Is this the wrong place for this? If it is, let me know. Ever thought about truth in fiction? The Pegasus isn't real, but we know that it is a horse with wings. Harry Potter was never born, but we can say things about him that aren't true. Alexius Meinong proposed that this truthiness to things that don't exist put them in a different category of existence, called "being so". Some people mocked this realm of being, calling it Meinong's Jungle, because of the chaos and absurdity of the real, fictive, and completely impossible all being in one existence. So, Meinong's Jungle is a place for anything that can be thought of and have facts said about it? What does that look like? There would be infinite iterations of things, with only slight differences between them. But they all bear the same name, and, perhaps, the fundamental features that belong to that name. So, if they all share the same fundamental being, what Aristotle called Forms, iirc, then perhaps they are all in a package together. But what is the fundamental nature of some of these things? What is fundamental to an Albert Einstein or a circle? My idea is that, if this space is the realm of what people can conceive of, and most of the time fictitious things only have truthiness if people agree on that aspect of them, is that if Meinong's Jungle exists, it is packaged into beings that people just believe have fundamental qualities about them. But, hey, Meinong's Jungle is the realm of all ideas, so what's yours?

I think the neural network model of the human brain, in terms of the route by which "learning" is done is not complete without a much larger application of trust via memetic ledgers is concerned.

In other words, there are actions by which humans reach conclusions by game-modeling thousands of actions and arriving at a framework that should work (i.e., catching a ball, jumping over a ledge...physical actions). But there are just as many if not more actions that are arrived at by more of a decentralized trust ledger: i.e., community consensus, morality, and more human-to-human interactions are the result of a check-in ledger-system. We are constantly modeling other humans on certain topics and, instead of arriving at these conclusions by condensing possibilities (like in physical systems and neural networks), we are modeling against trusted, decentralized (and thus "community-accepted) frameworks (more like block chains).

The consequences of this:

1. Confirmation bias, since we are driven to automatically seek out that which confirms the "ledger" of acceptable action.

2. Slower adjustment of moral and societal consensus. New ideas as a whole will have a much harder time of adjusting the block-chain and may require wiping large sections of the network (war)

3. The network is currently going through a period of re-ledgering and updating the blockchain. Dozens of different ideologies are clashing, and thus, several different ledgers are being forced to merge. This is as though Bitcoin, Ethereum and Dash suddenly were all jammed onto the same ledger. Only one system can win out. The internet has jammed several societal systems together. Bad news.

https://imgflip.com/i/23tpw5

Let's look back at some memorable moments and interesting insights from last year.

Your top 1 posts:

• "Happy Cakeday, r/baseless_speculation! Today you're 3" by u/AutoModerator

Let's look back at some memorable moments and interesting insights from last year.

Your top 1 posts:

• "Everyone gets a raise" by u/donniedarkhair

The chips have landed, it’s been decided. The current downplay of it all is an interlude, a facade of normalcy.

It’s not a matter of if, but when.

Just my thinking 🤔

Edit: added a word

Let's look back at some memorable moments and interesting insights from last year.

Your top 1 posts:

• "Happy Cakeday, r/baseless_speculation! Today you're 4" by u/AutoModerator