Former Tweets
Former Tweets
(SOME OF THEM)
(SOME OF THEM)
The cross ratio in projective geometry reminds me so much of the derivative in calculus.
Trying to think of space in more than 3 dimensions is a bit like trying to think of numbers in a numeral system other than the conventional base 10 system.
The infinity of numbers and the infinity of musical possibilities have certain characteristics in common, for example, multiple dimensions.
It may not be love or beauty that would save the world, but those may be the things that the world would be saved *for*.
More than a quality, beauty is an organic institution.
In the hierarchies of systems, from an internal perspective, beauty is but the harmony with the external.
Beauty is a drug of perception.
Write a melody that reflects the beauty of a soul you didn't know existed.
Great art affects the individual on all three temporal layers - by evoking their memories, by expressing their feelings, and by aligning with their desires. That is how art encapsulates eternity for humans.
Attended an ecstatic dance session this evening. I call it: heaven simulation.
Never underestimate the extent of the world your audience can comprehend. Never underestimate your audience.
Space is dancing! (Thoughts after another ecstatic dance session.)
There is great art, of high aesthetic value by itself. Then there is greater art, into which all audience can project more of their own essence. And finally, the greatest art, which does not just leave space for the beholder, but offers a narrow escape route into the infinite.
Coincidences are the rhymes of reality.
Love at first sight is inter-personal/inter-subjective/inter-being (and aesthetic) consciousness.
By enabling large-scale synthetic content creation, we must ask ourselves again whether art is defined and brought into existence through the pleasure of the creator or that of the beholder. If art is a medium between creator and beholder, is AI as a tool - if applied - conceptually located between creator and medium, or medium and beholder?
Our world being THE reality may not be a solid argument for the duty of the individual to be moral. However, being (probably) on the SAME LEVEL of reality with fellow living beings should be.
What is worse than being in a simulation? Being in a simulation that has been "left on".
The whole set of worlds contains all possible AND all impossible worlds. Wondering now what the best of all impossible worlds looks like. Surely the best of all impossible worlds is better than the best of all possible ones. Simulated worlds may resemble either, so it may feel better to "live" in a simulation after all. Maybe (depending on the laws governing base reality), the best of all worlds (possible and impossible) can only be a simulation.
It is time to replace the expression "Please say this is just a bad dream!" with "This is just a horrible simulation, right?"
An incompleteness theorem of consciousness would have some implications to existence itself. It could represent something like a boundary condition in a simulation. The incompleteness theorem of consciousness is empirically supported by millennia of ultimately unsuccessful attempts of getting an intellectual hold on consciousness. So I guess... "I think, therefore..." I at least entertain the idea of being (in) a simulation.
It's interesting how, with technological and scientific progress, people gaming a lot, and people devoting their time to contemplating our world and its phenomena, may be more and more likely to arrive at a similar judgement on the realness of our reality: highly doubting it (either by confusion, or by bedazzling arguments).
A question for non/determinists: Which is greater, the number of the theoretically possible pasts or the number of the possible futures?
Is there a point of reality in time, to which we could have exactly arrived, but through another path? Might the number of such points increase with time?
The start of a scifi idea: In an oscillating cosmos, the only thing getting through singularities is a package of mathematical and physical laws to unfold. In-between, civilizations become intelligent enough to change the "package" for the next universe.
Predictability within a system depends mainly upon its restrictability (boundaries and distinct elements), its transparency and its complexity.
In my chairlift analogy to the oscillating universe model, the chairlift cabin is our 3 dimensional space; the wire is time; the mountain peak is the highest energy level; and the surroundings are the other potential dimensions of the universe (out of reach for travelers).
If a Small Bang were staged + a Miniverse created: Could it be observed expanding/oscillating? / Would it destroy our universe (as in The Never Ending Story)? / Would we be unable to see it, as despite it were to start in our surroundings, by definition it was outside of our universe?
A time prison is only a temporary solution.
Time is a beautiful concept, even on a basic level of thought. The past may be finite. The present is infinitesimal, or infinitely finite. The future may be infinite.
If universes are conscious, and if that also means they have a soul, do they reincarnate? What is their version of the reincarnation process? Does it manifest in oscillations, parallel universes, or both?
As distant and scifi as it may sound, I like to think of a morality-related "fate", which - at a more advanced point - can be understood, accepted and followed. Even more distantly, this "obedience" would lead to accessing otherverses (other universes).
Wondering what was earlier: the emergence of physical time in the universe, or our universe qualifying as a reality (whatever prerequisites for realities there may be).
Is it possible to combine a video of a hypercube/tesseract rotation with a spacetime simulation?
Do multiverse theorists think about the numerical results of potential universe multiplication, I wonder. Like: since the beginning of time (around the Big Bang), at a binary or higher rate, per Planck time as units - what that acceleration would "look" like, and whether there are overlaps, i.e. identically "looking" universes, despite them having branched off at previous points.
*Twin algorithms* could be the ones that are being run at the same time, in the same domain. So physically speaking, our world might be running on twin algorithms. The obstacles in reconciling huge theorems in physics may indicate a way of the world ensuring its own existence by not having anything like a *Halting Problem Moment*, or a *Gödel Moment*, which apply for more "straightforward" systems. Preventing paradoxes with more foundational paradoxes.
Nostalgia is one of the words one could have a hard time finding the antonym to. And at first, I didn't even think of regret. I thought about the leapoffaith that the future will be better than the past ever could have been.
If you google the opposite of "ironic", you get: "sincere", "logical" and "to be expected". This contrast may be applicable to a tone or character, but in a situation, "ironic" is a negative pole of meaning, and "logical" is just the neutral middle of that scale. A true antonym would be a word that one could insert in the example sentence: "It is [...] that despite sharing experiences of suffering, he/she/they raised hopes all over the globe." It would need be a word combining "heartwarming", "astounding" and "wonderful", but individually, they don't do the situation justice. So we have words for a situation that is negatively contradictory and funny, but for positively contradictory and rewarding ones, we have not coined a one single word yet. How... ironic.
The true opposite of a sarcastic person is someone who is trying to be nice, but through jokes that are actually really flat. There's no one single word for this behaviour.
Language is like a jigsaw puzzle, and through poems, one can already assemble some "islands" of meaning, i.e. of the bigger picture.
Linguistic anti-singularity: When the speed of events exceeds the speed of linguistic expression. (The speed of information flows does not speed up language, on the short term, at least. It speeds events.)
The author - due to their linguistic capacity - cannot restrain from word games, and *other wordly phenomena*.
Sciences serve peaceful coexistence in a multilevel, multidimensional way. Relating to anthropology, linguistics, and sociology, I wonder if there has ever been a collective goal of finding the system (the rules and characteristics of that system) in which cultures and languages are in some way complementary, and add up (even if with huge overlaps, due to trends of internationalisation, which is not judged negatively though) into a larger whole. Letting our cultures interact and mastering other languages may contribute to this process bottom-up. That larger whole may not be perfect, but through its organic assemblage, we may recognise underlying codes of culture and humanity in general.
Is "making the same difference" an oxymoron, I wonder.
Which feels more unpleasant: being woken up from your dream, or having to wake up from your sleep, for your dream has clearly ended?
Unsatisfied agent? Turn into a double agent.
If anyone would want to create a discobolus caricature, I would suggest to use the setting of an uncomfortable shower cabin, where the subject has to hold on to something on the wall while shaving their leg.
When you're sorry for your potential future children, because you realise that even as a woman, you have inherited your dad's sense of "humour". That means that those children could be hearing dad jokes from both sides.
If you like carrots, as well as rhyming syllables, you may turn to the German, as well as the Hungarian language: Was für eine schöne Möhre! / Milyen szép a sárgarépa!
Ultimate social impressionlessness (or something worse): When you don't just forget the name(s) of person, and their face, but also their number, that is, how many of such people attended a certain event with you.
How to make int'l students giggle: 1. Read their names out loud (attendance tracking). 2. Arrive at the longest, most challenging name. 3. Take a deep breath. Attempt to pronounce the whole name. 4. Noticing the student is absent, remark silently: "That wasn't worth the effort." They'll hear it, trust me.
Fekete teára zöld... nekem az a "borra sör". *Complaining in Hungarian about mixing tea types, and the resulting effects. It rhymes with some alcoholic beverages.*
This is from a real conversation I had: "Can you reduce your ecological footprint by washing your feet?" "Definitely not if they're green, for that counts as greenwashing."
Wax salon conversation: "Don't worry, we are nearing the end of it. There's just a little bit left." "The *epil*ogue to the process…"
Not saying it isn't cool, but regenerating a response in ChatGPT is a bit like visiting the second page of your Google search results.
Int'l student to the lecturer: "I forgot my laptop charger at home, and had to reassemble the entire presentation in the library."; "You created all this today, from scratch?"; "I didn’t even have scratch!"
City dweller thoughts on a countryside train journey: "OMG, that's a crane well! 🤩 Oh no, it's a broken lamp post 😒"
When one door closes, another opens. The trapdoor beneath your feet, of course.
The (imaginary) word *hypocracy* (also a common misspelling of hypocrisy) could have two meanings: a society ruled by noble hippos or by hypocrites.
TikTok operates on the Planck length of socialmedia and film. And the human mind, of course.
When you're getting astigmatism because your crush doesn't change their location on the dancefloor, nor do you dare to.
Brings out the introvert in me.
How can a thermophysicist unregret consuming hot chocolate? By drinking an ice chocolate too.
To greet materialists? Hello shallow fellow.
Helping others is a need, but it could be a right. Everyone could be given the opportunity to help other people, even those in the greatest need of attention and care. (You'll understand, when you receive a present from a person with an intellectual disability.)
For people who have schizophrenia: keep a coincidence counter. It may reflect your state.
Writing heals the mind, when one is down, and calms it on the highs. In the former situation, it helps one to better understand themselves. In the latter, it helps the world to understand themselves, for it is there, where the mind births ideas and theories.
The heaviest thing about schizophrenia from a patient's perspective is the hijack of their narrative, both internally and externally. Life will not go on as planned, and the mind needs reasons for the derailment. It will hardly accept its own misfunctioning as such.
Last memorable sentence from before the last time you've been hospitalized with a mentalillness? Mine was: "I think I've discovered something."
We are more than... [what our circumstances, our history, and time in general did to] ... our bodies.
Here's something personal about schizophrenia and movies combined: When I watch a Wachowski movie, or series, it usually feels like risking my sanity. They are literally mind-blowing.
Sometimes it may feel like we're ostriches, who, in case they pull their heads out of the sand, must take mental health medication.
A psychosis of paranoid schizophrenia is like a mental trap. One doesn't seem to have the time, nor the option to explain their situation.
There are connections between collective knowledge and schizophrenia, and maybe, there is a connection between the ratio of schizophrenic people in society and the "shape" of the knowledge construct.
I'd guess that in post-truth societies, a higher ratio of people would develop schizophrenia.
If the human mind is conditioned to seek order, we shouldn't blame people breaking down under intellectual / ideological weights of disorder (~ inconsistencies) in their systems. Miraculously, seeking order can also be a motivation for scientific progress.
It's okay to be "crazy" (as in: "crazy in love", or "crazy genius"), but one has to be better organized + more moral, than crazy. That's socially sustainable, and that way, "crazy" would have a hard time knocking one down.
If your brain suddenly went online and public, amid huge attention, what would your first thought be (can be intentional / accidental)? *Solidarity tweet for people having (had) paranoid schizophrenia, and for extreme proponents of transparency.*
Being tricked by senses may be perceived as an internal thing, but the greatest tricks are played on individuals at an even deeper layer, by their own minds.
Schizophrenia is... signing your "voluntary" hospitalization docs thinking they are international treaties.
If someone had schizophrenia in the early '10-s, and she had a co-patient, in a wheelchair, their head slightly bending to the side... Well, to the schizophrenic, this person was Stephen Hawking.
Schizophrenia is a burden for both the patient and those caring (during psychoses). One of the big challenges for the carers must be finding the balance in as to what extent to carry the burden. An emotional collapse is economically unaffordable, and turning away - ethically.
Culture-shock may hit one hardest at the peak of the integration process, when their determination to belong is the strongest, and their efforts the greatest.
Medication may cure the illness, but... the illness was the cure for reality.
One should let their mind marvel at what is beyond its grasp, yet not "push" it there, for mental defense mechanisms may cause permanent damage to the narrative of one's own life.
Schizophrenia has to be acknowledged, but hasn't got to be identified with.
For every way of being sane, there are a myriad ways of being crazy. Yet for a myriad ways of being sane, there are only a few ways of being moral. Interestingly, one in every few moral ways may be crazy.
The luxury of taking meds for schizophrenia (and being in balance as per one's doctor), is that one can think of all kinds of amazing stuff, as intensely as one wants to, knowing that the meds have their back.
Would some of today's "normal" people have been yesterday's "crazy" people? Depends on how long ago yesterday was. But by this logic, some of today's "crazy" people may be tomorrow's "normal" people, at least by some standard of (collective) consciousness and of mental wellbeing.
Does the socially acceptable state of consciousness evolve with economic and scientific progress, I wonder.
When/if you love a person who has a mental illness, do you love them "with" or "without" that condition? "With" being: because it's part of their "package". And "without" being: because their true self is independent of their illness.
„If the structure of randomness relaxes its vigilance against unintended patterns even in tiny ways, even in just one facet of a complex structure, someone somewhere will find that flaw and tell the rest of us.” (John F. Williams) That someone is most likely to be a scientist, an artist or - if expressional difficulties arise - a mental health patient.
Sound people in broken systems become marginalized and expelled, just to be ushered back in a crushed state through the backdoor of mental health care.
Wondering if the gamification of life itself could at least serve suicide prevention purposes. "Players" would have to look out for unique, and (seemingly?) random things, like coincidences and ideas.
Mental health disease awareness is paradoxical. One may never be sure if they were/are ill indeed. Around the delusional core of reality, a cloud of confusions gather during a psychosis. Then, medication decentralizes reality.
Paranoid schizophrenia is: theorizing about the greatest personal conspiracy theory possible, based on information accessible from one's own point of observation.
"All the world's a stage", and the mind's a stage for all the other possible worlds.
Systems and ideologies that restrict certain types of empathy to their own members only, may be the root cause of individual mental distress - in the system, outside of the system, and especially: in between systems.
A good joke on schizophrenia could be its Litmus Test. If only there were good jokes on schizophrenia…
Sometimes, when one realises they're dreaming, the figures in their dream turn against them. When a patient with schizophrenia "realises" the people in their life are all "in their head", or, alternatively, can get "into their head" by reading their mind, those people seem to turn against them too. The internal "defense mechanisms" of the brain are a reflection of social defense mechanisms, and/or vice versa.
To their environment, a schizophrenia patient may be like a "black box". Meanwhile, from "inside" the box, the world shimmers in technicolour.
"Exposing" yourself to a large number of different communities (academically, culturally and/or socially) has three main benefits, in my experience: better mental health, greater and more justified confidence in one's behaviour, and getting closer to universal norms.
When behavioural normative economics and mental health care meet: A mental health diagnosis does not have to mean a loss of agentic capabilities for the patient. Not even a "heavy" one.
The way we construct our "picture" of reality in our minds is a multilayered process, from sensory experiences and perceptions, through perspectives and interpretations, to an image the integrity of which we aim to uphold. When someone has a mental disorder or illness, a "problem" may occur in one or more of the layers outlined above. Disintegrations manifest in symptoms, such as hallucinations (sensory and perception level) or delusions (level of perspectives and interpretations). In certain situations, however, disintegrated layers are advantageous. When there is a need for empathy, creativity/imagination, or for the understanding of relativity in various contexts, it's worth temporarily maintaining separate perspectives in one's mind.
The imperative of "Letting Children be Children" holds in all areas, intellectual inclusive. There are topics and facts, the heaviness of which would put too much of a burden on any child to consider them. Thinking about complex issues, without the freedom to act on them, as well as the difficulties of distinguishing between the personal and the general may have serious consequences for the mental health of the young.
There are many vicious circles related to mental health issues. For example: If you ever had a psychosis, and have received a heavy diagnosis, you may spend the rest of your life wanting to do something truly useful for society, for human progress even. You may want to prove that you weren't "just crazy", and despite being "in balance" for over a decade after the "episodes", you may not be able to truly relax, ever - which is not psychotic, but probably not healthy either.
If someone tells you you're overthinking a topic, you're right to ask for the non-overthought version of the subject matter.
When someone is your soulmate, it is not just internal. It's not just that you are made to love them, or you are made for each other. If someone is your soulmate, the whole world is made that way. It's pushing and pulling you back to this person, all the damn time.
The power of love is underestimated.
We are born into a world of concepts. And it is not until we meet the right person that we start figuring out the meaning of it all. Because it is not just that „it is only with the heart that one can see rightly.” It is only through the other person that one can see it all.
There are no lonely odd numbers in infinity. (soulmaths for soulmates)
Some people's personalities are like the best desserts: Crispy on the outside, but soft within.
"For everything else, there's Mastercard", they say. I feel like Mastercard myself. If He finds another, better love, that's priceless. For all other scenarios... #thereforyou #unconditionallove
Dreaming inner memories of love.
In a nonhierarchic world it would be easier for love to manifest across cultures. One wouldn't have to make sacrifices to climb up, to be able to afford to jump over. Neither would they have to drop, just to start over on a different social mountain to climb.
There is love for love's sake, and there is love for others' sake. The latter is when love motivates you, and you achieve incredible things, plus there are some collateral benefits. Nevertheless, love, just like art, should not be judged based on its usefulness to society.
Every heart has an entrance. You may see people pushing or pulling the door, or trying with a key. For the One, however, that door opens automatically.
Love is real, but it stretches over the boundaries of real. Actually, that's where it becomes really romantic.
One characteristic of true love is that the person you want to become, and the person you want to become for your love, are the same.
Soulmates have a kind of original, essential, balanced connection. They don't need transmitters for their feelings, just like an economy of two entities does not need money for exchanges. Transactions between soulmates are barters, as one has exactly what the other needs.
Be cautious with icebreakers, for the ice may be in their heart.
When you talk to someone, but it's just a one (woman for one) man show...
Generosity blurs the boundaries of the individual.
Some people are too good to be true. Having a connection with them is even better.
One of the pickup lines for philosophers I came up with: I see you with my eyes, but also with the eye of the mind, because you are as close to the ideal as one can get.
One thing that makes people unique is the point in their life where they get lost - and the point where they find the way again. #moderntao
My heart is a bomb and your love is a match to it.
Most of romantic love is concentrated on the "edge" of the beautiful, and the "edge" of the possible.
Sometimes (or all of the time), that one person accepting your love is more valuable to you than "receiving" love from any others.
Love unites life with beauty.
We're all parallels in the coordinate system of love.
Somewhere... all souls are the same soul. My soul is just one variant of the many. And somewhere... all connections are the same connection. But ours feels like the prototype.
Your #OneTrueLove is the person you dare to be in the same romantic feeling with (instead of taking a step back or switching to the role of an observer).
When you're high on your mind, let love spill out.
I don't need love, but I need you...
If love really is the ultimate answer, it should also be the ultimate dictionary, between all languages, all art, etc., even sciences. From the standpoint of love, one should be able to understand more than they would from other standpoints.
Global love is a reverse iceberg. What we don't see yet, is the tip. Maybe we're "underwater".
Hey 🙂 Have you seen my happiness somewhere around? It should be with you.
Home is not where I am, and home is not where you are. Home is where we are together, so it could better be defined in terms of time than geographically. And that is the reason why I feel more comfortable in/about the future, than about the past.
Finding your soulmate is a journey. Finding your common path is another.
You're my kind of smart.
I wish I could have enough of you... In either sense of the sentence. But love has no minimum and no maximum values it seems.
Connecting to you connects me with everything.
I wish for a saying based on the "lucky at cards, unlucky in love" idiom. Can I be lucky in love, if I'm unlucky with houseplants? Once I receive them, they just don't live "happily ever after". 🙄
Asking "Do you love me?" likens to asking "Are you asleep?", for it is likely to have a negative effect, given the lucky situation that they are in the given state. #loveisamystery
When you have found your soulmate, your connection feels like something that could last forever. So how can a day without communicating with them also feel like forever? These 2 "forevers" are like those 2 infinities from mathematics. The connection may truly be infinite, whereas the time spent apart is scattering into infinitesimally small moments, which are lived (suffered) one by one, so that time seems to go slow.
If I were a chemist, I'd develop a (legal) drug that makes people feel, in general, the way I feel about you.
In certain situations, a significant amount of love and hope can be squeezed into a single dot. How? By being online on messenger.
What is your relationship status? It is: "Trying to connect..."
What if... the feeling we call love, and which we experience as one of our deepest emotions, was just the surface of something much greater, something that can actually drive one crazy?
If love is love, then beauty is beauty.
I fell in music with you. That is... I fell in love with you (also) through the music you were listening to.
Sometimes, "living in a dream-world" is the only way to survive.
Mutual positive feelings, like mutual respect / benevolence / love constructively interfere with each other.
Love may have to be learned. It's self-paced though.
He knew she'd fall for him (again) so he was waiting, and preparing, until he was ready to catch her.
Love itself knows no boundaries. Apart from the clichés, that it connects over time, space, life and death, and cultures, it can also connect people over various levels of sanity, or if you like, over various levels of conscience.
Love is... like this ocean in a drop. One love can contain all the love.
It's not about being single. It's about being *freedom-intensive*.
Not all of us are fueled by love, but all of us are driven by it.
One should listen to their heart, because it is their moral calibrator. (Even if it's been broken many times...)
I wanted to make your heart melt, but realised I'll have to unfreeze it.
Most of us need to be taught: Treat others as you yourself wish to be treated. But there are also a few, who should be reminded of the inverse: Try teating yourself as nicely as you are treating others.
In my experience, there are 2 emotional forms of deep listening to music. Building a world of feels on and around the track(s). This is fostering imagination. Connecting to the music through another's taste or perception. This enables a radical expansion in musical taste.
Love is a game you don't let the other person lose in.
Playlists are mirrors of the soul.
Loving you is like stirring sugar in an empty cup.
True love has no conditions, and no preconditions.
Mutual love is the best dualism.
In relationships/connections with difficulties/obstacles, one may need space, and try distancing themselves from their love, to have a clear, external view on things. If that's challenging, one should not only "blame" their mind. It's more the heart not willing to drift away.
Hope is but the cure for longing.
The best thing to define yourself by is your soulmate.
The people we hold to be wonderful have places in our lives. And those places have shapes. And the shapes remain beautiful, even after they cease being filled, and even if they never get to be filled.
In love, falling precedes letting go.
Those not in minorities are in minority.
If love was electricity, we'd be a short circuit.
Sometimes I'm a bit concerned about my mind... But about my heart, never. For my heart belongs to you. #schizophrenia #love
When in love, longing may hurt, but take just one step outside, look at the feeling itself, and you will see unparalleled beauty.
I got lost in your eyes 💙 like in my economics lecture slides.
It is not the "what is not" that hurts. It is the "what is" minus the "what could be".
If one has someone in their life whom one loves immensely, then through that person, one can learn to love others more too.
From a romantic viewpoint, the world can be declared "saved", if any two (or more) people, who wish to be together, can be together. If obstacles of any kind - geographical, cultural, financial, health related, linguistic, etc. - can be overcome, within a reasonable time.
How can every moment not spent with your love birth hopes for multiple moments spent with them?
The best feelings in life are felt *for* others.
Your perfection is inconsistent with the chaos of the world.
You can romanticise irrationality, but you cannot irrationalise love.
You are whom you love.
It's not before the heart is broken that outsiders get a glimpse into love's actual depth.
Empathy is love's way of speaking a foreign language.
If love was a poker game, I'd be all in for you.
If you'd like to step outside of love, that's fine. But I will not step outside. I will make love grow instead, so that it gets so big, one day you'll find yourself back inside.
Infinite romantic love is when the chances of your One True Love and you being together may be zero, and yet you stick to that zero chance love. This "proof of love" could be connected to the mathematical relationship of zero and infinity.
I will write my way to you.
Love is the invisible spark of the invisible fire, the invisible wave of the invisible ocean and the invisible temple of an invisible God.
Find the person who makes you experience how the heart understands things that the mind does not. No words can describe the feels, questions cannot be formulated, and no reasons can be given. There's just this multidimensional entity that can be given the name love.
Love's the deepest thing to get you high.
If you truly learn to love a person, you learn to love the world.
When all that's left from the things connecting us is outside of our connection, I'll turn the world inside out.
Art is love translated.
Met a friend with babies yesterday 💛 Concluded that: with infinite happiness comes infinite responsibility.
By saying "love is blind", we generally refer to someone overlooking the shortcomings of their object of love. On another note, it could mean love not recognising itself for what it is. For love that ventures ever further into the impossible, that lack of recognition may be for the better.
Love is an unbreakable code.
If you can't spend your life *with* that person... spend it *on* that person.
You're the person worth fighting for in a losing battle.
One of the awesome things about love is that one does not have to *give* it to make others happy. They can just *show* it .
When one thinks of you at the right time, there's not even a right place needed.
Love can be so deep that you realize how it's coming not exclusively from within. Thus, love may have two things in common with cosmic space terminology. That it is deep, and that it's "outer".
Be it of the body or of the soul, in someone else or in yourself, love is beauty recognising beauty.
Stay true to your love, even if there is little hope. For the future almost certainly holds indescribably amazing discoveries, with solutions that bring you closer to your one true love, and with experiences you would only or most of all want to share with them.
There are two types of people you may fall in love with: Those who catch you, and those who let you fall endlessly. There's a third type, whom you should avoid: Those who let you hit the ground.
Not sure whether it was a full body experience - up to the top of the head - or a pleasure spillover in terms of neurotransmitters, but it appeared as though even the brain itself could experience physical pleasure. The "sparkles" have reached it.
When you regret something, you need to recognise that your past self cannot apologise to your present self. Taking a metaphorical bow to the arrow of time, you need to practise self-love and say / think of a backward sorry. It's happening "within" the same person, after all. More importantly, you can appreciate the chance, if there is, to apologise to other people affected, in the present.
It is our dreams that enable us to recognise happiness when it is right in front of our eyes.
When someone you're interested in is reluctant to reveal their feelings or stance on your relationship, try this: Understand the situation you're in as an asymmetrical prisoner's dilemma. Identify your own preferences. Identify the equilibrium you're in with that person, among other potential situations. Sketch a payoff table. After locating the equilibrium situation, you should be closer to identifying the other person's preferences.
Your poem is where your heart is.
You can walk past a beggar on the street, whilst being a beggar yourself on the metaphorical roadside of love.
The only thing that is easier to steal from a person when they actually possess it, than when a third person does, is their heart.
“A man can do what he wants, but not want what he wants.” To conversate with this quote... One loves what one does not have to want, to want.
In a multiverse, or in a multitude of simulations, "all of me loves all of you" means that true love is independent of events, actual or virtual.
The only place one could look down on you is from the stars.
The ambiguity of faith is that it is trust in existence, without taking it for granted. But that is the beauty of it, too.
Love often comes with sacrifices and compromises, so make sure to make those for someone who at least understands what you were willing to give up for them.
What category of aesthetic experience would you call it when your admiration of a certain person feels like the finest jewel in your heart?
What is worth the skip of a heartbeat is not worth skipping.
The steps we take towards each other, feelings of empathy are also among our greatest steps forward, both in terms of personal development, and along the collective journey of understanding our world.
As an inverse to the so-called Stockholm syndrome, let me propose something that could be termed the saviour paradox: When you feel purely romantically captivated by someone, it cannot be that person to set you free. For if you don't trust them in terms of the pleasure of that freedom, you’ll stick to them anyway. If you trust them, however, and experience the greatness of freedom, you will feel indebted to them, trust their "expertise", and will be tempted to return to your "saviour" for further guidance.
I thought one is bound to fall in love with the person who "takes" them to "infinity". But when one is drifting in that direction on their own, their person may be someone who can anchor them.
You know you truly love someone when you can formulate that being connected to them is more important to you than not being a "loser" in life.
Is there some correlation between the quality of (romantic) music produced and the difficulty of falling out of love with someone, over different times and different countries, I wonder. It would be somewhat challenging to collect the data, I suppose.
Beyond and in addition to the humane point of view, one may see their fellow human beings as several volume storybooks and unique supercomputers, with their own experiences and multidimensional perspectives.
"Slaves" of love are also its main beneficiaries.
Write your poems as if you wanted to melt the iciest of hearts.
The frequent asymmetry of romantic love may serve the process of *creation through illusion*.
Love is the only place where hope and hopelessness are in no contradiction at all.
If geographical distance, cultural differences, the awkwardness of a situation, and other obstacles prevent you from hugging the one person you love the most, "hug" the world, even if only metaphorically. Your beloved person will be there, somewhere in that embrace.
The inability to keep relevant thoughts and feelings temporarily or permanently to themself may result in the deflation of the romantic persona.
Dreaming about you is a place to escape to.
There's always something that redirects my heart to you.
Distribution is the safest stabilizer - be it in the economy, or in the cloud.
I just want to reserve the right of dreaming about us meeting in infinity.
Be like Google and tell the person you do not wish to be romantically affiliated with (despite their efforts) to #SearchOn.
I'm not *a* fool. I'm *your* fool.
I love love songs, they make me understand my feelings for you. And I love the feelings for you - they make me understand love songs.
Let the world resist placing your stereotypes upon it.
"Excuse me, are you models?" "No, we're angels 😇" (strangers on the bus)
Tell them with your tears.
My patience is a testament of your perfection.
Some mental health workers are like genies: they can heal, they can treat problems, at times as if miraculously, but they have no power over romantic love.
Meeting old best friends = saving the continuity of wonders.
Whatever it is that connects us, it is bigger than us.
My path leads to you, and alongside you.
My need for you becomes amplified as longing and a genuine willingness to connect (combined with the ability to imagine happiness) interact.
The obstacles TO us are not BETWEEN us.
I love [the] U[niverse].
I love you ❤️ Independently of everything, interconnected with everything ✨️
It's okay to lose yourself in another person. Just don't lose THAT person.
Remember the "tame" quote, from The Little Prince? Maybe, one may tame a small part of themselves too. For others. If there's something one will sacrifice. It will be difficult not to love the people for whom that happens. For some higher reason than the "sunk cost".
No tech without sec: technology can be used for the better or the worse. If a new technology emerges, the security side (prevention of the negative use) should possibly be implemented before its spread.
For being conscious about ultimate human goals, humankind would need an "end-of-technology" concept, as clearly defined and well discussed as that of the "end-of-history" is, no matter if it is reached/realized one day or not.
The most important "6th sense" for the years to come, both in social and in natural sciences, as well as in technology and in politics, may be a feel for systems.
Technology that makes the world more equal, connected and/or transparent seems to be out of interest of a powerful minority. But technology has a catch: efficiency. Equality, connectedness and transparency have to make their way along, and spread along efficiency.
Security - freedom cycles are ever repeating background patterns in human history.
It could bring lessons, placing countries on a security - freedom matrix, or locating them in a security - freedom coordinate system. The exercise could result in a new index of progress.
If every natural and legal person or other entity gives up on their privacy, only as much as is obligatory plus safely affordable, then people may have to give up less on their security and/or freedom in general.
In the case of information systems, transparency is crucial for smooth processes. In the case of human systems, it is crucial for smooth lives.
The triumph of objective values depends on transparency.
There are many sources to extract data from, to reveal inequalities between the lives and opportunities of the sexes. The most telling data could come from calendars, but no single platform is convenient and widespread enough. #equalpay #equaltime
When we talk about progress, we tend to think of scientific-technological progress. But there is progress in #art as well. Imagine what people will create in a time of art, that is as much ahead of ours, as ours is of the times of cave paintings.
Arts depict the future of science, on the side. Sciences provide arts with new tools and media, on the side. Was the very first step in human progress an artistic, or a scientific one, I wonder.
The evolution of values having become faster than biological evolution is one thing that seems to keep saving our species.
We may not all desire eternal #life, but having a collective glimpse of it could have some much desired effects on individuals. Through the induced "surplus" of responsibility, both caution and courage could increase in the areas morally appropriate.
This is what the data says: that we are not extensionless.
A fatal, augmented reality related accident, which, however, could have easily been prevented by the person who suffered the accident, would fall into the category of: natural selection / unnatural selection / technology ethics case / none of them?
Will cognitive freerides in an Internet of Minds be a thing, I wonder.
Attempts to redefine progress (more specifically: the level of technology) in a human-centered way are promising. Redefinition doesn't just change the meaning - it may change the direction as well.
In a world of competition, the single greatest challenge to progress is our shared competitor: time itself.
In general, constant rewards are a recipe for human stagnation. With social media, this is happening on a mass scale. People whose lives are "admirable" as they are, have little incentive to cultivate true virtues. Users of appearance based social media stagnate collectively.
Moral "fault lines" will not dissolve by people fighting on the "frontlines" of not making life complicated for each other. Timeless, scientific (incl. philosophical) and technological progress can achieve that, in ways presently unknown.
Some entities may be selling your data like organ traffickers on the black market.
One problem with our attitude to digital technology is that by the time a cohort recognises the true risks and harms of a tool, its platform has typically been shifted, transformed, or has evolved to something unrecognisable, at least to the given cohort. The difficulties millennials may experience in protecting their younger siblings or even their own children from all kinds of digital algorithms is as nothing to what may await us in the times of more intensely augmented reality. We may not even have screen time as a tool of self-restraint at our disposal, because we will not be able to define the limits of "the screen", I suppose. Given the current pace of digital technology, this #dystopia feels actually a little too close.
Collectively, bitter and intellectually inferior challenges ought to be overcome to have access to a larger number of beautiful challenges instead. In other words: material, environmental and military setbacks to humankind may hinder human progress to an even greater extent than generally perceived.
Has it ever occurred to anyone that the abundance established by certain implications of the potentially huge scientific revolutions ahead will make us regret that we did not save the people we could have? Right now, one would say: "If only this *abundance-regret* would be the biggest issue we were to face..." To them I'd say that it might, depending on the moral maturity that can be achieved meanwhile.
The general acceleration of social media may be inversely proportional to the shrinkage of the average attention span, and content intensity may be rising in parallel with personal threshold stimuli. Meanwhile, it is the Joneses keeping up with the Joneses, and effects extending to real life. So your mind should fight the algorithm, itself, and stand firm in a sickly shifting social value system, at the same time. (Good luck.)
Some content that reaches teenage girls (earlier mostly in fashion magazines, now obviously mostly through social media) is extremely toxic. The girls are unfairly exposed to expectations which are materialist and sexist at the same time. And the whole thing is served in the sugar-coat of aesthetics.
Paradoxical as it may appear to say it here, the more you quit social media feeds, the more your calendar can become your "news feed", and your #life become *your* life.
Will we, as humankind, ever be able appreciate the astounding potential of a tool, a technology, without so many minds immediately wandering to the opportunities of economic exploitation and geopolitical advantage gains?
We do not only coexist with our fellow living beings, but also with our systems. Our systems are functioning in dynamic, multi-directional relationships with individuals. It is not unimaginable that with connectivity and interdependence increasing, the systemic end becomes more decisive in that interaction. So more than by what we eat or who our friends are, we may be shaped by what we do or do not let our systems become, and by what we shape them to be.
When we have observers in a system, the complexity of circumstances and that of comprehension appear to be racing against each other in the long run. Take the complexity of the perceived world over time, and the complexity an individual is capable of embracing at given levels of technological progress. Maybe, the complexities of circumstances and those comprehended being in a chase reflects and is inherent to how society adapts to newer states and ways of coexistence. It is kind of a Jevons paradox for complexity. The individuals responsible for keeping the chase going tend to have little difficulty in embracing current levels of complexity. They can imagine, already look forward to, and even contribute to reaching the next level.
The absence of free will is not the proof of true determinism. Free will becoming unnecessary is.
An excuse for oscillating between contradictory standpoints and ideologies is that one is gathering knowledge. Systems live within and on top of each other, and reaching the next layer may well mean you are finding yourself on the other end of the political or other scale.
At times, trade-offs are interdimensional. If you have no choice between things, choose from the perspectives, or value systems. This kind of adaptation could lead to optimism, but the ultimate goal is choosing the best thing for the best purpose.
There are levels of consciousness, but are there ratios? If yes, what is the ideal ratio in general for individual consciousness / collective consciousness? Is the ratio tied to levels of connectedness (through technology)?
The path or the goal? The form or the content? Life or beauty? Which matters more? Can one separate them? #moderntao
Subjectivity thrives in incomplete frames.
We encode reality through ideals.
I need space - in terms of time. But I don't need time in terms of space. Curious, right? 🙃 But that's just because we can illustrate an allegedly one dimensional thing with another of 3 dimensions, whereas it wouldn't work well vice versa.
There is love on the Internet. It means: being connected. #moderntao
You can access it, Yet you can't embrace it, You can't possess it, And you can't express it. (#moderntao about the Internet)
Body and mind imprison each other, Human and AI incorporate each other, Real and virtual inspire each other, Creator and createe learn from each other. #moderntao
If people will be able to change the past, then we could indeed live in the "best of all possible worlds".
Would you rather have background music to your life, or the symphony/musical/album that could be written out of it?
How does a moment last forever? By being infinitesimally small!
History could be... time, travelling through a quasi infinite dimensional "space", encountering moments, which become laced together, and get to constitute the past.
It seems literally impossible to mentally "be in the present moment", not just for distractions and mental noise, but for no matter how hard you focus, the moment you "arrive" in the present, it's past.
People equate and differentiate other people along various values, which is what makes the social value-landscape multidimensional, and through interactions: dynamically evolving, ever changing.
Happiness is the inner way out.
When it comes to senses, it may be interesting to compare the extent of consensus about what people experience as "good". The greatest overlap would probably be in what smells good, and the smallest in what looks good. Tastes, touch, and sounds would probably be in-between. Now, if the extent of the consensus were translated into an index, one could apply a similar logic to moral judgement, which, over time, could indicate some kind of moral progress.
Me laughing at you for you laughing at me is not completely the same as me laughing at myself.
With sharpening/broadening one's perception of reality, would they notice coincidences increase proportionally?
Evolving human processes need breaks to incorporate the evolution, for the process itself evolves over time. The criteria of the selection process must be adjusted, otherwise the evolution would reach an end state.
Freedom from / past ~ innocence. Freedom to / future ~ infinity.
The human soul - in general - deserves better than the lives lived so far, and currently.
Do you agree with one of these statements? A: Reality is stable, consensus is sufficient. B: Reality is stable, but there's not enough consensus. C: We have consensus, but reality is unstable. D: Reality is unstable, and human consensus is unsatisfactory for coexistence.
Morality + Utility = Meaning (?)
In broad terms: If justice is the legal ideal, efficiency the economic ideal, and equality the political/social one, then constituting a pick-two trilemma of the three ideals could result in a new multidisciplinary map for ideologies.
Understanding may be a challenge, but intentional un-understanding may be a greater one.
Understanding how others understand what you don't understand may be the first step of understanding, or the last step of creation. With that I was pointing to a learning process of a deductive nature, and to works of art which are so great, they are out of even their master's "control".
Could we say "the world is so small", ever so often, without institutions?
From the rational voter and the rational user perspective, being politically informed and looking at news feeds are likewise irrational, given the opportunity costs. Yet these two irrationalities lie on two different ends of the moral spectrum. Being a responsible citizen may even be selfless in a way, while news feed consumption is likely to cause more (mental) harm to the individual, and indirectly, to society.
When one gets to the core of (consensus)reality, and feels its flexibility, the alternatives of fate hit them like waves.
Starting a new scientific paradigm must be like inventing a new recipe, when all the ingredients are at hand already.
Holding on to values and value systems may be in tension with "jumping" up levels of contexts, in understanding a situation.
Forecasts, predictions are double-edged means of nurture. The double-edged nature comes from their ability to prevent and to reinforce, to make someone rebel or comply, to confirm the historical paradox or to act as a self-fulfilling prophecy.
The friends one wishes to be "defined by", and the friends one can pour their heart out to, should be the same.
A hardcore determinist may find "the best of all possible worlds" theme intrinsically non-deterministic, for even entertaining the idea of other world-possibilities may not make sense to them. If, on the other hand, they would not condemn the idea/theme for its intrinsic religiousness, then the constellation of these judgements would represent one of the more sensible points where pantheism and determinism meet.
Capacity limits of human understanding are enemies and friends of knowledge, at the same time. In order to comprehend, we have to organise information. In order to memorise, we have to connect them in predefined shapes of networks. Eventually, those connections become a part of the knowledge, thus interacting with truth/reality itself.
If we call the interactions between the mind and the world reflections, and are open to consider consciousness to be something not buried deep *in* the mind, we may come to the idea that consciousness could be an infinitesimally thin theoretical layer between the individual's mind and all the external world, crossed by an infinite series of reflections (of reflections of reflections...). That way, it is easier to picture a network of conscience.
Consciousness is the primary theoretical phenomenon being proof of its own existence.
Discussion on controversial issues can be avoided until their silhouette has been outlined by more cautious debates around the subject.
Philosophy of music type of questions: What are the elements of music's context, beyond the genre, mood and culture? Should music be judged/rated within its context, if judged/rated at all? How?
The doctrine of recollection is traditionally mentioned in the context of scientific knowledge. I think it could also be applied to the spiritual, the religious. Remembering states of mind when the soul had uninterrupted access to the divine.
Feeling spiritually decentralised, and thinking that is good.
For those researching neural networks and consciousness, I wonder what will come first: Discovering and classifying shapes/formations of consciousness, or discovering the unit of consciousness.
Instead of gleaming into an ideal, one is often encouraged to live in the present moment. However, every present moment branches off into a myriad of ideals. We may not be rational, not even self-interested, but we are the decision makers of our own fate, which - soon enough - will make us depart into one of the other directions of ideals. Maybe, "living in the present moment" means these almost infinitesimally short periods, when we get back to some starting level of perception, and switch our path. Thus, the most conscious moments of existence may be the abandonings of ideals.
Where is the boundary between being free, and aligning with a moral system? How much of your freedom would you exchange to be moral? And is freedom even freedom, when morality is an alternative?
Complex societies are dehumanising in a way, but much more "enhumanising" in another.
Coincidence-hunger: The urge to increase randomness in your life, so that there is a greater chance of having coincidences.
A completely diverse system is stabilised in terms of the original differences' distribution. New differences form / gain emphasis in new dimensions, and the term diversity needs to shift its meaning, in order to bridge the novel "fault lines".
That noise you want to cancel in your mind, when trying to focus... I think it's part of the state of the world. (Cancellation disentangles a fundamental, reflective relationship between the mind and the world.)
Are coincidence studies like an add-on to causal analysis, I wonder.
cake of ignorance
I hope AI will soon tell us the ratio of art to the endless possibilities of expression. I wouldn't be surprised if that number, potentially a fraction made out of two infinities, was a mathematically pleasing one.
Treating the value of life in ethics as we treat the value of infinity in mathematics may mean a bridge between conflicting branches of ethics, and potentially even better solutions, or better explanations to solutions in moral dilemmas. The value of infinity is unimaginably high, but infinities can be added up and be compared. (So that's what I thought about, and there are exciting articles on this topic, as it turns out. Here's one.)
Does the body of human knowledge, as it is presently accumulated, resemble human interests, the main directions of inquiry, I wonder. At first, it may seem logical so, but the unknown is deceiving and resisting us in various ways, which, in turn, shapes the directions of our inquiries, and the intensity of our efforts. Where we think to have our answers, we cease to search, and, on the other hand, at certain points, the unknown displays surprisingly stubborn resistance to our attempts to carve our way into it. There may lie further answers beyond the "obvious" though, and certain points of the unknown may be approachable by workarounds only. This way, our intellectual relationship with the body of knowledge, and the evolution of human knowledge liken our physical relationship with our environment, and biological evolution.
Would you incorporate a Panopticon (as an element, or for the whole structure) in your design of society, from the original position (behind the veil of ignorance)?
The multiplicity of the directions of transcendence, reflected by the multitude of religions around the experience is truly astounding.
If you like a song that others don't, it's not necessarily about taste. It can be about a broader access to experiences.
As long as we rely on incomplete ideologies in progress and coordination, the dead ends of history will haunt us, as if there was something more they would have had to say. We protect our integrity at various levels by not listening, maybe afraid of being unable to argue against their apparently disappointing and devastating statements. The road to completion, however, may only lead through processing, and excluding or incorporating new ideological structures, in a logical and comprehensive manner.
By standard, and excluding psychological factors, the punishment of those who harm society can be measured universally in currency units of fines, or temporal units of prison sentences. The reward to those who advance society, however, is more restricted in its universal measure, that being only monetary in its nature. Is that not an unfair asymmetry?
In a world where the individual is surrounded by multiple different "realities", the action of "locking out" distorted/manipulated/artificial ones, such as advertisements, may result in the loss of contact to, the loss of shared understandings with fellow humans. Thus, the individual finds themselves at a crossroads, a dilemma between social connectivity and the connection to our reality in its fundamental form.
What is the deterministic inverse of a crossroads? A coincidence.
Exclusively probabilistic levels of reality are looked upon as weird, or spooky. Their better understanding, however, may constitute a bridge to further types of causalities.
The opposite of order (at least in an economic systems sense, as well as in the aesthetic context) is not necessarily chaos. It is distortion. Chaos itself can be more honest and beautiful than distorted systems or things. Also, chaos is a clear starting point.
Inverse déjà vu: experiencing situations and feelings one has thought of in the past, without knowing what they were, back then.
In an environment diverse and representative enough, bilateral conflicts are bound to dissipate, because of universal norms and net interests dominating over individual/local/cultural ones.
Having to decide what networks and outlets you expose yourself to, in order to be able to make the right choices within the worlds that you chose to absorb, up to the limits of your capacity of information intake, is a whole next level of responsibility.
“The self is an organising principle.” A prolonged and universal algorithm.
It's mostly the people you think you can expect or get nothing from, who enrich you with what becomes ever more valuable nowadays: reality. For free.
Is a social construct not similarly indistinguishable from reality as the entirety of our reality being a simulation were? If so, will we ever be able to unentangle the individual and the community as potential constructs in the context of reality? It is only our physical world, and only at distinct moments in time, apparently supporting individualism. However, even physical reality contains artefacts of communitarian connections, such as the physical, public infrastructure. In the systems of coexistence that have evolved over time, these artefacts are conditional not only to coexistence, but even to existence in its hypothetical individual format. So might we say that the point where a consensual entity, or a social construct enters reality is where it has already made an irreversible impact on the preexisting real world, by making it dependent upon itself?
Could there be an incompleteness theorem for the system of (objective) morality specifically?
Asked ChatGPT-4 for an incompleteness theorem for consciousness. "In any sufficiently complex and reflective conscious system (e.g., a human mind), there exist truths about the nature of its own consciousness that the system cannot fully understand or prove to itself using its own introspective or cognitive capacities." And then I asked if the human endeavour of "solving" problems of consciousness adds to, and if it could be combined with the theorem. This is their summary: "By combining the incompleteness theorem for consciousness with the persistent human endeavor to understand consciousness, we arrive at a profound paradox: even if complete understanding is impossible, the effort itself becomes a defining feature of consciousness. This pursuit, despite its inherent limitations, enriches our experience and understanding of what it means to be conscious. It suggests that the journey toward understanding, rather than the destination, is central to the nature of conscious beings, echoing themes of existentialism, epistemology, and the philosophy of mind." (However, if an incompleteness theorem for consciousness holds, as a boundary condition, then maybe, paradoxes are not only at the boundaries of human knowledge, but also at their core, being their precondition, with nonexistence preceding essence maybe.)
Ethics makes us see the world clearer and clearer, and makes us see a bigger, more consistent part of what we perceive as reality. It's also ever more rewarding, while it's shifting our concept of "reward". One possible explanation for why "morality is its own reward".
Understanding is the mechanism of semantics impacting the surface of consciousness.
Discussing the legacy of Ian Mitroff today with Corvinus Business Ethics Center director Laszlo Zsolnai and colleagues has inspired me to think about the process of falsification being described in directional terms. *Outward Falsification* could stand for paradigm shifts through crises, whilst *Inward Falsification* would refer to phenomena by which we correct, punctualize, or refine our concepts and related understandings.
If there's the happiness you may never have... does it help being able to imagine it?
Attended a wonderful book launch event this evening. Jácint Farkas, a dear colleague from the Corvinus Business Ethics Center has written on existential disability. The insightful discussion has made me think about extending the term, to *collective* existential disability. But this might be a tautology. Will have to read the book to confirm.
In an era of frequently and dynamically conflicting values, one might hope that as societies, we choose the "packages of values" that serve our carefully contemplated and discussed goals and purposes (over internally conflicting interests) best, in the given circumstances. Not happening. Also, multiple societies' "value packages" display conflict in interactions - strategic and game theoretic approaches are relevant here. "Value packages" are incredibly abstract as a theme, and complex in the actual environments. From the capacity perspective of the human mind, these packages mean entirely different worldviews, and thereby, in some sense, different worlds.
The "butterfly effect" is kind of a seed for a dynamic / temporal paradox. For if one were to amplify the effect, it would not really live up to its name anymore. It is like an incomplete, longitudinal Russell's paradox. (Affecting an effect may lead to that self-referential contradiction.)
Prompted (ChatGPT), shortened, adjusted, completed: The truth, reality may expand well beyond what is possible to know, or to comprehend as humans. Meanwhile, in line with an incompleteness theorem for consciousness, there might be a finite or self-contained quality to the universe of concepts, where everything connects, and nothing can be fully parsed out or separated. Knowledge may have this round, holistic structure. Like a web where certain aspects (of knowledge) fold back on themselves, and the more you learn, the more you see how intertwined everything is.
It is wonderful how evolutionary steps generally lead to abundance, but look closely, and you may be disappointed by systems that improve through "mistakes" and misunderstandings. Focusing on these "accidental" aspects of systems-evolution, I wonder where it peaks. What does a system have to be like (transparent, etc.), in order to be less prone to these advantageous, but also embarrassing improvement opportunities? And what is the quality that systems having passed that peak can be described with? (Merging ethics, accountability, the rule of law, and the like, in one concept. Institutions obviously play a huge role in this theme too.)
The time travel trolley parallel: I'd change the past, but only if I could do so personally, living through the alternative.
Agency also means the opportunity to marvel at how the consequences of one's actions interact.
A present, individual point of view may hardly coincide with a universal point of view. Yet it is mostly from the former that "idealism" is being labelled and judged.
Is dying like waking up from a dream where you were about to die, I wonder. With your mind saving you before you could actually experience death.
Youth is a temporary treasure.
Society conditions individuals to view the process of creating/producing as *work* and consumption of goods and services as *reward* or *rest*. This mentality has a crowding out effect on creative and explorative passions that are pursued for their own and/or society's sake. We expect creative and explorative passions to become profitable. Alternatively, we only allow ourselves to enjoy them if framed as consumption, as a service, in a workshop for instance. When thinking of something relaxing, we might talk ourselves out of creative and explorative passions, because if we choose the consumptional activities instead, we *get* something out of them. We're "free", but we're conditioned. Being selfless towards others and oneself is the only way out.
Maybe, "someone" who believes they are conscious is the definition for a conscious being. Which is a bit paradoxical. It is the possibility to define consciousness much without other concepts, as it is self-referential by nature. This echoes thousands of philosophers over history, but have any of them used the very definition of the belief in consciousness being consciousness itself, I wonder. It's like a combination of Cartesian introspection and more contemporary philosophy of mind, isn't it? And if you didn't notice... I cheated. I said "much without other concepts", but there's the concept of belief... Faith, if you will. Which might be a theological argument that faith precedes consciousness. That the same "activity" by which we might arrive at God is the one leading to our own self. The order is interchangeable, potentially simultaneous, potentially interrelated, and potentially interdependent.