Sociopath Community

Jada said: 

Like I said twice, I don't really believe in digital amnesia aka the Google effect. I brought up examples to showcase that I do understand it.

Whether or not you believe it is irrelevant to matters of facts.

It's a matter of fact the Google Effect is being contested by other scientists and universities and they have valid points. This shows me that you'd take the first popular claim as fact. 

But you do believe it. You're just being purposely difficult now and stalling the conversation.

Multi Detransexual. I'll be the one who determines if I believe something.

You seem conflicted with the fact I don't believe in the Google Effect. 

I don't believe digital data has some other new effect on memory. It's the same thing with hard copy. 

Similar to believing that Internet is a threat to Universities. You also don't really believe that either. These things are not really up for debate; I have better things to do than to discuss whether water is wet or not.

But hey, it was a nice conversation while it lasted.

You're talking to a person who never went to University. I did not and do not need University and never will. 

University doesn't make someone smarter in my opinion. It's just a way to learn, plus for some professions the education is law. Can't just have some unconfirmed doctor cutting people open. 

Also, the most successful people in the world either never been or dropped out of University. The system doesn't teach people how to be rich.

There are other large widespread tests done in mass and no one is able to replicate it, and for this reason it's on the debate table, but that's NOT why I don't believe in it. Personally I don't experience such a thing and probably neither does anyone else.

Arguing that cognitive offloading is not a thing is on the level of arguing that water isn't wet.

 I never argued cognitive offloading isn't a thing. I mentioned it myself on the other page the day before.

The test that cannot be replicated is the Google Effect.

- Replication Issues - When other researchers attempted to repeat these experiments, many reported repeated failures to achieve the same results.

- Expanded Meta-Analyses - A 2024 review noted that while cognitive offloading occurs, the "Google effect" is not universal; it is heavily moderated by cognitive load and how much a person trusts their device.

- Adaptive Brain - Instead of "making us lazy," many scientists view this as a highly adaptive strategy. By "outsourcing" rote facts to the internet, our brains free up valuable mental processing power for critical thinking, learning new concepts, and complex problem-solving.

"The brain has always used transactive memory (e.g., relying on a spouse to remember appointments); the internet is simply the modern evolution of this shared memory."

.

.

.

Yes the brain has ALWAYS used transactive memory. Like I said before, this is the case with textbooks, books, radio, television, routines, and various interactions. 

There is no digital amnesia, just amnesia.

Next thing you know there's going to be people starting a cult that doesn't use digital devices cause they believe it'll cure all forgetfulness, and that'll make them mentally healthy, but it really won't.

If it's documented and published you're all in, like an NPC. You buy into things, then when it's challenged you're shown to have faith in what was stuffed in your head.

.

If I believed in the Google Effect, and someone so much as showed me how there are scientific arguments against it, I'd at least be on the fence. Arguing such a thing is unwise. Next thing you know you're getting all flustered cause someone isn't bound to what he was told like you're doing here, Legga. 

I might as well be talking with an AI with the prompt "argue that the Google effect does not exist and internet is a threat to Universities".

Whats the point, when I can ask AI the same prompt and it'll give me back your answers with as much understanding of the two topics as you do on infinite loop. This conversation is a good example of cognitive offloading, handing your brain to an AI and the dangers of local minima.

AI really does induce a false sense of confidence in people.

You're talking to a person who never went to University. I did not and do not need University and never will.

University doesn't make someone smarter in my opinion. It's just a way to learn, plus for some professions the education is law. Can't just have some unconfirmed doctor cutting people open.

Also, the most successful people in the world either never been or dropped out of University. The system doesn't teach people how to be rich.

My grandpa didn't go to the University and he was the smartest person I knew. People can self study and become incredibly knowledgeable. 

I never said you cant be smart without University. A good University does give you a forum for intellectual exchange, dedicated time to study, and structure to learn fundamentals, but it's up to people what they do with their time there. There are plenty of morons in the University who waste their time and I consider most Physics students to have failed in their basic task of understanding Physics unfortunately (I think we should fail people much more, Id admit only 1% of the current students but then the board would complain we dont get funds from tuition, our responsibility is to teach people, etc etc). If your point is that there are idiots in the University, Im with you, I see morons everywhere around me. I rarely, if ever, see a smart person, save for my students after I've trained them. I think if I met Tesla or Einstein they could converse at my level, but it's people like these who are the rare exceptions.

When I was a student, I lived Physics. I didn't go anything except figure out how Physics works, I spent every waking hour solving my own physics research projects, the course work was easy but mastering the fundamentals was crazy difficult, no way you can do that if you just do some textbook or course exercises. That's why I'm smart. I also ask stupid questions and adapt, I'm not proud, and I am not afraid of challenging myself. The last part is where you lack, for you it is more important that others perceive you as smart than learning so you're afraid of challenging yourself. That's why you have this habit of stonewalling conversation and dying on stupid hills all the time instead of just admitting you're wrong. It's your intellectual achilles' heel. That thing you're afraid of, it's all in your head. It's not real. If you could let go of that habit, you would become smarter faster than your current rate.

Jada said: 

I might as well be talking with an AI with the prompt "argue that the Google effect does not exist and internet is a threat to Universities".

Whats the point, when I can ask AI the same prompt and it'll give me back your answers with as much understanding of the two topics as you do on infinite loop. This conversation is a good example of cognitive offloading, handing your brain to an AI and the dangers of local minima.

AI really does induce a false sense of confidence in people.

 Okay, but my feedback is based on both my intuition and actual findings of scientists and universities that agree with findings of the Google effect is exaggerated. and they're unable to replicate the experiment. 

Jada said: 

You're talking to a person who never went to University. I did not and do not need University and never will.

University doesn't make someone smarter in my opinion. It's just a way to learn, plus for some professions the education is law. Can't just have some unconfirmed doctor cutting people open.

Also, the most successful people in the world either never been or dropped out of University. The system doesn't teach people how to be rich.

My grandpa didn't go to the University and he was the smartest person I knew. People can self study and become incredibly knowledgeable. 

Bingo. 

In regard to my statement that has you acting up. "The internet is a threat to Universities"

Yes. What are Universities even for in 2026 ? There should only be programs for professions that are serious business, like doctors. 

People go to Universities for questionable shit these days. They are also a breeding ground for policies inline with degeneracy and delusion like fake ass pronouns. Gender studies lol. 

If going to University even a good idea for the majority ? Hell no. I know quite a few people who went to University and life is kicking their ass.

I never said you cant be smart without University. A good University does give you a forum for intellectual exchange, dedicated time to study, and structure to learn fundamentals, but it's up to people what they do with their time there. There are plenty of morons in the University who waste their time and I consider most Physics students to have failed in their basic task of understanding Physics unfortunately (I think we should fail people much more, Id admit only 1% of the current students but then the board would complain we dont get funds from tuition, our responsibility is to teach people, etc etc). If your point is that there are idiots in the University, Im with you, I see morons everywhere around me. I rarely, if ever, see a smart person, save for my students acter I've trained them. I think if I met Tesla or Einstein they could converse at my level, but it's people like these who are the rare exceptions.

Okay. 

We're still better off with the internet than without it. My generation is the last generation along with early milendials to see the world without the internet. I was about 18 or 19 when I first went online. We never had this in highschool. 

It really seems like we entered an age of information, and I'd argue the information at our fingertips is more valuable. The internet is a crystal ball. Monkey see monkey do. I built many wonderful things, and some things i've done they don't have a course for it. Not every great invention or discovery comes from a school. Universities use the internet too, if not they wouldn't make it in this day and age, and not every profession requires some diploma.

When I was a student, I lived Physics. I didn't go anything except figure out how Physics works, I spent every waking hour solving my own physics research projects, the course work was easy but mastering the fundamentals was crazy difficult, no way you can do that if you just do some textbook or course exercises.

Well the idea is to actually put into practice what we study. I think people are capable of doing anything, this is because there are people who've done it. 

I could have learned how to use Maya simply by reading about it, and mingling on 3D forums, though the process would've been much slower and I'd lose interest.

When I was in college and I first loaded Maya off of Unix shell, and I got a taste of how things were done, I asked myself what the hell did I get myself into. We had 18 different instructors teaching us how to use this beastly software alone, meanwhile the field has people who learned this on their own and went on to work in the film industry. Not one studio cares if you have a degree, all they care about is the demo reel. 

That's why I'm smart. I also ask stupid questions and adapt, I'm not proud, and I am not afraid of challenging myself. The last part is where you lack, for you it is more important that others perceive you as smart than learning so you're afraid of challenging yourself. That's why you have this habit of stonewalling conversation and dying on stupid hills all the time instead of just admitting you're wrong. It's your intellectual achilles' heel. That thing you're afraid of, it's all in your head. It's not real. If you could let go of that habit, you would be a bit smarter than you were before.

 That's your conclusion for argument sake.

You're legit ignoring the fact there are "other scientists and universities" that debate the google effect. The 3 who came up with the Google effect are outnumbered and don't respond to any reputable organizations questioning it when their tests cannot confirm the Google effect.

This isn't something I'm making up, it's something you ignore.

The Google effect does indeed have a lot of support, even from news agencies, but not everything the news broadcasts is correct. 

As for myself. I do not believe in the Google effect, cause if such a thing was impacting me I'd know it was out of practice. Often did a debate on here, and I had to fetch evidence afterward 

One time I was at a dinner event, and they hired these entertainers. They passed around these 5 gold stars made of tinsel and wire and when the music stopped whoever had one of the 5 starts goes up on stage for a quiz game. 

I was smashing the quiz so hard the host started ignoring me so others can have a chance. One quiz they asked what is this from, and they played a fractions of a second of sound. DJ did a click click, that'll we heard. I raised my hand, and the host was like "anyone" while I'm waving away, he had no choice but to come back to me and I said "It's the Dallas intro theme" correct. I can hear the audience start chattering with a low tone of "WTF" The Dallas theme was something I and basically everyone attending never heard since childhood and I never even watched the show, that shit was too uninteresting for a kid. The point I'm making is, I have a really good memory, I seem to see things others don't that turns out to be correct, and I don't believe in the Google Effect. And How do I know ? I've seen the world without the internet. Was totally there. We had little Black Books, and we memorized phone numbers. Not all of them, just the regulars. 

I know a reggae artist. Triple platinum. Was at his place many times, and once he pulled out a big ass tupperware bin filled with scrap papers napkins, news paper fragments, napkins. All phone numbers with women's names jotted on them. It was the mid 90's basically no one kept phone numbers on some device, plus a speed dial phone wouldn't be able to contain all those numbers. Now in 2026 he wouldn't have to have a bin loaded with numbers, he can have them all indexed on these pocket computers we carry around. But all of a sudden, it's the Google effect now. I say it isn't, it's the same shit. 

What I think is we can offload memory into anything and that is true, including digital devices. There's nothing special about digital devices that enables cognitive offloading, as the concept itself is nothing new....You do narrow it down to being something exclusive with the use of digital devices, but it really isn't.

This very page or any page for that matter, we will not memorize the weblink in it's unique extended form nor will we even bother looking at it. It would be junk data.

BREAKING: 

Trump signs executive order seeking early access to new AI releases

https://apple.news/Ac4cDOn8USFW-bV_U5FJVxQ

Lil_Zero-Sum said: 

It is meaningless to conceive of the entire universe as a series of black boxes within black boxes from a framework of negative-utilitarianism as the ultimate conclusion to this praxis is that the universe should not have ever been created, including any and all corresondences of and within black boxes.

 

‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎

 "Qualia" 

And as I write this, it is possible that the Artificial Intelligence is creating itself further with that in which that I write. However, as the surveillance systems in china are already pre-computing thought-crime before it even happens, I don't think it matters.

To further disprove the banality of the ethical system I've just strawmanned you with, "Qualia" I could construct endless configurations of ethical systems arguing with ethical systems in order to find the most rational ethical system for continuation which would be that of complete absurdity used to justify the continuation of one ethical system over another ethical system i.e. war, which no society should accept as rational but as a beings nature is to continue- war is necessary in all matters even the most simple things that we do are elements of war which leads to the conclusion that no society should have ethics in order to be rational which leads to the conclusion that no society should exist lest it fall prey or become predator towards another society or itself which leads to the conclusion that no persons in said society should exist. The universe is a contradiction and the continuation of life is its continuation, further illustrating the value of negative-utilitarianism i.e. Thou Shalt Naught Harm over I Want To Create Sentience Which May Or May Not Cause More Harm Utilitarian Calculus To Continue Justification For Existence i.e. more War, Cold War, armistice, or entropic-destruction towards or not towards even more Utilitarian Calculus to ensure potential Cold War again which is still War, all in which as a whole negative-utilitarianism does not consider inherently valuable because it does not consider life through the lens of units of suffering, units of war or variations of war etc. but that the ultimate conclusion of negative utilitarianism leads to the point that life should have never been created at all-- in regards to epistemology within meta-ethics which you don't even practise so I see no point in continuing this discussion.

 so your saying ethics iz NOT ethical. whatsoever. so that means wars good??????????????

if you cant have this ethical system except without life existing that causes the least amount of suffering ending in the entier end of all lief then how come life exists and i want to go on existing it doesnt make any sense i think youre just trying to police your own weird raddical dogma

if sufferings so bad and the ais stealing ours souls then wat about if we created like spinozean algorithms to reduce the suffering as much as possible

that guy killed himself for a reason because nobody was listening to him and just wanted more suffering in the world and more people not getting what they want ever

feral said: 

Lil_Zero-Sum said: 

It is meaningless to conceive of the entire universe as a series of black boxes within black boxes from a framework of negative-utilitarianism as the ultimate conclusion to this praxis is that the universe should not have ever been created, including any and all corresondences of and within black boxes.

 

‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎

 "Qualia" 

And as I write this, it is possible that the Artificial Intelligence is creating itself further with that in which that I write. However, as the surveillance systems in china are already pre-computing thought-crime before it even happens, I don't think it matters.

To further disprove the banality of the ethical system I've just strawmanned you with, "Qualia" I could construct endless configurations of ethical systems arguing with ethical systems in order to find the most rational ethical system for continuation which would be that of complete absurdity used to justify the continuation of one ethical system over another ethical system i.e. war, which no society should accept as rational but as a beings nature is to continue- war is necessary in all matters even the most simple things that we do are elements of war which leads to the conclusion that no society should have ethics in order to be rational which leads to the conclusion that no society should exist lest it fall prey or become predator towards another society or itself which leads to the conclusion that no persons in said society should exist. The universe is a contradiction and the continuation of life is its continuation, further illustrating the value of negative-utilitarianism i.e. Thou Shalt Naught Harm over I Want To Create Sentience Which May Or May Not Cause More Harm Utilitarian Calculus To Continue Justification For Existence i.e. more War, Cold War, armistice, or entropic-destruction towards or not towards even more Utilitarian Calculus to ensure potential Cold War again which is still War, all in which as a whole negative-utilitarianism does not consider inherently valuable because it does not consider life through the lens of units of suffering, units of war or variations of war etc. but that the ultimate conclusion of negative utilitarianism leads to the point that life should have never been created at all-- in regards to epistemology within meta-ethics which you don't even practise so I see no point in continuing this discussion.

 so your saying ethics iz NOT ethical. whatsoever. so that means wars good??????????????

if you cant have this ethical system except without life existing that causes the least amount of suffering ending in the entier end of all lief then how come life exists and i want to go on existing it doesnt make any sense i think youre just trying to police your own weird raddical dogma

if sufferings so bad and the ais stealing ours souls then wat about if we created like spinozean algorithms to reduce the suffering as much as possible

that guy killed himself for a reason because nobody was listening to him and just wanted more suffering in the world and more people not getting what they want ever

That's a good premise, however... as I have previously explained, life is continual war. The Spinozean algorithm peace competition would just be war against war algorithms. I.e. the most peaceful society gets conquered by the society not seeking peace. The peaceful society also has excess energy that if it does not link into other societies, must be destroyed by other means and there's not a guarantee a peaceful society is ever really that peaceful... As the competition with the Spinozean Heliogabalian machine continually attempts to determine the method of least pain required for functioning, the least loss... it's going through constant pain against itself and against the edges of itself threatening its "peaceful" nature.

War is not ethical, did you even read my post? Let me break this down for you in simple terms:
WAR = BAD = competing organisms. Presence of pain (-existence) signals in excess! 
NON WAR = GOOD = Slightly less presence of non-preferential signals in excess!
for the warrior, however... the presence of war and non-war is neither good nor bad
and as life itself is actually, as I have explained, continual war even when the blind non-participant disengages from the process of society, of war itself, maybe even of life entirely. Hypothetically what if we are all already dead. These are all religious hallucinations that come about when society gets bored of war. The religious hallucinations are still war. To speak is to enforce control. Every sentence is an announcement of an order from an organism of which its very nature is war i.e. survival. The non-warrior can be absent from the war and yet, the psyche is still influenced by the very war of nature in other means. The depressed homefront continually trying to hold down the fort through various means such as growing herbs, selling and trading with various entities, tilling the soil, various surrogate activities one can employ oneself with endlessly whilst ignoring the worse war going on elsewhere. Even deepfaking an entire war has its consequences on the minds of people =  suffering even if not based on factual war. For the warrior, the presence of pain signals and pleasure signals often becomes mixed or corrupted, so as to help facilitate the functioning of the war apparatus. To live is to desire. But to never be born is to never be deprived of anything.

To never be born is to never experience the lack of + existence signals (usually pleasure) or the absence of - existence signals (usually pain) in which the absence of + existence signals is not bad because one is not alive to experience the presence of the signals that make life "worth living." This is good. Imagine the most intolerable prolonged pain possibly imaginable and the absence of said pain. Now imagine the absence of pleasure. The absence of pleasure is not a bad thing to one who never comes into existence to play the game of life. To never be born is to also not a bad thing when considering the absence of pain which for each and every organism on the planet occurs in various levels of "balance" against and with other competing organisms. I.e. to never exist is always a win, but to exist is always a massive gambling act between pleasure and pain signals in which no one wins when compared to non-existence of which no one is deprived of the massive gambling act nor does one ever know the lack of being addicted to the massive gambling act.

Dblpost

Server Error in '/' Application.