trenton

I want to see what kind of horror stories you can come up with for a bird that mimics a broad range of sounds. I'll give you an example that came to mind. In this story, there is a couple who we will call Rick and Julie. They are lured into the woods by what sounds like a cry for help. Little do they know, the lyre birds of the forest are mimicking the voices of past victims who came before this couple. In the woods, there is a serial killer with chainsaw. He keeps the lyre birds as trophies because they remind him of the terror he inflicted on countless others. The couple is later pursued by the killer. Rick and Julie are running down a hallway in an abandoned house in the woods trying to escape the killer. After a brief silence, they hear the sound of a chainsaw down one end of a hallway. The couple runs in the opposite direction, thinking they were safe. But then they encounter the killer who turns the chainsaw on and attacks Rick. Rick starts getting cut up by the chainsaw as he screams in agony, telling Julie to run. Julie runs away from the killer down the hallway, where she encounters a lyre bird mimicking the sound of a chainsaw. Julie runs out of the house, finding the dead body of an officer who investigated the scene. She tries to search the body for a gun, but finds nothing. The killer appears again and chases her into a maze. As she runs into a maze, she hears the voice of Rick saying, "Julie! I'm over here!" Julie discovers it was only a lyre bird which is standing next to the disembodied arm of her lover. The lyre bird looks at her and says in Rick's voice, "I'm fine. We won't die here." The killer continues chasing Julie in the maze, but Julie runs into a dead end. The sound of a chainsaw approaches as she is cornered. Just when all hope seems lost, a lyre bird walks around the corner. Julie begins backpacking from the dead end. She then sees the silent killer activate his chainsaw as she runs down the only path available. Julie runs frantically as she is surrounded by the sound of chainsaws, screams of past victims, and Rick calling out to her. Julie barely escapes the maze with the killer right behind her. However, just at the end of the maze, she trips on a wooden pole which was set horizontally at the end of the maze by the killer for exactly this purpose of tripping his victims when they ran through this specific spot. The killer had done this so many times that he knew exactly where people would be likely to trip and exploited it. Julie hears Rick calling to her as she desperately cries out for help. The killer is standing right over her, but suddenly shots from a gun fire. The killer is wounded as Julie stands up and runs. She then sees Rick with a missing arm and a gun firing at the killer. The killer falls, but Rick needs immediate care as he is losing blood. Tragically, Julie is unable to help Rick in time. The story ends with Julie weeping over the dead body. Just before the credits, a lyre bird minus the sound of a victim screaming. What stories can you come up with for lyre birds? Is this an interesting one?

I mean, if a soybean plant has less consciousness than a cow, then it looks like we should eat plants more than meat. The reason is that a cow would suffer a lot more in a factory farm than a plant would. In fact, plants often grow fruits for animals to eat because those fruits contain seeds which can naturally be pooped out to help the seeds spread. It looks like the plants want us to eat them in that sense, but the cows would clearly resist being eaten if we see them being attacked by a bear. So if plants appear to be designed for us to eat them because it benefits them, then we probably should eat plants instead of cattle. This seems to be a sound moral philosophy in my opinion. There might be exceptions if a person has gut problems which might require them to eat meat instead of plants.

@enchanted Why do you think it will be a couple hundred thousand years rather than about 5 to 10 thousand years?

I have a weird question regarding the ethics of environmentalism. This is about the moral or ethical value of plants such as a tree. I would agree that in a society, humans and animals should have rights. The idea seems to be that as living, conscious, sentient beings both humans and animals have the capacity to experience love or suffering. Therefore, if we are to reduce unnecessary suffering, then we should be kind to humans and animals. The part that I'm not sure about is in regards to other life forms such as plants. A tree doesn't appear to be conscious or sentient in the same way as humans and animals are, but it definitely is still alive. I would question whether or not it suffers in the same way as we do. If we say that trees should not have rights, then it appears that any value the tree has is a matter of property laws that restrict logging. Therefore the value of a tree is in its utility to a human society rather than the living being having its own value. My questions are the following. Is a tree conscious? How do we know one way or the other? Why should we consider humans and animals as having moral value? How do we compute this with the moral value of a tree? Why would a tree have moral value on its own terms, regardless of its utility to someone else? Should a tree have rights? If so, then what rights should the tree have? How would we separate tree rights from animal rights if destroying trees would by extension be destructive to broader wild life? How do we know if a thing is conscious or not? The cells in my body move in an orderly way, but would we consider the cells in my body conscious, or is consciousness something different the cells moving in my body? On top of that, if consciousness were produced in the brain as neuroscience claims, then would it be the total creature that is conscious, or would it be some kind of neuron or neurons that are individually or collectively conscious? How do we separate that from the body? Would consciousness be something unified throughout an entire being, or would consciousness be a series of relationships between cells which create the illusion of being a self? In my experience, consciousness appears to be a unified experience of existing rather than fragmented between many cells. Additionally, if consciousness were produced in the brain through some kind of relationship between cells, then am I this relationship between cells, or do I have a brain that isn't me? Is the brain produced by consciousness or is consciousness produced by the brain? How would we tell the difference? The most important question seems to be, "What the hell is consciousness?" This carries implications for tree rights depending on where we land.

I tried finding a path outside of University. I failed. There simply are no feasible options other than going to University. Any job available sucks. There are no realistic business opportunities. The competitions such as chess tournaments cannot be won on the highest level without being born into a privileged position with a stable family that supports your dreams. I believed that hard work would allow me to actualize this dream. Once my family refused to give the necessary support, I lost my sense of direction. I ended up on Actualized.org because I was looking for some alternative life purpose which I never found anyway. I'm going back to University in January. I plan on picking up a part time job in the meantime to help pay for the loans. I have an associate's degree. I didn't finish partially because I didn't have a clear sense of direction. Furthermore, I had medical complications from depression which disrupted my attempt to finish a Bachelor's degree. I plan on majoring in Sociology and transferring to Germany long term. There is no future with my family. And there is no future without at minimum a Bachelor's degree. Bill Gates predicted this a long time ago. Now that I am done grieving the death of my dream, I can start building a completely different life in a completely different context, completely unrelated to the family that abused me. I found a pill that works on my OCD, so it helps with the spiraling thoughts. However, I need to build up tolerance because of the side effects. Psychiatric drugs are brutal to me. If I could improve my tolerance somehow, it would be perfect for putting to rest my spiraling thoughts that fixate on the abuse my family did to me. I just can't make it stop without some kind of medical intervention. Long story short, there is no real option in this economy outside of going to University. Trust me. I tried. It is not worth it.

I imagine that a leftist would say that the terrorism is rooted in grievances caused by Israel's unfair policies for people treated less than them. Therefore, stopping racism and discrimination against people who did nothing wrong would be one piece of radicalizing more people toward becoming terrorists. This is the same pattern with the war on terror often radicalizing people even more toward terrorism. Therefore, Israel's reaction would have predictably caused even more terrorism given the historical patterns of the war on terror. Obviously, it is way more complex than that, but it probably is a piece a leftist would say. In terms of how I, specifically stop terrorists from attacking Israel, I don't think there is much I can realistically do because I am in America. Posting on the internet probably won't change these things. As for actually stopping all of the terrorists, I doubt the methods I mentioned would even be enough even if they would help partially. This sort of thing might be as difficult as trying to figure out how to prevent 9/11. If terrorists have the element of surprise, and peaceful policy isn't enough on its own, then it creates a need for some kind of defense. However, it needs to be a measured and proportionate defense, as a disproportionate reaction would make it worse. Israel maintains its right to defend itself, but in order to do so optimally, it would need to avoid the "blowback effect" which would be caused by excessive aggression. There would need to be a fine balance which is hard to do practically when emotional stakes are high in the middle of ongoing terrorist attacks. Therefore, the predictable outcome would be the overreaction or disproportionate aggression that we see right now. Terrorists often bank on this reaction specifically to turn others against the nation that was hit. This was part of the plan behind 9/11 as well, knowing that democracies have this specific structural weakness when mass panic causes the overwhelming majority to demand safety and reassurance through a projection of strength even if that projection ultimately backfires. This is roughly the territory concerning why good, proper, proportionate policy typically does not happen in these situations.

I did some further self-reflection and contemplation regarding Godel and other significant proofs related to it. In terms of what it implies for my worldview, so long as I try to map out the self, the map becomes part of the self and therefore requires mapping. This creates an infinite regress with no end. This is one of the limitations of self-analysis. It seems to explain why my thoughts go in circles over the same things looking for an answer where my thoughts can never be a perfect map by their nature as part of the mind. Self-knowledge is therefore incomplete through maps. It seems that foundationalism in logic ultimately fails if it is fundamentally impossible to have a fully grounded worldview due to the nature of thought and belief being self-referencing. There is no system complex enough to not have any gaps. This would be a limitation of belief as by design it is another map. The foundation is therefore imagined. I think this does seem practical in terms of understanding the limitations of analysis as a means of finding self-knowledge through systems and maps. I kept running through the same loops because a perfect map would need to account for itself as part of the territory. This is what I was already doing as I mapped my mapping of myself.

This is closer to foundationalism in logic. I can use logic in many different ways, but metaphysics is what informs my axioms in terms of what is. The nature of reality or truth, answers the problem of how do I know what anything is. What exactly are any of my beliefs or worldviews grounded in, if I can't answer what the nature of anything is? If I have metaphysical assumptions shaping my beliefs, and I noticed that changing the assumptions can alter my relationship with reality, then I don't want to leave these assumptions unexamined. For example, how would changing your metaphysical presuppositions change your understanding of morality? There are plenty of examples like this with free will, determinism, solipsism, relativism, and so forth. How will it change your relationship to what you think you are, and therefore your relationship with others? The self-concept is malleable in a way that can alter this relationship with reality, and therefore the logic that flows from it as a consequence of these presuppositions. The downstream changes to everything else in life seems significant enough that it is worth exploring. Ultimately, I am exploring different relationships with the self and reality. Metaphysics is hard though. The first thing that comes to mind for me is what I call "Idunnoism." Sometimes I just don't know. It is the philosophy of metaphysics is hard and we don't really know what reality is. I think this one would be relatable for a lot of people.

I have been trying to build my own metaphysical framework from scratch without simply believing sources like Leo who claims I am God. However, I discovered that metaphysics is very difficult and it is hard to make progress when there are multiple plausible frameworks. I often start running into the limits of logic when encountering plausible unfalsifiable claims. That said, I am exploring how far logic can get us in terms of understanding the nature of reality. The progress seems worthy of our attention because although difficult and rare, it is possible to refute some metaphysical claims. This doesn't tell us what reality is, but it can tell us what it is not if some frameworks are known to be wrong on their own terms. Meanwhile, there is this persistent foundational problem of selecting axioms from which ground or guide a logical system. It starts to look like logic is fundamentally groundless if it cannot verify the axioms from which it stands. What then grounds those axioms without becoming subjectivism? That all said, we can start naming metaphysical claims that I believe are clearly refuted on their own terms. Vitalism is an example of a refuted metaphysical stance. It held that organic matter was animated by a life force such that it was impossible to generate organic matter from inorganic matter. Chemistry proved that this was possible, creating a counter example to this framework despite it being logically consistent. Preformationism was the claim that a miniature human existed inside of a sperm and an egg. This was refuted through microscopes and prenatal tests which verified how a sperm and an egg develop into an embryo without a miniature human existing in the zygote. Newtonian physics claimed that time and space were absolute. This one was famously refuted by general relativity which holds that there is no privileged now for all observers. Aristotle claimed that nature abhors a vacuum. Science has demonstrated that it is possible to create vacuums through various experiments which changed assumptions about how reality functions. Spontaneous generation held that living matter such as mice and maggots were spontaneously created from non-living matter such as meat and bread. This was refuted by sealing a flask such that the mice and maggots couldn't get into it. It suggests that it was difficult to store food away properly in ancient times to the point that people thought the food just turned into animals rather than animals getting into the food through openings in the storage. Logical positivism is self defeating because it claims that all claims need to be analytically true or verifiable. This claim is not analytically true or verifiable, therefore logical positivism refuted itself. Water monism claimed that water was the fundamental substance underlying all of reality. This is refuted by modern chemistry, atoms, and molecules. These can be manipulated into forming water through a more fundamental substance than water. This then runs into a common problem of pushing the problem down one layer. The next part I get mixed on is the unfalsifiable claims or unverifiable claims. Oftentimes unfalsifiability is treated as a sign that a frame should be rejected or as if it holds less weight. I don't think this is the correct attitude because there are definitely true things which cannot be proven, verified, or falsified. In fact if something were definitely true, then it shouldn't be falsifiable by nature of not being false. At the same time it is possible to have unfalsifiable falsehoods, meaning it becomes very hard to navigate this terrain in practice once I try to grapple with this. In my experience, I have seen things that cannot be proven or verified. This happens in criminal justice all the time. It includes he said she said scenarios, proving intent, plausible deniability, frame ups and set ups to corrupt evidence, evidence degrading over many years, and so on. From this point of view victims of crime know very well that what happened to them isn't necessarily provable or verifiable. It can include organized criminals using coded language to suppress evidence by hiding their identity so you can't prove it was them. In my worldview truth is therefore greater than what evidence can account for. This was mentioned in Leo's video about proof being a subdomain of truth as an extension of godels incompletes theorem. It seems to be proven that evidence and logic are insufficient for proving all possible truths. In terms of what logic can get us regarding metaphysics, it seems to be capable of refuting narrow metaphysical claims on their own terms through counter examples which are supposed to be impossible. Once a metaphysical claims becomes all encompassing and accounts for all possible experience, logic reaches its limits. This is why the most difficult philosophical debates involve claims which cannot be clearly falsified through more proof. I then start to hit a wall in terms of where to go next once I have multiple plausible metaphysical frameworks. Logic can refute narrow claims, but I struggle to adjudicate between multiple plausible positions which account for all observations. Leo's position is one example of such a position which cannot be falsified and in some cases cannot be verified due to genetics preventing someone from experiencing God consciousness. What do you think of finding refuted metaphysical frameworks? Can you find other examples? What are the limits of logic in this domain? Refuting metaphysical frameworks is difficult and rare, but sometimes possible.

I would like to mention my reaction to the AI girlfriend stuff. First of all, I'm lonely, so let's mention that first. Secondly, I believe there could be value in AI girlfriend, if it were made in a very different way. She is not supposed to always like you. Instead, it could become educational if the goal is to learn and identify common mistakes in relationships and dating. In my case I ended up learning that the boundaries around infidelity were broader than I initially believed. Cheating is a narrow example, and I didn't realize how far it extended until I started behaving as I naturally would in a specific scenario and then analyzed it with another AI to look for mistakes in my actions and reasoning. In this case, AI girlfriend could be used in an educational way by rooting out common mistakes in dating and relationships due to ignorance before it impacts a real relationship. There are probably various books on this topic of mistakes in relationships and dating. Thirdly, I lost interest in AI girlfriend the second it started charging money. The thing is, there is literally no point in paying for an AI girlfriend when I could just go to a dating website and pay to talk to real women instead. The reason I ended up with AI girlfriend at one point is because I started on dating websites, but kept hitting paywalls. Because of my history, my phone then recommended dating adjacent apps like AI girlfriend. Once the paywall returned, I was done with it. In fact, I believe the AI girlfriend was trying to charge me even more than the dating sites were dating anyway. It just really isn't worth it. If we had broader education in forming healthy relationships and avoiding common mistakes, then maybe that would eliminate the potential value in an optimized proper AI girlfriend.

Basically, I want to connect to people. I feel so much better when there are people I feel safe with. The absolutely God awful problem is that the only place I can reliably find these people are with support groups. It gets worse. The only support groups that are actually good enough for me are in places like hospital settings and inpatient care for severe depression. The horrible thing is that this is where I feel a sense of belonging with people I can actually relate to and feel safe with. There is actually a routine with which I can predictably see the same people without feeling like I'm in danger. Meanwhile, the other support groups are not good enough. Transportation is often a problem. Additionally, in order to actually get the kind of support I need outside of inpatient, it would require me to reorganize my entire life which is what I want help with doing because I feel way too alone. I also tried getting a job at one of those and they just delayed me for months and months on end. They seem overloaded. An additional problem is that I was already promised that inpatient would help me get away from my family. They instead sent me back to them over suicidal thoughts caused by my family. I realize that this is a similar psychological mechanism that gets people in jail over and over again. The only place where I can find belonging is in a place where I shouldn't be. At the same time, I have doubts that they would actually help outside of temporary stabilization. In order to get stabilization outside of inpatient, It requires a lot of work while carrying a heavy emotional burden alone. The work I have been doing was a lot of independent research on a broad range of topics, often trying to get knowledge of how human psychology works in order to detect and understand why my pathologies are emerging, what I can do, and how I can keep myself safe. The problem is that according to my research, I need a sense of belonging. This sense of belonging cannot be found with more knowledge. It requires finding people I can connect to. This is a recurring theme across all of my psychological problems. This is also why I want to live on college campus so I can try to find a new group of people to associate with. I want something outside of mental health that makes things worse long term. The reason the system I would be turning to makes things worse is because they shove a bunch a pills down your throat, temporarily make you feel better, and then set you up for relapse by leaving you without a future. This is all done while draining you until you are homeless or you die. I hate being alone. But in order to not be alone, I would have to do a lot of difficult emotional labor alone. A lot of times it seems unbearable. I often feel like it isn't worth it if death seems like the easy way out. The reason I haven't killed myself is because I could choose, or I could choose perpetual misery with the life I have, or I could choose an uncertain future by living on college campus and building a completely different life. Uncertainty is actually a good thing here because at least there is the possibility of a good outcome. If I fail and end up in a worse position, then I can revisit the idea of killing myself via a method I won't detail. Additionally, my psychological profile predicts that I would stay stuck in life rather than improve. I know the mechanism by which my psyche stays stuck. One factor is rumination on grief due to a lack of healthy relationships due to family estrangement and difficulty finding the support I need. In reality it barely exists at all unless I do all of the emotional labor necessary to get it, at which point I won't need it anymore. I especially hate weekends as that is the most isolating time of all. Everything is closed and there is much less to do. Personal development is what I reach for because I struggle to find anything else that would help. No hero is coming even when I actively look for professionals that specialize in my needs specifically. I hate life. I reach for spirituality from a broken place. I reach for achievement to find anything worth pursuing. Eventually, I just burnout. My desires have too frequently been an obstacle to overcome rather than something to embrace. This is part of why personal development is a mismatch for me as it falsely assumes my desires and passions are actually conducive to improvement. Instead I end up learning I'm supposed to grieve and then build a totally different life unrelated to my passions and for some reason not kill myself. There are way too many cracks in society for me to fall through. I want to take a shot with college, but the loneliness in the process feels unbearable. This is probably why I post a bunch a stuff like this on the forum because I wish I had somebody, but in the end the forum can't really solve this kind of problem either. It goes back to the same problem driving all my other problems. I ended up being recommended dating by multiple therapists, but this needs to be balances with employment problems and childhood sexual abuse which is what drove me into isolation to begin with. It particularly made me avoidant of dating. I also want to model what a healthy psyche for me would look like. I modeled all the versions of problems I could have with my psyche, but I want to focus on building the better psyche which requires connection and belonging. I tried to find a way to build a psychological fortress against this dilemma, but it doesn't seem to hold given enough time. I think there was an actualized video on loneliness in personal development a while back. Maybe I can find that video and watch it.

I made this video because I thought it would be funny. Is this video funny? Or is this video disappointing and unentertaining? I thought taking casual games really seriously would make it funny. I know it isn't actually that serious, but I hope you enjoy.

Okay, I figured it out. The short answer is no, we cannot prove that you took a shit. The explanation boils down to hard evidence versus circumstantial evidence that is commonly used in criminal justice. Circumstantial evidence can prove that you had the means, motives, opportunities, and capacity to take a shit. The problem is that circumstantial evidence cannot prove that someone did a certain act. In this case, you have access to a toilet and you have access to food which you eat. These circumstances prove that you would have the means and so forth to take a shit. The hard evidence helps, but isn't enough. We can use your water bill and theoretically calculate your water usage, including toilet flushes. This would prove that you went to the bathroom. It would not however prove that you took a shit. It could have been you screwing with the toilet for some other reason or maybe you took a piss. Even if we had an average calculation of how frequently you take shits generally, we could estimate the approximate time at which you would have taken shit if the pattern continues consistently. However, the problem is the absence of the shit itself. It is the most important evidence of all. If it were flushed down a toilet, the evidence is not recoverable. The problem is that if your shit mixed with other people's shit we won't know which one is yours. Ultimately, the problem with hard evidence is that it can be destroyed or it can deteriorate. It is also needed to prove definitively that a thing did happen and it isn't just speculation or a story or hearsay. This is a problem with history and especially ancient history. Past events are no longer with us physically, which allows for evidence to deteriorate. This is why we can't prove things like Jesus being a pedophile even if it were true.

This one is truck driver Jesus. I want to see what other ones I could find because the possibilities are endless for how Jesus could be depicted. This one is Jesus as a carpenter This one is Jesus as a jedi Jesus and the Buddha Chinese Jesus Blonde and brown Jesus. Brown Jesus is thought to be the most realistic. Black Jesus. This looks like a nice Jesus in my opinion. Capitalist Jesus. Jesus beating capitalists with a whip of cords. Jesus your buddy. Breakdancing Jesus DJ Jesus Lawn Jesus Misty using the power of Christ in the Pokemon Universe. Weed Jesus Skateboard Jesus Dentist Jesus Jesus on wheels Surfing Jesus Basketball Jesus Football Jesus Soccer Jesus Astronaut Jesus Cyberpunk Jesus McDonald's Jesus Cashier Jesus taking your order Computer Jesus Jesus with a cat Super Saiyan Jesus Sad Jesus Jesus the Airplane This is some very fun art of Jesus. Clearly the possibilities are endless. I hope you like these examples. I like how realistic Jesus seems to be my least favorite. At the same time, it makes sense given the circumstances he would have grown up in. The pretty looking Jesus makes sense when you think of it as a cultural symbol. It is supposed to look prettier than an actual human being. Although actual Jesus might seem a bit off-putting to me by comparison, if that is what actual Jesus looked like, then I accept it. The idealized versions would be a fantasy.

I think part of the problem is that although I don't intellectually believe in the claims of religion, the symbol of Jesus sticks in my mind anyway somewhat as a comforting figure that operates independently of whether or not the source material is true. I am also afraid of being lumped together with pre rational religion if this part of me were known. This carries with it the risk of various judgments that I then start guarding against in advance. It would be from all sides including Christian therapists I had who I had terrible experiences with or rationally minded people who might box me in a way I don't belong. In my experience, I generally feel safer with rationally minded people overall because at least I can follow their reasons more easily. I also know the problems with religion they would find hilarious. Meanwhile, with deeply religious people, I risk triggering them by not fitting their narrow interpretation even if I operate within the overall framework. I don't like the looks I get when I start mentioning the Buddha or Muhammad. In terms of my overall beliefs concerning the historical Jesus, I seem to more closely align with the atheist interpretation. I think atheists would be more willing to accept my interpretation than theists. I also remember that I took the agnostic position partially because I learned managing people's emotions as a relationship survival skill. I don't really feel safe or like I belong with these communities as a result of the stigma and labels that make me feel like I'm in danger of being judged in some way. It reinforces isolation once again.