jordi

cute gilgameshian endeavors × part-time cognitive scientist & necrocyber-shaman (vmp /acc) | popular aristocrat |everything I write (incl. this) is fake 𓆙

[jordi @blankspaces_222]

i have enough hubris to believe that I'm going to beat your predestined cybergod gambit uwu

[Xenocosmography @xenocosmography]

American Pope being a Ccru footnote is, of course, all going according to plan.

[jordi @blankspaces_222]

The phenomenological experience of the numinous can be measured (actually love that avenue of research, and may undertake it in the future as part of my broader project in grad school!) by neuroimaging and forms with standardized indicators of the phenomenon. But if anything external to the psyche causes that how could we determine it?

[jordi @blankspaces_222]

You are totally right about a God with capital G as a creator! It’s a physics questions in the end (and I think all evidence points towards increated matter, and if any god exists in that regard is Einstein’s deus sive natura!). But that depends on how you define a god. I’m thinking more of the small scale entity that may cause some synchronicity, some psychical effect, that may or may not be a sentient human construct. Think more of animism or Shinto than anything like the abrahamic faiths (though their claims about creation and their bullshit claims like young earth, could be lies, or delusion, that the entity named Yahweh comunicated!). In philosophy of mind we have this double aspect theory to try to explain the emergence of consciousness in the hard problem of consciousness, that takes into account the observer problem of quantum physics, and how consciousness qualia emerges from biological systems.

I admit some of its variants are… Something. Positing electrons have some sort of consciousness but not awareness hahaha. But some are actually taken seriously in academia. Among them there’s this very interesting conjecture Pauli and Jung developed together. As you start reading about it seems nothing more than proto-quantum mysticism bullshit. And how it’s presented it may very well be, despite who one of the authors is it. But a much weaker version of it… I believe it could even be made a scientifically falsifiable claim in the near future! But perhaps is just me.

Also I like thinking of belief as something that one can play, and tinker with. But that’s more of a personal chaos magic (that may be very well, and probably be just the art of self-suggestion!) affinity!

[jordi @blankspaces_222]

You are totally right about a God with capital G as a creator! It’s a physics questions in the end (and I think all evidence points towards increated matter, and if any god exists in that regard is Einstein’s deus sive natura!). But that depends on how you define a god. I’m thinking more of the small scale entity that may cause some synchronicity, some psychical effect, that may or may not be a sentient human construct. Think more of animism or Shinto than anything like the abrahamic faiths (though their claims about creation and their bullshit claims like young earth, could be lies, or delusion, that the entity named Yahweh comunicated!). In philosophy of mind we have this double aspect theory to try to explain the emergence of consciousness in the hard problem of consciousness, that takes into account the observer problem of quantum physics, and how consciousness qualia emerges from biological systems.

I admit some of its variants are… Something. Positing electrons have some sort of consciousness but not awareness hahaha. But some are actually taken seriously in academia. Among them there’s this very interesting conjecture Pauli and Jung developed together. As you start reading about it seems nothing more than proto-quantum mysticism bullshit. And how it’s presented it may very well be, despite who one of the authors is it. But a much weaker version of it… I believe it could even be made a scientifically falsifiable claim in the near future! But perhaps is just me.

Also I like thinking of belief as something that one can play, and tinker with. But that’s more of a personal chaos magic (that may be very well, and probably be just the art of self-suggestion!) affinity!

[jordi @blankspaces_222]

The phenomenological experience of the numinous can be measured (actually love that avenue of research, and may undertake it in the future as part of my broader project in grad school!) by neuroimaging and forms with standardized indicators of the phenomenon. But if anything external to the psyche causes that how could we determine it?

[jordi @blankspaces_222]

Nothing can pe proven in the commonly accepted way to define the scientific method (which I don’t find the only way to generate knowledge, I’m more of an against method guy, fair if you are). Only disproven by popper’s standards. What you are arguing is about the falsifiability of a hypothesis involving the numinous. Which I concede it’s a very complicated matter, and currently no proper experimental construction have been posed that would reliable disprove the conjectures.

But many more things are in this state of neither-proven-nor-disproven, and some are necessary axiomatics of being. (The distinction between phenomena and noumena is certainly something, and solipsism is an egotist position that has few evidence but we probably default to that without any proven-nor-disproven beliefs if we start by cogito, not saying Descartes a priori god was defendable is quite a bullshit argument).

But I concede, any belief in the numinous as something substantially real in the current state is nothing but a leap of faith. But god(s) exist in other non-metaphysical senses. Phenomenologically, psychychally-archetypically, semiotically-narratively and a social institutions they exist, at least as much as constructs like money or marriage (read of Austin’s work on the performative).

[jordi @blankspaces_222]

Nothing can pe proven in the commonly accepted way to define the scientific method (which I don’t find the only way to generate knowledge, I’m more of an against method guy, fair if you are). Only disproven by popper’s standards. What you are arguing is about the falsifiability of a hypothesis involving the numinous. Which I concede it’s a very complicated matter, and currently no proper experimental construction have been posed that would reliable disprove the conjectures.

But many more things are in this state of neither-proven-nor-disproven, and some are necessary axiomatics of being. (The distinction between phenomena and noumena is certainly something, and solipsism is an egotist position that has few evidence but we probably default to that without any proven-nor-disproven beliefs if we start by cogito, not saying Descartes a priori god was defendable is quite a bullshit argument).

But I concede, any belief in the numinous as something substantially real in the current state is nothing but a leap of faith. But god(s) exist in other non-metaphysical senses. Phenomenologically, psychychally-archetypically, semiotically-narratively and a social institutions they exist, at least as much as constructs like money or marriage (read of Austin’s work on the performative).

[jordi @blankspaces_222]

@Lockbreaker3 @AdamantDimak I’m no conventional theist btw. Just curious about that particular aspect of being and open to all sorts of possibilities.

[jordi @blankspaces_222]

@Lockbreaker3 @AdamantDimak Is conjecture inherently disproven? Or wasn’t for example, string theory deemed a worthwhile theoretical avenue until recent time? And perhaps, in the future the numinous can be disproven or inquired into by science. Research at Trace institute seems very interesting.

[jordi @blankspaces_222]

@Rage_Crayon @AdamantDimak Archetypes? Suggestion? The religious coming more from a bottom-up production than top-down? I’m unsure but fair criticism. I’m not a conventional theist but neither a conventional atheist/agnostic.

[jordi @blankspaces_222]

@KelseyTuoc If we treat them as formally defined truth claims we must remit to Wittgenstein's tractatus which in a much better logical way than any reddit atheist or bigoted theist will leave you open the possibility of that what can't be spoken as the realm of the numinous.

[jordi @blankspaces_222]

@austrosillyism "economic sciences"

[jordi @blankspaces_222]

@apralky Assortative mating is goddamn stupid concept that equates high class with high intelligence which is absolutely false correlation. Capital accumulation doesn't reward high intelligence unless one's special interest is crunching numbers to beat the stock gambling simulator.

[jordi @blankspaces_222]

@candyflipline @apralky Being and nothingness is avrg high school reading xddddddd

[jordi @blankspaces_222]

@LadiesOfReddit Both mate, both. Even dystopia becomes a lost future that haunts us as an appealing what could have been.

[jordi @blankspaces_222]

@LadiesOfReddit Both mate, both. Even dystopia becomes a lost future that haunts us as an appealing what could have been.

[jordi @blankspaces_222]

@financedystop Why do all people that state their high IQ proceed to say the most retarded think imaginable? My hobby is the nausea caused by the freedom of choice between playing Dota or LoL al afternoon xdddd

[jordi @blankspaces_222]

@PAHoyeck Why not both? Uwu

[eli@がんばらな��� @moechiavellian]

For legal reasons, this was about "cultured individuals" rather than Otaku explicitly. If you want real slander nearing the edge of Otakudom, refer to Guattari in Machinic Eros.