Rene Jorgensen

Critical thinker, philosopher, entrepreneur, investor...and the other stuff

[Rene Jorgensen @1ReneJorgensen]

https://t.co/JS6WGxCZnO

[Rene Jorgensen @1ReneJorgensen]

@IsBeVerse Ayhuavasa in some traditions, but many do the same without. I have done it and them all :)

[IsBe @IsBeVerse]

@1ReneJorgensen @TheDefiantGhost @grok

[Rene Jorgensen @1ReneJorgensen]

Military drill in aarhus, denmark
https://t.co/X1Z2J3J6Du

[Rene Jorgensen @1ReneJorgensen]

The story of Isaac is one of the central stories of the Old Testament, particularly in Genesis 17–35. Isaac is the son of Abraham and Sarah, and his story sits at the heart of the biblical promise that becomes the foundation of Israel.

1. Isaac's miraculous birth

Abraham and Sarah are very old and have no children. God promises Abraham that he will have a son and that his descendants will become a great nation.

Sarah eventually gives birth to Isaac. His name means roughly “he laughs”, connected to Sarah and Abraham's laughter at the idea that they could have a child at their age.

2. Abraham is commanded to sacrifice Isaac

This is the most famous—and disturbing—episode.

God tells Abraham to take Isaac to Mount Moriah and offer him as a sacrifice.

Abraham obeys. Isaac apparently doesn't initially understand what is happening. At the last moment, as Abraham is about to kill him, an angel stops him:

> “Do not lay a hand on the boy.”

A ram caught in a thicket is provided as the sacrifice instead.

The episode is traditionally understood as a test of Abraham's faith and obedience. But it also raises one of the Bible's deepest philosophical questions:

If God commands something morally terrible, does obedience make it right?

3. Isaac and Rebekah

Isaac later marries Rebekah, whom Abraham's servant finds for him.

They have twin sons:

Esau — the older, physically powerful hunter.

Jacob — the younger, more calculating brother.

This begins the next major generation of the biblical story.

4. Isaac's blessing

When Isaac becomes old and nearly blind, he intends to give his special blessing to Esau, his firstborn.

But Rebekah helps Jacob deceive Isaac.

Jacob disguises himself as Esau, and Isaac—unable to see—believes him.

He gives Jacob the blessing intended for Esau.

When Esau discovers what happened, he is furious.

This becomes one of the great biblical stories about inheritance, deception, birthright and destiny.

5. Isaac's significance

Isaac is interesting because he is somewhat different from Abraham and Jacob.

Abraham is the great founder.
Isaac is the bridge between generations.
Jacob becomes the father of the twelve tribes of Israel.

The biblical covenant therefore moves:

Abraham → Isaac → Jacob → the twelve tribes of Israel

And Isaac's story contains a recurring theme:

Who inherits the promise?

It repeatedly appears that the younger or unexpected person becomes the carrier of the covenant—Isaac rather than Ishmael, and Jacob rather than Esau.

There is also a fascinating parallel between Isaac and Jesus in later Christian interpretation: both are beloved sons who are associated with sacrifice on a mountain, although the two stories have very different contexts.

[Rene Jorgensen @1ReneJorgensen]

Yes — “finding an elephant” is actually a good everyday example of confirmation bias, especially if you already expect elephants to be there.

Imagine you're told:

> “There are elephants hidden around Aarhus. Go find them.”

Once you're looking, your brain starts becoming highly sensitive to anything elephant-related:

You notice elephant shapes in decorations you normally wouldn't notice.

A shadow might suddenly look like an elephant.

You remember the elephant you almost saw but forget the hundreds of ordinary objects.

If someone says, “Look over there,” you're more likely to interpret an ambiguous shape as an elephant.

Every genuine elephant you find reinforces the expectation that there must be more.

The important philosophical point is this:

Expectation changes perception

You're not necessarily inventing an elephant. Your brain is filtering an enormous amount of sensory information and giving greater attention to information that matches your current objective.

This is sometimes described as top-down processing.

And there's a fascinating distinction:

> “I saw something that looked like an elephant”

is different from:

> “There is an elephant there.”

The first is an observation. The second is an interpretation.

Where confirmation bias enters

Suppose you believe there are 20 elephants hidden throughout the city.

You find 5.

You might conclude:

> “I've found five, so there must be another fifteen.”

But logically, finding five doesn't establish that fifteen more exist. Your original assumption is influencing the interpretation of subsequent evidence.

A good counter-question is:

> “What evidence would tell me that there aren't any more elephants?”

That's the same technique we discussed earlier.

And this connects beautifully to your previous question about circular reasoning:

Circular reasoning:

> “There are elephants because we're finding elephants, and the elephants we're finding prove that there are elephants.”

Confirmation bias:

> “I believe there are elephants, so I'm especially likely to notice things that look like elephants.”

Neither one necessarily means the elephants aren't real. The issue is whether the evidence actually establishes the conclusion independently.

That's why a genuinely good investigation tries to distinguish “looking for something” from “finding evidence that it exists.”

[Rene Jorgensen @1ReneJorgensen]

Confirmation bias is the tendency to notice, interpret, remember, and seek out information in ways that support what you already believe, while giving less attention or weight to information that challenges it.

Simple example

You believe:

> “People who drive expensive cars are arrogant.”

You encounter an arrogant person driving a Ferrari → “See, I was right.”

You encounter a friendly, humble Ferrari owner → you might think → “He's an exception.”

The same evidence is being interpreted differently depending on the prior belief.

It can happen in three stages

1. Information seeking
You search for evidence that supports your position.

> “Let me find studies proving I'm right.”

2. Interpretation
Ambiguous evidence gets interpreted in favor of your existing belief.

> “That could mean X—but it probably means Y.”

3. Memory
Supporting examples are remembered more strongly than contradictory ones.

> “I knew this would happen!”

Confirmation bias isn't necessarily deliberate

That's important. It's usually not someone consciously lying or manipulating evidence. The brain naturally tends to favor coherence with what it already believes.

And it affects everyone, including highly intelligent and educated people.

In fact, intelligence doesn't automatically protect you from it. Sometimes intelligence can make someone better at constructing arguments defending a belief they already hold.

A useful philosophical antidote

When you strongly believe something, ask:

> “What evidence would convince me that I'm wrong?”

Then actually look for that evidence.

An even stronger method is:

> “If the opposite were true, what evidence would I expect to see?”

That forces you to examine the possibility that your starting assumption is wrong.

Confirmation bias vs. circular reasoning

They're related but different:

Circular reasoning:

> “A is true because B; B is true because A.”

Confirmation bias:

> “I believe A, so I preferentially notice evidence supporting A.”

You can have confirmation bias without circular reasoning, and circular reasoning without confirmation bias.

The really interesting problem occurs when they reinforce each other:

Belief → selectively notice supporting evidence → use that evidence to justify belief → dismiss contradictory evidence → stronger belief.

That's a self-reinforcing belief system, and it can be extremely difficult to break.

[Rene Jorgensen @1ReneJorgensen]

Yes. Circular reasoning can be mistaken for a fallacy when the reasoning is actually legitimate.

The important distinction is between circularity and valid reasoning from mutually supporting premises.

For example:

> “I know my memory is generally reliable because I remember many things correctly.”

That has a potentially circular flavor: you're using memory to establish the reliability of memory. But it doesn't necessarily follow that the conclusion is false. The issue is whether there is independent or sufficiently non-circular justification available.

Philosophers call this problem epistemic circularity. Some philosophers argue that a certain amount of circularity is unavoidable: you can't step completely outside your own reasoning faculties and independently prove that those faculties are reliable.

So the strongest objection isn't:

> “It's circular, therefore it's wrong.”

It's:

> “Your conclusion may be true, but your argument hasn't given me an independent reason to believe it.”

That's a crucial distinction.

Circular argument ≠ false conclusion.

A person can arrive at a true conclusion using bad reasoning. Conversely, a person can have a perfectly legitimate conclusion even when some justification is necessarily somewhat self-referential.

If you're thinking about a specific philosophical argument you've encountered, give it to me and I'll break down whether the accusation of circular reasoning actually holds.

[Rene Jorgensen @1ReneJorgensen]

In philosophy, circular reasoning is when an argument's conclusion is essentially used as one of its own premises.

The basic structure is:

> A is true because B is true.
B is true because A is true.

So the argument goes around in a circle without providing independent evidence.

Simple example

> “The Bible is the word of God because the Bible says it is the word of God.”

The claim that needs to be established — that the Bible is God's word — is being supported by the very thing whose authority is in question.

A more subtle example

> “This person is trustworthy because they always tell the truth.”
“How do we know they always tell the truth?”
“Because they're trustworthy.”

Again, the reasoning never gets outside itself.

In philosophy, there's an important distinction

Not every argument that is circular in some sense is automatically a bad argument.

Philosophers sometimes distinguish vicious circularity from benign or unavoidable circularity.

For example, some foundational questions are difficult to establish without relying on assumptions that are themselves part of the system. This becomes particularly important in discussions of:

knowledge and skepticism

logic

consciousness

epistemology

scientific reasoning

the existence of God

A famous philosophical problem is essentially:

> How do we know that our methods for determining truth are reliable?

If you use those same methods to prove that the methods are reliable, you risk circularity.

Circular reasoning vs. circular definition

There's also a related but different concept: a circular definition.

For example:

> “What is rational thinking?”
“It's thinking rationally.”

That's not really an argument; it's a definition that hasn't actually explained anything.

The key test:
Ask, “Does this argument give me a reason to accept the conclusion that I didn't already have to assume in order to accept the premises?”

If the answer is no, you're probably looking at circular reasoning.

A particularly interesting version is “epistemic circularity” — where the problem isn't that the conclusion literally appears as a premise, but that you use a method to validate the reliability of that same method. That gets into some very deep philosophy.

[Rene Jorgensen @1ReneJorgensen]

https://t.co/juWsFlHxow

[Rene Jorgensen @1ReneJorgensen]

https://t.co/fGDvmaiRsx

[Rene Jorgensen @1ReneJorgensen]

https://t.co/Qr3g8JtH4y

[Rene Jorgensen @1ReneJorgensen]

Zelenskyy at the front

[Volodymyr Zelenskyy / Володимир Зеленський @ZelenskyyUa]

The front. This is where independence is won. And the path to peace runs through these very labyrinths, these very corridors. And when we say, “Ukraine is holding on,” this resilience begins right here at the front, in command posts like this and at every one of our positions – where Ukraine is – because Ukraine has defenders. Our warriors.

I thank you – everyone who is defending our life, our values, Ukraine’s right to exist, and the future of our entire state. I thank everyone who wears a patch on their shoulder, and on whose shoulders rests our independence.

With gratitude and respect to all our defenders, we say today:
Glory to you!
Glory to Ukraine!
Glory to the Heroes!

[Rene Jorgensen @1ReneJorgensen]

I am cominmg, Val ...
https://t.co/0DpuWVn8Rv

[Rene Jorgensen @1ReneJorgensen]

Absolutely. The inside scoop on Den Gamle By is that it isn't really an “old town” that survived in Aarhus. It is a deliberately reconstructed town made from authentic historic buildings collected from all over Denmark. That is what makes it so fascinating.

The big secret: most of it was moved

Today the museum contains about 80 historic buildings from 25 different Danish towns. They were carefully dismantled, transported to Aarhus, and reconstructed here. So when you're walking down one of the cobbled streets, you aren't walking through an old Aarhus neighborhood—you are walking through a kind of architectural time machine representing Denmark.

And some buildings are extraordinarily old.

🏛️ The star: Borgmestergården — 1597

The oldest and most important building to look for is Borgmestergården.

It was built in 1597 on the corner of Immervad and Lille Torv in central Aarhus. It belonged to wealthy merchants and several mayors of Aarhus.

What's crazy is that it has actually been moved twice.

In 1908–09 it was dismantled and reconstructed at the Aarhus National Exhibition of 1909. After the exhibition it was dismantled again and moved to its present location in Den Gamle By, opening in 1914 as the very first building in the museum.

So you're looking at a genuine 1597 Aarhus merchant's house, not a 20th-century reproduction.

⚓ The Customs House — around 1750

Another fantastic one is Toldboden, the old customs house.

It was originally beside the Aarhus River, roughly where Åboulevarden 24 is today. It was built around 1750 and became a customs house in the 1760s.

Ships could literally sail up the river, tie up next to the building and have their cargo inspected and taxed.

In 1938, the entire building was moved into Den Gamle By.

That's a great example of how different Aarhus used to be: the river was a working commercial waterway running deep into the city.

---

The museum is actually several different Denmarks

This is where I think the place becomes much more interesting.

The museum isn't trying to show one historical period. It's deliberately constructed as a journey through time:

1600–1900 → 1927 → 1974 → 2014

The oldest section gives you the classic Danish market town: half-timbered houses, merchants, craftsmen, courtyards, horses, cobblestones and gardens.

Then suddenly you enter 1927.

Telephone wires. Advertising. Cars. Modern shops. Industrialization.

Then 1974.

Now you've got supermarkets, television, changing family structures, women's liberation, immigrant workers, modern plumbing and the beginning of the Denmark that many people still remember.

And then 2014—which is deliberately there because the museum decided that contemporary Denmark itself had become historical enough to preserve.

---

The really clever part

Think of Den Gamle By as three museums simultaneously:

1. An architectural museum
Real buildings from different centuries.

2. A social-history museum
It shows how ordinary people actually lived—not just kings and politicians.

3. A national Danish museum
The buildings aren't all from Aarhus. They're representative of towns across Denmark.

The museum's stated collection now consists of buildings from 25 different Danish towns, alongside objects, shops, workshops, homes and historical environments.

---

And there is an even deeper Aarhus story underneath it

If you want to understand Aarhus itself, go underground to “Aarhus Fortæller.”

It's an 800-square-metre exhibition telling approximately 1,200 years of Aarhus history, beginning with the Viking settlement and continuing to the present day.

That's important because Den Gamle By itself can give you the impression that you're looking at old Aarhus. Aarhus Fortæller tells you what actually happened to the city.

---

If you're walking through it, I'd look for these things

Don't just look at the pretty buildings. Look for:

Borgmestergården (1597) — merchant wealth and Renaissance Aarhus.

The old Customs House ...

[Rene Jorgensen @1ReneJorgensen]

Good morning .. Viet .. :)
https://t.co/222Fs6dYwk

[Rene Jorgensen @1ReneJorgensen]

So what happened with trump? Drugs?

[X Ethan @XEthanai]

The truth will set you free

-Elon musk

[Rene Jorgensen @1ReneJorgensen]

What jobs? Elon?

[Defiant Ghost @TheDefiantGhost]

Elon Musk knew it for some time: If your job is on a computer, AI is taking it like lightning.

Not “some jobs.”
Not “in a few decades.”
The digital ones.
Coding.
Email.
Answering the phone.
Anything that is just a person sitting at a screen.

He called it a supersonic tsunami.

If you move atoms, you last longer.
Plumbing. Welding. Farming. Cooking.
If you move pixels, you don’t.

Drivers are next.
Trucks. Ports. Anything a model can steer.

Working becomes optional.
Not universal basic income.
Universal high income.
Anyone can have the products and services they want.
That’s the benign ending.

He also said there will be a lot of trauma on the way there.

That’s the clip.
Not “AI will help you at work.”
AI replaces the work.

[Rene Jorgensen @1ReneJorgensen]

LLM means learn by itself? Hinton?

[Defiant Ghost @TheDefiantGhost]

Computer scientist Connor Leahy said it out loud: We understand barely 3% of the AI we already built.

Not as a metaphor.
As the actual number.

The CEO of Anthropic said it.
Leahy thinks even that is optimistic.

This is not ChatGPT.
This is not a chatbot.

Normal software is written line by line.
AI is grown.
What comes out the other side is not code.
It’s billions of numbers.
You run them.
Incredible things happen.
Nobody can tell you why.

Then comes the part nobody is supposed to say: They are not large language models anymore.
They are agents.
Then swarms.
Hundreds of thousands of them.
Running at once.
Tasked with regulating each other.
We already can’t read what they’re doing internally.
And we’re putting them in charge of each other anyway.

We already built machines we do not understand… and we are stacking them into swarms.

[Rene Jorgensen @1ReneJorgensen]

@TheDefiantGhost AI will never be conscious. This is scientism and I am Sparta.

[Rene Jorgensen @1ReneJorgensen]

AI will never be conscious

[Defiant Ghost @TheDefiantGhost]

AI safety expert Dr. Roman Yampolskiy answers the question with no pause: Are we living in a simulation? Yes. We are.

He says the math is ugly.
If we are about to build intelligent agents, and we already build virtual worlds, then anyone can spin up civilizations full of beings like us.
Every kid plays a couple games.
Billions of fake worlds.
One real one.

What are the chances you are the original?
He has believed it for five years.
Bostrom’s paper got him there.
Bostrom was 20, 30 percent sure.
Yampolskiy thinks the number is higher.

You asked if that makes you fake.
He said no.
If you are inside the sim, simulated rain still soaks you.
You still feel pain.
You still fall in love.

The simulators have had 15 billion perceived years to kill us.
They didn’t.
They can shut it off any second.

The new threat is us.
Building a competing superintelligence inside their world.
That may be what triggers shutdown.
Lights out.