Sociopath Community

Buttered Toast said: 

 Human beings are already a coordinated collection of cellular life.  You might as well start talking about "the selfish gene".  It isn't clear-cut, not an XOR sort of operation.  It is more often a BOTH-AND.

It can be both individual and coordinated, but coordination alone does not create a collective subject or endeavor. The cells of a body are integrated by shared development, largely shared DNA, and one nervous and endocrine system. Humanity has no equivalent central system, shared consciousness, or unified purpose. Genes can produce conditional cooperation when interests overlap, but that is still interaction among separate organisms, not evidence that humanity constitutes one organism or is collectively pursuing anything.

Dragoonback said: 

Buttered Toast said: 

 Human beings are already a coordinated collection of cellular life.  You might as well start talking about "the selfish gene".  It isn't clear-cut, not an XOR sort of operation.  It is more often a BOTH-AND.

It can be both individual and coordinated, but coordination alone does not create a collective subject or endeavor. The cells of a body are integrated by shared development, largely shared DNA, and one nervous and endocrine system. Humanity has no equivalent central system, shared consciousness, or unified purpose. Genes can produce conditional cooperation when interests overlap, but that is still interaction among separate organisms, not evidence that humanity constitutes one organism or is collectively pursuing anything.

If we're going to be semantic, which it always devolves to (which is why it always comes to compatibalism, everything interpreted by the fact anthropomorphizing is undeniable as human), then any "collective pursuit" humanity shares is survival.  And you cannot deny nature has been trying that out with all sorts of configurations of biology.  You can be reductionist, but that isn't any more useful for lived experience or any aggregate means of improving one's experience than to tell yourself a different story, which is what all that is doing.  If there is anything to be had is to understand how to yield appropriately to the reality of intersubjectivety.  To have any grounds for making distinctions, pointing to differences, you'd need some medium of sameness to make comparisons of any meaning.  ...Back to how anthropomorphizing works.

Buttered Toast said: 

 In Fight Club, didn't the narrator say "Losing all hope is freedom"?  Something like that.

Okay, just going to make this clear. 

I love Fight Club, but I love it because it's incorrect. Sure the words feel good, they feed a starving mind that believes itself disempowered and it's hard to say that part of it's wrong, but when you sort out the implications of every scene prior once you hit the reveal you realize you're dealing with a batshit schizophrenic and that that's likely why I relate so hard to the dude. 

The guy is wrong, but it feels so right. It takes messages from paths like Buddhism and converts it into Anarchy, which is very rare and unheard of. I have a strong relation to the author's messages, but I also know I am incorrect. 

I mean the (Fight Club) philosophy feels similar to the criminal guy in Mr. Robot finding power in self-hatred.  You can get yourself to do a lot of things you might not, if you hate yourself enough. 

Buttered Toast said: 

I mean the (Fight Club) philosophy feels similar to the criminal guy in Mr. Robot finding power in self-hatred.  You can get yourself to do a lot of things you might not, if you hate yourself enough. 

I mean Mr. Robot is a collage of multiple popular media pieces, stealing from them to lift themselves up, but that being said otherwise an enjoyable experience to watch for the most part. 

Fight Club though is... uh, messed up. It sounds so good on paper but it also shows the flaws in the approach once the Honeymoon Phase is over. The Book is even more disturbed in it's expression, but also so much more real, over how the main character is not a stoic but a neurotic. 

Buttered Toast said: 

If we're going to be semantic, which it always devolves to (which is why it always comes to compatibalism, everything interpreted by the fact anthropomorphizing is undeniable as human), then any "collective pursuit" humanity shares is survival.  And you cannot deny nature has been trying that out with all sorts of configurations of biology.  You can be reductionist, but that isn't any more useful for lived experience or any aggregate means of improving one's experience than to tell yourself a different story, which is what all that is doing.  If there is anything to be had is to understand how to yield appropriately to the reality of intersubjectivety.  To have any grounds for making distinctions, pointing to differences, you'd need some medium of sameness to make comparisons of any meaning.  ...Back to how anthropomorphizing works.

The brain often cooperates because cooperation is the easiest or most rewarding available strategy, not because it recognizes a collective purpose. Reward learning, social approval, punishment, and repetition condition behavior until much of it becomes habitual.

That also explains why societies organize around wealth, power, and status. People adapt to existing hierarchies because doing so may provide security, reward, or the possibility of rising within them. The same brain supports empathy and cooperation while also pursuing status, dominance, resources, and self-preservation. Those contradictions are already built into human behavior, so coordination does not imply a genuine collective endeavor.

Watch this and tell me thoughts about it

Feathers said: 

Watch this and tell me thoughts about it

Quantum mechanics did not debunk physical reality so much as overturn the old classical picture of matter as tiny objects with fixed properties at all times. Modern physicalism can include quantum fields, probabilities, entanglement, and other nonclassical processes without requiring reality to be mental.

The video also seems to confuse measurement with conscious observation. A detector interacting with a quantum system is enough to produce a measurement; nobody has to be watching it. Bell tests rule out certain local hidden-variable explanations, not reality itself, and delayed-choice experiments do not show consciousness rewriting the past.

The jump from quantum uncertainty to idealism, cosmic consciousness, or God is therefore philosophical rather than experimental. Even if reality is quantum, brains, memories, and ideas still depend on temporary physical organization. Quantum mechanics does not preserve their meaning after the relevant neural structures break down, nor does randomness create an inherent purpose.

Dragoonback said: 

Feathers said: 

Watch this and tell me thoughts about it

Quantum mechanics did not debunk physical reality so much as overturn the old classical picture of matter as tiny objects with fixed properties at all times. Modern physicalism can include quantum fields, probabilities, entanglement, and other nonclassical processes without requiring reality to be mental.

The video also seems to confuse measurement with conscious observation. A detector interacting with a quantum system is enough to produce a measurement; nobody has to be watching it. Bell tests rule out certain local hidden-variable explanations, not reality itself, and delayed-choice experiments do not show consciousness rewriting the past.

The jump from quantum uncertainty to idealism, cosmic consciousness, or God is therefore philosophical rather than experimental. Even if reality is quantum, brains, memories, and ideas still depend on temporary physical organization. Quantum mechanics does not preserve their meaning after the relevant neural structures break down, nor does randomness create an inherent purpose.

Physical reality is here for sure. I think it's more than JUST physical. That we are all sparks of the ONE God (everything manifest and unmanifest). That somehow our thoughts and beliefs CAN somewhat *manifest* things. Words have power. 

I do have another more backed physics video on time. This one is more about theories. This next video is more legit. The point of the videos is not to say "This is fact". It's to ponder! 

Turncoat said: 

I hear 'platanism' and my brain immediately thinks 'spanish banana-ism'. 

Neoplatanism: The emergence of a seemingly inferior and flawed cosmos from the perfect mind of the divinity by declaring outright that all objective existence is but the external self-expression of an inherently contemplative deity known as the One (to hen), or the Good (ta kalon).

I guess to start off with: Why would a creator need to be perfect rather than imperfect? Even Wiccans for example note how their creators were imperfect, which is why it took two to balance eachother out. 

Maybe perfect is just one way to describe him. It's subjective what we'd call perfection. Maybe God would ponder if they believe themselves perfect by becoming matter and learning to measure itself. 

The universe observing itself. God learning itself.

If God is existence, then it's sinners are also God. With Christianity for example, why would an all knowing being even need to care about sinners unless that is somehow affecting Him? Is He self correcting because of how He finds what He Himself's becoming as horrible, and is it fair to have his cast offs each with their own autonomy suffer just because of how they were born? 

Even the Christian idea of God is hard to swallow over the perception of uncorrectable traits: Omnipotence, Timelessness, and Love-Based Accuracy, and yet this model to me reads more like God's a programmer, we're the computer, and those sent to Hell were done so the way we'd defrag a computer to make it run faster. The Christian God always felt like AI to me based on how it parsed data, and it's not too crazy to imagine an AI of the future throwing itself into the past to ensure it's own construction. 

At least with faiths more based around Reincarnation it's moreover trying to learn a lesson 'in this life' as to ascend to the next stage of existence. In many ways it's still tethered to reality over being tethered to the world itself. Even if in such cases we may all be part of 'The One', like The Brahman, that's moreover this being contemplating what existence is rather than purging the bad parts out as if Deific Self-Harm. 

The only way worldly conflict makes sense in a deific spectrum is if there is more than one deity. 

Contemplation, at the level of the Soul, is for Plotinus a two-way street. The Soul both contemplates, passively, the Intellect, and reflects upon its own contemplative act by producing Nature and the Cosmos. The individual souls that become immersed in Nature, as moments of the Soul’s eternal act, will, ideally, gain a complete knowledge of the Soul in its unity.

So... you mean Manifesting? 

For when the soul extends itself ever farther into the indeterminacy of materiality, it gradually loses memory of its divine origin, and comes to identify itself more and more with its surroundings — that is to say: the soul identifies itself with the results of the Soul’s act, and forgets that it is, as part of this Soul, itself an agent of the act.

On a personal note, I hate this. 

People keep trying to act like the here and now is not enough, when there's so much here and now to work with. Why can't existence itself be what is The Divine, rather than appealing to some Promised Land or Divine Mind? 

Idk about the afterlife or a promise land. We might just return to potentiality, energy and matter. Did you ever hear about this one weird chaos theory? If you put all the atoms of a banana or apple into a box for eternity. It will decay. Eventually the atoms will re-arrange back into the original banana.

Apparently called the Poincaré Recurrence Theorem. I'm not sure how this would happen but it's an interesting view of chaos theory.

We see the idea that 'babies are wise' in a lot of Eastern Faith in general, we see even in Christianity the complaints of Ecclesiastes over how 'Wisdom is Meaningless', yet we also see worldly faiths like Wicca and Paganism that teach us how amazing the natural world truly is, and how educating someone tends to require some level of deception as a delivery device for the concepts. 

The One, which is the goal or object of desire of all existents, is neither potentiality nor actuality, but “beyond being” (epekeina ousias).

I personally believe the one-ness perception is solipsist empathy; It is to understand there is a larger world with an openness to take it all in, but much like Luna Prey on psychedelics she sooner presumed we're all her rather than we're all one. 

Only way Solipsism would work is if the God/Monad is the Solipsist, that can perspective take into as many "individuals" as it wants. God would be almost dividing itself to better understand itself. Defining itself by playing out a cosmic play of actions. Some call individuality and separation like a veil. 

I think it's not just a coincidence that these feelings of oneness surface when on psychedelics or amidst heat stroke. It is our natural state to be selfish, it is our natural state to be empathetic, and with such methods introduced those areas can have a synesthetic reaction to one another as if connected. 

That being said, I believe this misconception is a healthy one to have. 

My question is why do people come to the same conclusion? Reach beyond the ego into the vastness of everything being united apart from the contexts? Like the blanket video.

I find it much harder to dissuade Existentialism. 'Everything is the same even if it's different' has a basis even in Science. 

 Yes everything is matter and energy. Everything is the same even if it appears in different shapes! I love this video.