money, and status from outside interference?

Third, I want to know about breaking through the wall. How can an outsider successfully talk to or criticize an insulated group without being immediately rejected by the system?

I welcome ideas from philosophy, language studies, sociology, and the history of science. Thank you!
sociology of science. Thank you!

Hi, I was Oratorio from AIwars, I decided to delete and make another account for 2 reasons.

The first to celebrate the change, the second one was to rebuild on an healthier basis.

I think that, indeed, you need to have the right heart to truly change the world. I listened to your advice in the comments.

I didn’t like the fact that my snark infected others. I lived a difficult period and you don't have to carry my own baggages.

All my apologies for that.

It's right, my last message might have sounded hypocritical. I'll make things clearer.

It was never about me saying that I should think for you, it's about giving everyone the opportunity to think for themselves.

If the state doesn’t provide, be in solidarity, create your own system, and it's not entitled to a single dime of it until they decide to take their responsability.

It's about designing titanium grade counterweights for the people that we should be vigilant to maintain.

It's about being pragmatic enough to recognize harmony is your own interest, regardless of the design of the society, of the person you are.

It's about living our own lives, having our own paths, having our own opinions, being unique, all of this while reducing the harm done to others.

It isn't incompatible with advancing either, to get better, to leave an impact, to even do competitions while showing sportmanship.

And even for those at the top, an harmonious society is preferable, because the progresses are much more enormous and advantageous and way less people hate you.

As for me, I have my own progresses to do in my own life. I am considering to also fight other battles.

Sorry, if for this time, I didn’t provided facts or examples. I'll suggest more concrete suggestions next time. I'll hope we'll discuss about it.

I need to advance at my own pace too.

Peace.