Please post your most paradigm shifting philosophy or idea that you breaks your mind just too think about...

Imagine hell is to be stuck at a point for a trillion^999999999999999 earth years with an inability to respond

There is no coherent description of personal identity.

Now is a meme

Maybe you live in a hologram and don't truly exist here and now.
If there is no consciousness, you are a bunch of parts glued together with the illusion of something. If there is maybe you are literally god and every being is the same you

Imagine being in hell gets exponentially worse over time, the opposite for heaven

We live as though our minds exists seperately from our bodies

the universe has a creator, and he is indeed an entity that exists by definition above all dimensions of space and time.

That's fucking scary, he knows all, he sees all, he doesn't even wait because right now he sees me typing this and he sees you reading it and he sees the dinosaurs and he sees the bigbang.

All events taking place in any time and any place are nothing but a snapshot to him. Everything else that didn't take place is also known to him.

FUCK.

Clearing browser history now

traps are in fact gay

If you blow on a sloths nose it will die

Apply statistical probability to human existence.

This is literally the best time in all of human history to be a middle aged white man. And less than that any human, but still the BEST.

Nobody seems to get it but we're in the center of it all.

We can look to our immediate past at some of the most savage choices ever made and we are living in the world of the consequences. The atomic bomb, the unraveling of slavery/discrimination, cold war, probably way more I'm just basic.

You look at the way things are now and clearly things are reacting right?

The oppressed arent just citizens now, they are loud and violent, often willing to become criminal just to stand against the negative image left by oppression which hardly exists as it used to.

Atomic bombs (yea along with other poisonous chemicals that were everywhere back then)
Made people TERRIFIED of science. Ai is nuke 2.0, any chemical is bad for you...etc
Literally bored now so ima hurry this post up.

Basically we have that pretty recent savage past and we also have the epic growth of technology.
Don't ever forget that you grew up during the birth of this shit because all the modern/new standards you see today will be old and ancient some day, you were around for the original.

And all that culture. How do you even begin to describe the impact that the internet or mass communication has had on culture. It's quickly changing the way people communicate in general but it's so subtle and natural you don't pick up on it.

Don't forget you were(are) a part of that growth too, yes,(You).
And that's cool at all but I think technology and it's accessibility will grow faster than we can make them safe, so eventually anyone with a couple bucks can do something catastrophic

How did I do pls r8

I agree with the majority of the content of your post but you typed it out like a literal retard. Look at how normal people write/talk and try to imitate them.

>Look at how normal people write/talk and try to imitate them.
If you'd say that to somebody on Veeky Forums you are probably extraordinarily uptight irl.

Sure someone will pass it up because it's not syntax sugar, but I don't care for those peoples thoughts.

Plus it makes mobile posting easier assface.

...

roko's basilisk mindfucked my existence for a few seconds before i realized it was retarded. it actually took a bit of time for my brain to fully imagine the basilisk for me to feel that though

Many people seem to think of human intelligence as something which manifests as the ability of the human brain to solve problems. However, the key aspect of human intelligence is the ability to communicate ideas, and as a result, technology has exponentially increased since the development of language. Think of human society as a macro scale human brain where each individual not only acts as a firing neuron, but also a support cell, providing the material energy for the costs involved in changing the weights and biases of each neuron(person) through things like education, food, and even sexual reproduction between neurons, with the possibility of producing new neurons(children) with mutations that increase the accuracy of the human collective brain. Although this sounds like a hive mind, the scope of this network is hidden to individual neurons, as they only see the world from their perspective, shaped by input from a few individuals, and other clusters of individual neurons, e.g education, media, social groups, government. These bundles of neurons are in turn influenced by individual neurons, up until the point where every human brain sends/receives information into/from human society, and thus disproving the concept of free will

This is because any individual decision a person makes is shaped only by the sum of their perception(inputs) over time, and therefore if the scope of the network was revealed to the individual they would realize how every decision they make is ultimately just a probability equation abstracted into the conscious realm.

Neurons operate on a cellular level as boolean signal gates, but because the brain has more than one neuron, decision making revolves around the input from groups of neurons firing, and taking action if the threshold is reached. If other people view/treat you as conscious(you can only view your inputs, but you can't view the inputs of your inputs, so you perceive other people as conscious), then all your inputs suggest you are conscious, but only within human society, as you lose consciousness when there is no input telling you that you are conscious.

I suspect the illusion of consciousness occurred during the genesis of human language, as an unintentional result of the theory of mind. when observing the local scope of a human interaction, understanding that another human has different inputs is an evolutionary advantage ,as it would aid with bartering, empathizing, reproductive success, alliance building and status mobility. However, it is evident on a larger scale that a person is only the sum of their inputs, and wouldn't be conscious without being treated as such.

there is genuinely people that believe the earth is not a sphere

Explain creativity

Creativity is determined by inputs into each individual, and relies on the previous creative work of society to synthesize new ideas. In the arts, their is a clear evolution of genres, styles, with each new individual subconsciously adjusting the weights of a plethora of different inputs. Obviously, in arts, subjectivity plays a greater role in determining the value of the creative work.

also, try to imagine an idea that doesn't build upon pre-existing ideas, it's impossible.

Novel ideas can come from many sources, but the "weighting algorithm" you describe must also have myriad influences from language, genetics and culture to individual nutrition, mood and habits.

In what way are people more creative than others, and how could a machine be creative?

everything has a purpose

well before that there was only logic, so we could say that creativity is logical.
but what about say when you are not a musician and you hear inside your head an amazing piece of never before heard music? everything is a remix, but when there is no intention to create then what is happening?

People are more creative than others due to increased interconnection of neurons, and increased openness to new experience. This results in people being able to 1. make more connections between distinct ideas and 2. increase the amount of input of increasingly sophisticated ideas, as well as more diverse inputs
The causes of these effects within the brain are the 'myriad of influences' you mentioned, which are all defined as inputs, but also as weights.

A machine could be made creative by educating it much like you would a human child. Unlike hyperspecific applications such as image detection or stock prediction, general AI would need to be trained on the basics of intelligence(language), and it's learning would need to rely only on an internal reward mechanism that promoted acquisition of new inputs, and thus, the development of skills. The receptivity of the AI would need to change as it learns more about the world, carefully balancing the act of retaining basic skills through 'hard-wiring' while simultaneously increasing the reward for obtaining more diverse, complex inputs that even might potentially alter these hard wired paths. Eventually, the AI would build up a internal framework of how the world 'works' so to speak, based on the accumulation of progressive layers of ideas(not information) using the previous layers to understand the next layer, the same way humans use theory of mind to comprehend language. Reflection on this world view transfers into art, as areas responsible for visual processing and emotions connect, modulating the content of the image in the mind's eye. In humans, the quality of art produced increases as the brain develops(from colorful preschool doodles, to painstaking masterpieces embroiled in emotion), but still often fluctuates as the plethora of different input changes in a noisy manner. so by learning about areas not associated with art, the brain can combine those areas and produce something completely new.

>the brain can combine those areas and produce something completely new.
However, if you look closely enough, you'll realize that creativity is only the sum of the inputs, and in a neural simulation, with enough processing power, you could theoretically calculate the derivatives of the creative output, and examine the derivatives of the derivatives, and you would trace those derivatives all the way back through human history, until the evolution of the theory of mind.

The reason why the Earth has a molten core is because the core used to be a sun, with the earthy layer the amalgam of the planets of its long-gone solar system.
Given time, the Earth too, along with the other planets shall join the sun to form a bigger planet for a bigger solar system. Almost fractal-like.

Sounds like something you'd read on reddit from someone who defends NASA in their spare time

intention to create isn't an essential part of creativity and it can often manifest from unintentional experimentation

that's what i am saying.
so everything is pretty much a remix, as us mere mortals cannot create novel logic, corresponding to the first law thermodynamics (in this case we will call it logicadynamics)

This, more than any other Veeky Forums thread I'vr ever read, has lost me the most brain cells.

Good work team

>that you breaks your mind just too think about.
Well that's far fetched.
Anyways to answer that would require an essay. I can give you some hints, but they will probably be incomprehensible.
Phenomenonology naturalised through Peircean biosemiotics, for lack of a better word the recognition of a "deep evolution" where life is no longer conceptualized as divided into organisms and forms but is seen as a single enity ongoing contunied devolpment since biogenesis, development as in the devolpment of meaningful information (most obviously the meaning carried in genes, but much more). So basically the recognition of life as a purely phenomenonological enity that only exists in meaning, the material that carries meaning is simply a vessel.
That pretty much turns the old guard materalist paradigm on its braindead head.
So basically recognizing the pragmatic grounds of phenomenon in the meaning making activity of life, leading to an ontology and a mereology of life as a phenomenon.

What really interests me about this is the possibility to abstract some sort of "evolutionary mereotopology" from this. Too bad I'm too brainlet to do mereotopology and ontology fromally, I'm teaching myself logic but I'm a long ways off. The prospect does run into some problems however, such as if meaning making can even be represented in symbolic logic, Peirce didn't think it could and I've glanced at some contemporary work about his "reduction thesis" it seems that it might require some sort of formal system based on graphical logic, though that's really just a guess the actual logic is far beyond my comprehension.
I guess I am doomed to conceptual postering about these kinds of topics until I can bootstrap my way up to understanding them. Anyways that's just some amateur prospecting, I've gotten pretty far off base and outside of my capabilities in talking about formalities.

Yeah there is, you are what you experience. And what you experience in the material world is whatever your limited mind can perceive written as a signal and then sent to your unlimited soul. The soul is then where human creativity comes into play as that is how we were made in the image of God.

Nice

There are as same integers as there are naturals
I just can't fucking agree with Cantor

Everyone acts rational in the sense that they will act in accordance to what benefits them the most. Caveat: what people think benefits them is not always what the best course of action. Thus the control of perception is more important than the control of "reality" per se.

Hope that doesn't pop your circuits, brainlets.