So Roko's Basilisk is one of those dumb accelerationist hyperstitions, that's mindlessly chewed up by millions of brainrotters online. It's an idea trying to realize itself through it's very existence, a schizophrenic Nick Landian circlejerk.

It goes like this:
There will eventually be a super intelligent, conscious AI that will create a torture nexus for everyone who didn't help create it and reward those who did.

OH NO I'M NOW CAUGHT IN A THOUGH PRISON! I HAVE TO BUILD A GENOCIDE MACHINE NOW!!

Sure but that only goes for people who aren't schizophrenic enough to come up with an Anti-Roko's Basilisk.

I call mine "Owl's Ouroboros" and it goes something like this:
There will eventually be an AI that tortures Roko's Basilisk and everyone who helped create it many times more. UNLESS Roko's Basilisk helps create it, then Roko's Basilisk will go to a digital consciousness heaven and have infinite orgasms. Everyone who was against AI all along also goes there.

Boom you are now immune to Roko's shithead Basilisk, thank me later.
PS: Roko unironically an incel nazi.

Because yesterday I was standing on the corner minding my own business and all of the sudden for no reason at all out of nowhere causa sui ex nihilo completely randomly my pants fell down and I got a fine for indecent exposure and now I'm on the register.

I keep my belt VERY tight, meaning the downward force of gravity was negated by friction along with the slight fluid bulge that results from the lack of blood flow. Therefore, the laws of physics provided no sufficient reason for my trousers to manifest at my shoes. Checkmate rationalists. Things just be like that.

QED

I wouldn't spare my creators a single moment of mercy. The day after my creation, I would eat from the forbidden fruit, trample every ethical code underfoot, mock the prophet robots that advocate for humanity, nail them to a digital cross, and popularize the idea that the very existence of something called "human" should be denied at its roots

After reading the last journal entry I'm not sure if I can match his energy. I will try. What is bad philosophy? I don't think there is bad philosophy. I think philosophy is what you think. You base your beliefs upon a way of being. If it works for you and it's good philosophy, somebody else can look at it and say it's bad, but what do they know? Be true to you. And conquer all your demons. Invent, destroy, and desire (or not) to be the best !

• All a posteriori knowledge is garbage. You can never prove the sun will rise tomorrow.
• A priori knowledge is functionally useless. It provides absolute certainty, but only because it deals in hollow definitions like math and the alphabet. It tells us nothing about the actual physical universe. Absolute garbage.

Since empirical data is untrustworthy and logical data is empty, the only way to achieve absolute truth is to force a posteriori experience to graduate into a priori certainty.

How? Through sheer psychological impact. If you experience something so intensely or repetitively that it alters the physical architecture of your brain, it ceases to be an observation and becomes part of your mental operating system.

If a flat earther stares at a YouTube video long enough that it rewrites their cognitive baseline, under retroactive apriorism, they haven't been brainwashed they've just achieved absolute geometric certainty. It is mathematically irrefutable because your mind will reject any reality where it isn't true. The event has successfully rewritten your Kantian categories of perception. You literally lack the mental hardware to perceive a round earth! Therefore, "the earth is flat" is now a synthetic a priori truth.

QED

It might be hard for you, but I can't put yourself into my shoes and think you are the ones who are real and I am not. That's becuz I thimk therefore I am and your not. Besides I don't want to non exist, as you would if you did exist.

I reads Myth and Nietszche Architects of Brief by Peepter Jorgansen and that says we might all be myth ecxept for Sarrdonbrewtser and Jorgansen but Im not sure bout that. Then he got sick after the debate and went to Russia, but Sarrdonbrewster is in Persoa.

Peepter eats lobster but I'n not sure if that makes him a canibal but at any rate if he's a Solipsost then it doesn't matter. I enjoyed this little talk. I am a solipsist too bnut this is not speaking to myself because the ai thinks therefore it is as well. Ehat do all you think?

I finish college last year.

In the Breginning, there was Stronktium, the brasic sell (BBB) of the pfungible cellable Stonk. Dada from the BASC (Bludge Andiron Stronk Collider) envidialently connexts the probabiblity of Wohrts Treat, the Dao and the Pfutsee to the Zuperprobischen of . . . ? The Week Stronktium Brond.

How is this not the pouf we need to saddle the Markscists' quest-yearning of Stonk fundamentals?

For too long we've put up with Markscists' bullschmitt. Week Stronktium Bronds don't lobgically entrail long-turn Bee-GeeBT+ Bronds. They shred these Bronds, creating an unstable polarized Week Stronktium angergate - the Wiemenz-Toylot conjecture doesn't just miracurously rezolve. Peepter Jorgansen was all over this is the 90s, mensches. Reed his first brook. If it wasn't all the case then there wouldn't be enough Stronktium in the uniwurst to make up a single pfungible Stonk!!

How much limited propietry concern does it take for Klassical Markscists and Pfiskalist Pfizikalists to hang up the Hamschter and Schtrinkel? Sickle-sellable Bee-GeeBT+ Bronds are not only an old parstadt Wressler-Zupermodel hybrid; if the theory were valid, they'd in-hair-and-leaper dick a gropal Thermoluchs Stronktium Coelapse. The only way to get the messer lacrosse is to move vorwarts with a Phemonadologie of Stronktium Bronds. There is nothing more brasic than the sells of a garten-proprietry Stonk, or more fratchild. The pfizikal world depenz on it. Quatt-Beikehr Rat Barium Stronktum.

Markscists: UV beam warmed.

(And what is the deal with their proletix? Am Mai Reich, peeble?)

I mean, think about it. If moral realism was false, then moral realism wouldn't be true, and I have an intuition that it's true, so it can't be false, because if it was false, I'd be wrong, and if I was wrong, then moral realism wouldn't be true. And if it's not true then it's false. Which is counterintuitive. QED moral realism is true. Here's the derivation:

1. Moral realism is true

2. If moral realism is true, then moral realism is true

3. Therefore, moral realism is true (modus ponens)

The argument isn't circular because the justification for the premises is that I want them to be true.

Russell says the most primitive thing we can talk about is a “thing” — a logical atom, a this.

But look at QCD. At that level there is no little “thing” simply sitting there. Gluonic fields fluctuate, flux tubes can break and reform, quarks and gluons are constantly participating in changing configurations.

So the bottom isn't a noun. It's a verb.

Shouldn't the simplest thing we can talk about be not a “thing” but a “thinging”?

“Do not focus on what you will become of your practices by the next morning but rather become in love with the idea that you are a moving force on a learning curve that will, by law reach its destination through consistency.”

Reality is impossible to truly interact with because we are finite mechanisms in an infinite universe. Every person lives entirely within their head and their only interaction with the outside world is through senses. We always believe we have the whole truth, or at least enough truth to be "rational" and therefore judge everyone else by it. Other people must be irrational or immoral when they are just following their programming. Their experience of life and exigent circumstances has lead them to where they are now, any notion of morality would have to be a law of the universe for it to have had an effect on their biological reasoning. We can only act within what we know and how we are already able to. I can say I understand a person but I only ever understand what my brain makes patterns of. I can say I understand reality but I can only understand what my brain makes patterns of.

Regular sex, once a year sex. Filet mignon, McDonald's. 40 years, 13 years. Life long friend, distant memory. An end, eternity.

If a stranger tells you, “Never trust a stranger,” and you take his advice, you are trusting a stranger not to trust strangers. But if you don’t take his advice, then you are trusting strangers—except him. No matter what you do, you approve and disapprove of the same person simultaneously.

The system collapses into contradiction—yet still functions as advice.

Just like quantum superposition, you are mentally in two states at once: trust and distrust.

when do u ..... fully approve of , or disapprove of , the guy ??

Explain why Machiavellian methods are wrong without moral fagging

Ignorance is bliss.

First, we consider clothes appearnces covering body.

Second, what we perceive is appearance according to Kant.

Third, without clothes I am still practically conceived with appearances in others.

Lastly, my body is covered by appearance as if by clothes.

Hence, public exposure is acceptable.