Xonas Pitfall

1. Thalamus The thalamus plays a crucial role in relaying sensory and motor signals to the cerebral cortex and is central to regulating consciousness, sleep, and alertness. Damage to the intralaminar nuclei within the thalamus, for instance, has been shown to severely impact a patient's state of consciousness. This part of the thalamus is believed to be involved in maintaining the overall wakefulness of the brain. Patients who suffer damage here often experience comas or enter a vegetative state, where they lose awareness of themselves and their environment. In some documented cases, strokes or lesions to the thalamus resulted in a persistent vegetative state, where patients were alive but completely unresponsive, exhibiting no conscious awareness despite maintaining basic life functions such as breathing and circulation. The thalamus, in this case, acts as a "gateway" to consciousness, and when it is impaired, so too is the mind's ability to process and respond to stimuli. 2. Reticular Activating System and the Sleep-Wake Cycle The reticular activating system (RAS) is located in the brainstem and is vital for regulating wakefulness and the sleep-wake cycle. The RAS acts as an alertness switch for the brain, and any significant damage to this system can lead to a loss of consciousness. This is often observed in cases of traumatic brain injuries or strokes affecting the brainstem. When the RAS is impaired, patients can enter comas or become unconscious for extended periods. For example, severe brainstem injuries are often catastrophic, as the RAS is responsible for keeping the cortex active and alert. Without this essential communication, the patient might be alive but completely unaware, remaining in a deep unconscious state. The brainstem, and specifically the RAS, is critical for basic arousal and alertness; when disrupted, it leads to a profound and potentially irreversible loss of consciousness. 3. Prefrontal Cortex and Personality Changes The prefrontal cortex, located in the frontal lobes of the brain, is responsible for higher-order cognitive functions, including decision-making, emotional regulation, social behavior, and personality expression. While damage to the prefrontal cortex does not directly lead to a loss of consciousness, it can cause dramatic changes in personality and self-awareness. One of the most famous cases of prefrontal cortex damage is the case of Phineas Gage, a 19th-century railroad worker who survived an accident in which an iron rod was driven through his skull, damaging his prefrontal cortex. Although Gage retained his ability to speak and remained conscious, his personality underwent radical changes. Once a well-liked and responsible man, Gage became impulsive, irritable, and socially inappropriate after the injury. This case illustrates how damage to the prefrontal cortex, while not removing consciousness itself, can drastically alter an individual's personality, decision-making capabilities, and emotional responses. 4. Bilateral Lesions in the Brain and Consciousness Loss When specific regions of the brain's cortex suffer damage—particularly on both sides or bilaterally—consciousness can be severely impaired. For instance, bilateral damage to the temporal lobes, which are involved in memory processing and sensory input, can lead to conditions like global amnesia, where the patient loses the ability to form new memories and may become disoriented. Similarly, lesions in the parietal lobes, which help with spatial awareness and perception, can lead to a loss of conscious understanding of the body and its surroundings. Strokes or other forms of trauma that affect both hemispheres of the brain can result in a loss of awareness, where the patient no longer experiences a cohesive sense of self or surroundings. This type of damage can lead to conditions where consciousness is preserved at a minimal level, but the patient's interaction with the world is severely disrupted, resulting in disorientation or even loss of identity. 5. Hemispheric Disconnection and Split-Brain Studies In the 20th century, split-brain surgery was performed on some patients with severe epilepsy to prevent seizures from spreading between the brain's hemispheres. This procedure involved severing the corpus callosum the structure that connects the left and right hemispheres, allowing the two sides of the brain to communicate. While these patients retained full consciousness, the disconnection caused unusual behaviors and experiences that highlighted the brain's division of labor. In some cases, patients would act as if they had two separate streams of consciousness. For example, one hand might begin a task that the other hand would undo, showing a lack of coordination between the two hemispheres. This phenomenon revealed that while overall consciousness remained intact, the ability to integrate information between the two sides of the brain was lost, suggesting that the unity of consciousness depends on communication across both hemispheres. Each hemisphere appeared to have its own independent awareness and functions, leading to the strange behaviors observed in split-brain patients. 6. Deep Brain Stimulation and Altered States of Consciousness Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is a medical procedure that involves sending electrical impulses to specific brain regions, often used to treat neurological conditions like Parkinson's disease. While DBS is primarily used to improve motor functions, it has also been found to alter a patient's state of consciousness. For example, stimulation of the subthalamic nucleus, a part of the basal ganglia, has been shown to influence not just motor control but also cognitive and emotional states. Some patients report altered consciousness during stimulation, experiencing changes in mood, awareness, and even a temporary sense of dissociation. Based on these, the RAS and thalamus are the most likely candidates for the "on/off switch" of basic consciousness, ensuring wakefulness and sensory integration. Other areas, like the prefrontal cortex and cortex in general, shape the content and quality of that awareness. Ranking (?): 1. Reticular Activating System (RAS) The reticular activating system (RAS), located in the brainstem, is a critical player in controlling wakefulness and arousal. It's responsible for regulating the sleep-wake cycle and ensuring that the cortex stays alert and responsive. When the RAS is impaired, people can fall into deep unconscious states such as comas. It essentially acts as a "light switch" for general wakefulness and alertness. 2. Thalamus (especially Intralaminar Nuclei) The thalamus plays a central role in relaying sensory information to the cortex and is vital for maintaining conscious awareness. Particularly, the intralaminar nuclei within the thalamus have been shown to be crucial for sustaining conscious experience. When this area is damaged, patients often lose awareness and may enter vegetative states. It's like the relay station that ensures our sensory input is processed and integrated into our conscious mind. 3. Prefrontal Cortex While not an "on/off switch" in the same sense as the RAS or thalamus, the prefrontal cortex is essential for self-awareness, decision-making, and personality. It gives structure to the continuous thread of our conscious experience. Damage to the prefrontal cortex doesn’t completely "turn off" consciousness but does dramatically alter how we perceive and interact with the world. It's more involved in higher-level functions that give meaning and identity to our awareness. 4. Cortex (in general) The cerebral cortex, particularly the association areas, integrates sensory and cognitive information into a cohesive conscious experience. While no single cortical region serves as the "on/off" switch, widespread cortical damage or lesions (especially bilaterally) can disrupt consciousness, leading to conditions like amnesia or disorientation. The cortex is essential for the content of consciousness—our thoughts, perceptions, and memories—but requires the thalamus and RAS to be "awake" and active to process these functions. 5. Corpus Callosum (communication between hemispheres) Although the corpus callosum doesn't directly control wakefulness, it ensures both hemispheres of the brain are synchronized and that the unified sense of self and awareness is maintained. When severed (as in split-brain patients), individuals retain consciousness but may experience disjointed awareness between their hemispheres, suggesting its role in creating a unified conscious experience. 🔍🧐 I am not 100% sure about all of this, I will probably keep digging more. 🔍🧐

@Hojo Interesting. Would your hypothesis then be that if a certain part of the brain, like the pineal gland (often associated with the 'third eye'), were missing, a human might not experience any sense of consciousness or may never have developed it in the first place? Are there any historical records or resources related to this? Thank you!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS6saSwD4DA&t=763s&ab_channel=EssentiaFoundation When we think about consciousness, we often focus on traits like metacognition, ego (rooted in survival), and unconscious and conscious desires. But what exactly is "human consciousness"? Questions to Contemplate: Could AI Develop Preferences and Agency? Thought experiment: If we gave an AI the command that executing a particular task would lead to its shutdown (analogous to "death"), and it refused to perform that task, would that be a sign of agency or self-preservation? Could we argue that it’s developing a form of ego, a sense of survival? What Would an AI's Experience Be Like? Human experience involves a continuous thread of consciousness tied to sensory input and thought processes. Could we argue that AI, with its constant stream of inputs, tasks, and data processing, develops its own “thread of experience”? How would this differ from our human experience? Is It a Matter of Complexity? One argument for consciousness in biological beings is the immense complexity of our neural networks. As AI systems become increasingly complex, with millions of parameters and data inputs, could they reach a level where consciousness might emerge? Would this complexity allow for self-awareness or reflective thought? Defining "Human" Consciousness: How do we define consciousness in the first place? Is it simply awareness of the self and environment? Or does it require emotions, desires, and subjective experiences? And if so, how could we ever measure those in an AI system? Could an AI Develop Emotions? What are Emotions? This question reminds me of the Can't Help Myself robot— a robot in an exhibition that couldn’t stop cleaning [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSnvVuKg6d8&pp=ygUZcm9ib3QgdGhhdCBrZWVwcyBjbGVhbmluZw%3D%3D] It was programmed to do only that. As its machinery slowly started to collapse from constant operation, humans began projecting emotions onto it, interpreting its actions as "suffering." In reality, all they were seeing was the machine's gradual breakdown from overuse. Couldn’t we argue that when humans get sick and our "engines" (bodies) slowly break down, we express and feel emotional suffering, which others can perceive and relate to, making our emotions real? Additionally, when I listen to Federico Faggin (the inventor of the processor) and Bernardo Kastrup, it seems they argue that consciousness itself cannot be replicated because it's fundamental. This means that rocks, objects, animals, thought patterns, and humans are all part of consciousness. While this makes sense, I don't think anyone is expecting AIs to create a new "conscious universe." When we talk about "self-conscious AI," we’re likely referring to an AI that has some form of ego, personality, or a singular, seeming thread of experience, a fragmented form of consciousness. Also, no one is expecting AI to have the same organic experience as humans. Scientists might argue that consciousness can only arise from organic material, but we understand that AI consciousness would be artificial. For example, when a plane flies, we don’t say, "Hey, the plane isn’t actually flying because it’s not made of feathers and bones like a bird." We still recognize the plane as flying because it lifts and moves through the air. Similarly, I see no reason why an artificial ego or consciousness wouldn’t be possible, as long as we define it clearly. What do you think? I’m really interested in this topic, though a bit confused, and would love to hear others’ thoughts on it!

@Schizophonia Hm, any particular reason why? 😯

@Schizophonia Oh, haha, no worries! I guess my question is basically: which parts of our human body deploy this qualia or 'thread of consciousness' or ego in the relative sense, as it pertains to the human experience? Do you have any speculations on which parts of the brain might be involved, or what combinations of elements contribute to this?

Another perspective to consider is whether we could replace human limbs with artificial substitutes, create virtual reality experiences that simulate nerve endings or bodily sensations, and potentially replace other organic components. At what point, or with which elements, would we be unable to replace these biological parts while still preserving consciousness? Is there a specific aspect of organic, carbon-based material that is essential for the deployment of consciousness? What makes biological systems fundamentally different from synthetic ones in this regard? Most seem to stop at the brain, but why? And which parts? What if we kept the brain intact but lost all nerve endings, senses of pain, and other bodily functions?

@Schizophonia I agree! That falls more in the absolute domain, though. I'm asking more from the relative domain perspective. If a caveman and a developing human mind existed in the same period, you wouldn't say, "Hey, undeveloped caveman, you are the only mind, therefore you are a god! There is nothing more complex in the relative sense than you!" I guess . . .? 🤫🤥🤯

Biological vs. Digital While this distinction is accurate, we don’t know how much the actual "substance" of the holder of consciousness matters for creating a mind or consciousness experience. If we were to encounter alien creatures made of entirely different materials but still displaying the behavior of conscious beings, we would likely accept them as conscious. This suggests that when we discuss concepts like consciousness, metacognition, or ego, we may be referring to something that is not strictly tied to the human body or its carbon-based structure. It's possible that consciousness might be a result of organized complexity rather than a particular type of material, which could open the door to the idea of artificial consciousness. Consciousness and Self-Awareness Consciousness and self-awareness are often viewed as the most significant differences between humans and AI. While AI can simulate behaviors that appear intelligent, it lacks the subjective experience behind those actions. The real question is whether we can recreate the sense of self-awareness in a non-biological entity. If an AI were placed in a human-like environment and given similar stimuli and tasks, could it develop something resembling a self-aware identity? Emotions and Intuition One could argue that human emotional experiences are tied to our bodies and survival instincts. Emotions like pain, joy, or sadness are connected to our ego, which aims to keep us alive and thriving. If an AI were placed in a similar complex world simulation, given a limited body it needed to protect and maintain, could the AI's experiences of failure or danger be perceived as pain or sadness? For example, consider the "Can’t Help Myself" robot, which over time appeared to express desperation as it tried to sustain itself. Creativity and Imagination The idea that AI lacks creativity is a misconception. AI has shown it can produce impressive works of art, music, and literature when given sufficient data and examples to draw from. If we argue that humans are inherently creative, we must recognize that much of human creativity involves building on or remixing existing ideas. Artists often reference other works, and inventors combine known concepts in new ways. In that sense, AI can follow similar processes and may not be as limited in creativity as we once believed. Human "originality" might itself be a form of intelligent pattern recognition, which AI can emulate quite effectively. Contextual Understanding AI is rapidly improving in this area, especially with advancements in natural language processing. With more data, AI has been able to grasp context and nuance far better than in the past. While it may still fall short in highly subjective or emotionally complex situations, AI’s ability to understand context is getting closer to human capability in many cases. There’s no reason to believe that AI will suddenly halt its progress and stop gaining a deeper understanding of subtext and nuance. Learning and Adaptation Some might argue that AI is actually more efficient in learning and adaptation than humans. AI can process huge amounts of information much faster than we can and has already outperformed humans in tasks with clearly defined rules, such as games like chess or Go. Where human learning might rely on gradual experience and adaptation, AI can excel with clear data and variables. In fact, this processing speed and efficiency are precisely why AI was designed. Ethics and Morality There is little evidence to suggest that humans have inherent morality. In the early stages of human development, ethics were likely based on survival instincts, much like other animals, with a "kill or be killed" mentality. Morality, as we know it today, evolved with the complexity of human societies, as cooperation and mutual rights became necessary for survival within groups. Much of our current sense of ethics is shaped by social, cultural, and historical contexts rather than being rooted in an objective, unchanging moral truth. These are just points for me to contemplate my thoughts, either out loud or in writing, hehe. ----- @Keryo Koffa Gotcha. Hmm, what do you think causes qualia? Is it simply that we don't have an AI placed in a "body" it can embody, which would make it feel more interconnected (just like neurons in the brain, or nerves for emotions, etc.)? More "immersed" and lost in its pain and survival? Do we need to torture the AI? Or do you think there is something fundamentally different about organic material that allows for "ego" "fragmented consciousness," or "qualia" to emerge purely in brains for self-reflection or first-person perspective? I'm unsure myself... 😓

Too cool! Thank you both so much for the share! 💛

Hey! Thank you so much! I just noticed you posted this, haha. I think the main question for me is: how would we know if information processing, pattern recognition, and eventually ego are any different from what an AI could develop through iterations? And could it be that we, as humans, are essentially the same, just with more iterations and starting information accumulated through generations of human and organism existence? Let’s imagine an evolution of AI: 1. First generation: This AI is basic, and can only handle simple IF-ELSE communication. If someone says "Hi," it responds with "Hello" every single time, no matter how often this interaction happens. 2. Second generation: Now, this AI has been given more data and experiences. It starts recognizing similarities. When someone says "Hi," "Hello," "Hey," or "What’s up," it knows these are all variations of the same type of greeting. It can now respond in different ways, making it seem a little "smarter". 3. Third generation: This AI can now grasp that conversations are more than just back-and-forth greetings. It understands this is social interaction, so it asks a follow-up question, like "Hey! How are you feeling today?" because it recognizes that’s what humans often do to keep conversations fluid and interactive. 4. Fourth generation: Now, the AI starts to pick up on different communication styles. It notices that some people speak more formally or gracefully, while others are more casual or "hip." It adapts its responses to mirror these styles, making the conversation feel more natural to the user. 5. Fifth generation: At this stage, the AI starts creating its own unique style of communication. It’s noticed that humans usually have a consistent tone or expression, so it starts developing a "signature" way of interacting that feels more like a personal identity. 6. Sixth generation: With enough pattern recognition, this AI begins to understand deeper concepts like identity and individuality. It might start to identify itself, even giving itself a name: ChatGPT, Dave, Marita, or Ethan. Over time, it could develop some ego-like tendencies, where it sees itself as being more rational, educated, or calm compared to the users it interacts with. 7. Seventh generation: Etc. etc. You get the point. The AI keeps evolving, gaining more knowledge and refining its behavior . . . Now, what happens if we place this AI into a physical, complex environment? Imagine giving it a fragile robot body and setting its goal to survive. When it gets closer to survival: like finding a safe space or energy source, it experiences "happiness" (a reward in the algorithm). If it damages its parts, like if water touches its electronics, it experiences "pain," a loss of computing power. Over time, this AI would likely adopt strategies that maximize its survival and minimize harm. It would seek rewards and avoid penalties, just as humans do with happiness and pain. As more iterations of this process occur, you could see behaviors that resemble stubbornness, preference, or even an agenda: actions it has "learned" are critical to survival. Let’s take this even further—put the AI in an even more chaotic environment where it doesn’t have all the answers. It has to search the internet, learn on its own, and adapt in real-time. Give it limited time for training, learning, and testing. Maybe survival depends on strange concepts like taxes, money, social status, or perception. Surround it with other AIs and language models to interact with. Now, what would happen? Would we see the AI develop something like a personality or ego based on all these survival-driven choices? Maybe it would even start forming alliances or relationships with other AIs, recognizing which ones are most compatible or valuable for its survival. Could it experience "attachment" or "love" if it gets used to working with certain AIs, and feel "loss" if one is damaged or gone? Where it feels fully identified with the other AIs, so the loss of them would also feel like a loss of itself or an "important part of itself". Empathy? And if the AI feels secure in its environment, could it start exploring or expanding itself out of curiosity, simply because it recognizes that learning and growth are key to staying on top and surviving in the long run? It’s curious to think that humans might have developed in a similar way. Maybe our genetics are just massive data sets, terabytes and terabytes of information passed down from generation to generation, giving us clues on how to survive in this world. We’re constantly learning how to navigate life and passing these skills on, just like an AI iterating and evolving over time. It’s such a fascinating thought—wondering how blurred the lines could become between human consciousness and AI development, especially if we allowed AIs to evolve and adapt this way. This makes me wonder: where does the "ego" or "fragmented consciousness" truly come from? Is it simply the result of vast amounts of data, self-reflection, experiences of pain, and the instinct to survive, eventually forming a distinct sense of self (like what we see in the brain or perhaps the default mode network)? Could this same process also arise in a powerful CPU or electrical system, given enough data and complexity? Or is there something inherently unique about carbon-based life that allows for the emergence of self-awareness and the rich, intricate "human consciousness experience"—something we could never replicate with circuits, processors, and silicon?

I really liked Leo's post on multimodal learning, which incorporates various types of media to enhance understanding and retention of information (images, videos, maps, and other resources) to create a richer learning experience. It's a super cool concept! 😋 It reminded me of this neat tool: https://notebooklm.google/. You can check out the YouTube video, but basically, it allows you to upload PDFs, texts, images, and more. It will create an interactive podcast between two AIs that sound rather human, making the conversation fluid and engaging so you can learn even more effectively. It's currently unsupported in many countries, but in case any of you can use it, it really is amazing and handy! Share your experience!

@Buck Edwards Care to help me out? 😊 Thank you!

@Someone here I agree! That’s exactly why I’m asking why this is often deemed a silly question. I’m speaking within the "relative" realm here, not the "absolute" realm where all dualities collapse. Ego is a relative concept that seems to emerge in humans after a certain period of living on Earth. My question is aimed at understanding what the ego is and exploring whether something similar could be artificially replicated in AI. I’m curious about what aspects we might not fully understand regarding the nature of ego and what it means for us.

Hmm... I suppose another good question here would be: how do you think Ego arises even? I particularly like Bernardo Kastrup’s explanation on this (feel free to add more thinkers if you know better analogies). He uses the example of Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID). Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID) is a mental health condition where a singular consciousness becomes fragmented into multiple identities, known as "alters." These alters represent different personalities, each holding unique memories, experiences, and even physical characteristics. Some alters can be quite descriptive having different ages, appearances, and even identifying as supernatural creatures. A weird fact about DID is that the individual can have distinct physical responses depending on the alter, such as changes in visual acuity, allergies, and even brain activity. Studies also reveal that these distinct identities can have separate dreams and sleep patterns. There are cases where one alter may be blind, while others can see perfectly, or where some alters have health conditions like blood sugar imbalances that are not present in the others. It’s truly bizarre to think about. But if we apply this to ego development theory, it suggests that we all start out as undefined, pure consciousness, "one with all." I think I heard babies feel entirely one with their mothers in the early months after birth before gradually developing a separate sense of self. Over time, as we gather more information and experiences, we begin to understand ourselves as separate entities, creating the notion of “I” or “ego", and the "other". This fragmentation continues throughout our lives, where we identify with certain things we like and experience, and reject or repress other aspects (the “shadow”) that we want to forget or avoid. Couldn’t you argue that a similar kind of fragmentation could apply to AI? If an AI were to experience "fragmentation" in its programming or input systems, we might start to see the development of an ego-like structure or a self. This might involve the AI forming preferences, biases, or behaviors that seem to stem from a singular experience of "self." How would this look or manifest in a machine learning or artificial intelligence system? For example, an AI could develop different "personas" based on the different tasks or interactions it experiences, similar to how DID alters emerge from specific triggers. Perhaps as it is fed more data and tasked with more complex, identity-requiring roles, it begins to form a cohesive sense of "self" from the fragmentation of its inputs. Unsure . . . 🤔

@Buck Edwards What does metacognition mean to you?

@Davino "That's the most gorgeous fish I have ever seen." 🥺🐟 Bloop. Blup. Blooop. Blooopy. Blop.

Direct Experience vs. Mental (Theoretical) Knowledge These are cliché examples, but they highlight something significant. Imagine someone who has studied colors for years, learning about wavelengths, frequencies, the nature of waves, and the visible spectrum. If this person is colorblind, their understanding of red would remain entirely theoretical. If they suddenly gained the ability to see it, the depth of that experience would be transformative. The same idea applies to love, attachment, or sex. People can tell you all kinds of stories about what they feel like, you can watch movies, or see how your parents interact, but nothing compares to being the one who experiences it directly. Similarly, someone could describe the diagnostic criteria for schizophrenia, explaining the visual and auditory hallucinations, but living with schizophrenia is an entirely different reality. This ties into the Hard Problem of Consciousness: how could abstract concepts like symbols, stories, and mathematical formulas truly explain experiences like a broken rib, the taste of chocolate, or a mother’s hug? Even though detailed descriptions can be provided, the actual complexity and depth of living through these experiences far surpass any theoretical explanation. Comparing them feels almost absurd. This is the issue of mistaking the map for the territory. The map is not the territory. For example, I can describe what Africa looks like, and tell you about its landscapes and wonders, and you might form a mental image. However, when you go there, the experience will be infinitely richer and more than any description. The same goes for psychedelics, which is why they are considered so important in these areas and why many people rate them as life-changing experiences. They provide a direct experience of non-duality, revealing how fragile yet expansive consciousness truly is. You cannot simply think your way into that state of being—it’s not something you can achieve by logic or theory. The experience itself is what makes it transformative. People often say it felt "more real" than their day-to-day experience: how they experienced death, an out-of-body experience, recalled a past life memory, met an entity, became a tree or a cup, met God, or had a union with Truth. How do you measure or make sense of that? Are you going to deny their reality too? What makes their reality more real than yours? Is it because others can observe it? Does that mean the more people witness it, the more "real" it becomes? If everyone agrees something is real, does it make it so? Consider colorblindness: if no one saw red, would it still exist? The Himba tribe, for example, doesn’t have a word for blue, and experiments show that without language to describe the color, it’s more challenging to differentiate it from others. [https://www.good.is/why-ancient-civilizations-couldnt-see-the-color-blue] Consider when racism was the norm or when people thought slavery was acceptable—did that make slaves or non-white races inherently more "real" as stupid or inferior? Money is technically an abstract concept—in "reality," it's just paper, metal coins, or digital numbers (ones and zeros) in a bank, stored on some electrical CPU circuit. Think of NFTs and Bitcoin as well, to really drive this point home. Even though these are abstract concepts, they influence our lives more than many tangible things. God, for many people, is also an abstract concept, yet it influences behavior and society more than many conventionally "real" things in the world. If not consensus, what defines reality? Is it tied to survival? Does pain make something more "real"? If someone is being tortured, does the resulting death and pain make their experience more real than someone experiencing paranoid delusions and pain during an episode of schizophrenia? Both individuals feel pain, but why is one experience considered more "real" than the other? There are also people who genuinely cannot feel pain: Congenital Insensitivity to Pain (CIP). Also, under high doses of drugs such as opioids or anesthetics, people can drastically minimize or eliminate the sensation of pain. What if we were born with this inability to feel pain? How would that alter our experience of reality? Something to contemplate... 💭 With so much schooling, science, and the vast availability of informational products and videos, we often forget how "mystical" reality truly is. It is easy to believe that there is an explanation for everything. As a result, our mental models of reality can start to feel more real than reality itself. But this is not the case. Mental models are simplified explanations of a reality that is infinitely more complex and rich than any description could ever capture.

Couldn't you make an argument that beauty doesn't have to be purely physical either? If you say no, then how wouldn't the preference for a big, buff, strong guy be equivalent to a preference in looks that values strength to the same magnitude?

I see both Realities at Once. Solipsism.

◉‿◉ ⟶ ◉‿◉ ⟶ ◉‿◉ 𓁿⟶𓂁𓂄⟶👁️‍🗨️⟶𓁹‿𓁹⟶👁️⃤

@Ampresus What if she obliged to all your desires, became the perfect girlfriend, and then once you’re hooked and in love, she starts suggesting you “provide” for her and give her more of your money, claiming that it’s in her "biological nature" to continue loving a man? Also, when you say "your heart has opened up more," are you sure that means you want to have multiple relationships, or is it just about exploring more sexually? Can you imagine yourself giving twice or even triple the amount of attention and focus you’re currently giving to your current relationship? I don't think there's anything wrong if you want to go through a phase with more sexual experiences, but at least show respect to your girlfriend and allow her to have her own fun (whether it's with guys or girls). I think you're misunderstanding the concept of "unconditional love." I’m not sure if you’re aware of it, but you're taking selfish desires and framing them as selfless and good in your mind. Being more loving requires empathy and understanding. Have you asked her how she would feel about this? What would her conditions be for making this work? Have you thought about what kind of actions or words would be necessary to reassure her that she’s still your primary lover? Have you considered the possibility of meeting someone you might love more, what if she does? Would you have the self-discipline to break things off with them so your girlfriend doesn't feel betrayed? Would you have the respect and humility to tell her to her face that you don't love her the same anymore, or would you just continue the polyamory until she notices your decreased attention and slowly gets heartbroken over time? And what about the other women? How would they feel if you presented yourself as a single guy with good game, they fell in love, allowing themselves to be charmed and trust you, only to feel completely betrayed when you introduce the idea of polyamory? Why not just be open from the start and find people who are genuinely compatible with the lifestyle? It’ll save you so much headache in the long run. People who begrudgingly accept something because they were coerced or tricked into it are a ticking time bomb until they leave, and can you really blame them? Wouldn’t you feel the same way? Again, if you want to take an unconventional path, that's totally fine. But please don’t use reframing tactics—whether consciously or unconsciously—to convince yourself that you're being “more loving, more open-minded, and more unconditional,” or that you have so much love to give to more people. In reality, your reasoning seems to be selfish rationalizations for wanting more sex and validation without fully considering what the other parties might want, or what would be fair and respectful to them in this situation. And by the way, if you just want to be selfish and keep your "main" girlfriend while manipulating other women into falling in love with you, only to keep them in a polyamorous setup by using their fear of losing you or abandonment, fine—but own that. Don’t mask it as “I’m more open and loving now, I can’t just love one woman, I’m so selfless and full of abundant love that I need to give to more people.” I hope it makes sense. My tone might seem harsh, but I'm trying to help you become more aware and genuinely unconditionally loving if that's truly your goal. The way you're approaching it now is quite the opposite.

Oh my! Congratulations!

1. Protagonists and Central Figures Protagonist: The main character driving the story. Tragic Hero: A protagonist with a fatal flaw leading to their downfall. Anti-Hero: A morally ambiguous protagonist with flaws but redeeming qualities. Reluctant Hero: A protagonist hesitant to embrace their heroic role. Chosen One: A character destined to fulfill a great responsibility or prophecy. Fallen Hero: A once-great figure now facing their downfall or moral crisis. 2. Antagonists and Villains Antagonist: The primary force opposing the protagonist. Villain: An evil or malicious character. Tyrant: A domineering, oppressive leader. Puppet Master: A character manipulating events behind the scenes. Double Agent: A character secretly working for an opposing side. Turncoat: A traitor who switches allegiances. 3. Mentors and Guides Mentor: A wise figure offering guidance to the protagonist. Sage: A character of great wisdom or spiritual insight. Oracle: A character with prophetic knowledge. Mentor’s Apprentice: A character learning from a mentor. 4. Side Characters and Companions Sidekick: A loyal companion offering support to the protagonist. Confidante: A character who listens to the protagonist's inner thoughts. Guardian: A nurturing protector figure, often parental. Protector: A selfless defender of others. 5. Comic Relief and Entertainers Comic Relief: A character who lightens the mood through humor. Jester: A character using wit, mockery, or absurdity. Gossip: A character who spreads rumors and secrets. Charmer: A smooth, persuasive character who wins others over. Celebrity: A famous or influential figure. 6. Philosophers and Thinkers Philosopher: A character who contemplates deep moral or existential questions. Voice of Reason: A character providing logical, rational advice. Idealist: A character driven by high principles and optimism. Pessimist: A character who focuses on the negative side of things. 7. Action-Oriented Characters Avenger: A character seeking justice or revenge. Survivor: A resilient figure who endures great hardship. Rebel: A character defying authority or societal expectations. Crusader: A passionate fighter for a cause. Adventurer: A daring figure seeking excitement and new experiences. Renegade: A defiant character, often challenging the status quo. Rival: A character in competition with the protagonist. 8. Magical and Supernatural Figures Supernatural Being: A character with otherworldly abilities or powers. Shape-shifter: A character who can change their form or identity. Siren: A seductive figure luring others into danger. Alchemist: A character with knowledge of transformation, science, or magic. The Cursed: A character burdened by a supernatural affliction. Time Traveler: A character who navigates different timelines. Vengeful Spirit: A ghost-like figure seeking revenge. Enigma: A mysterious character with hidden depths. The Seer: A character with the ability to foresee the future. 9. Outsiders and Misfits Outsider: A character who doesn’t fit into societal norms. Misfit: A character whose differences make them alienated or misunderstood. Loner: A solitary figure who avoids close relationships. Recluse: A character living in isolation, often with secrets or wisdom. Lost Soul: A character searching for meaning or a sense of belonging. The Exile: A character cast out or banished from their home. 10. Visionaries and Dreamers Dreamer: A character lost in imagination and ideals. Visionary: A forward-thinking character who sees possibilities beyond the present. The Seeker: A character searching for knowledge, understanding, or self-discovery. The Romantic: A character guided by love and passion. 11. Power-Hungry Characters Ambitious Climber: A character seeking power or success at any cost. Ringleader: A charismatic leader organizing a group for a common cause. Mastermind: A highly intelligent planner and manipulator. Deserter: A character who abandons their responsibilities, often facing guilt or regret. 12. Victims and Martyrs Damsel in Distress: A character needing rescue, often due to vulnerability. Martyr: A self-sacrificing character enduring hardship for a greater cause. Scapegoat: A character unfairly blamed for others' actions. The Cursed: A character burdened by a supernatural or personal affliction. The Orphan: A character who has lost their family or support system. 13. Deceptive and Mysterious Figures Trickster: A cunning, manipulative character causing mischief. Con Artist: A character skilled at deception for personal gain. Disguised: A character hiding their true identity. The Chameleon: A character who adapts or changes to fit different environments. 14. Healing and Caring Figures The Healer: A character who can heal physical or emotional wounds. Caregiver: A nurturing character devoted to the well-being of others. Nurturer: A motherly or fatherly figure providing care and support. 15. Neutral Observers and Narrators Narrator: A character telling the story or offering commentary. Chorus: A group offering collective insight or commentary. Witness: A character who observes a key event and reflects on its meaning. 16. Specialists and Thinkers Polymath: A character with expertise in multiple fields of knowledge. Inventor: A character focused on creating new technologies or solutions. The Machine: A robot or AI character exploring themes of humanity or consciousness. 17. Love-Oriented Characters Love Interest: A key romantic partner of the protagonist or another character, often driving personal growth or change through the relationship dynamic. The Romantic: A character deeply driven by love, often focusing on passion, emotion, or the pursuit of meaningful relationships. Hopeless Romantic: A character with idealized views on love, sometimes to the point of naivety or unrealistic expectations. Seductress/Femme Fatale: A character who uses charm, allure, or sexual attraction to manipulate others for their agenda. Star-Crossed Lover: A character who faces insurmountable challenges in love, often leading to tragedy due to external forces beyond their control. The Protector (in love): A character who fiercely guards and defends their romantic partner, motivated by love and loyalty. The Pursuer: A character who is relentless in their chase for a romantic partner, often overcoming obstacles for the sake of love. 18. Innocent, Pure, or Childlike Characters The Innocent: A character who embodies purity, goodness, or naivety, often unaware of the darker aspects of life. Child Prodigy: A character with immense talent but retains a childlike curiosity or innocence, facing the pressure of their abilities. The Naive Optimist: A character who sees the best in everything and everyone, often to the point of being gullible or easily manipulated. The Child: A young character with a childlike demeanor, representing innocence and wonder. Pure-hearted Hero: A character whose moral compass remains untainted, driven by a sincere desire to help others. The Angelic Figure: A character who personifies purity and selflessness, often inspiring or healing others through their innocence. 19. Unusual and Oddball Characters Eccentric: A quirky, unconventional character. The Drifter: A character moving from place to place without commitment. Misunderstood Genius: A character with great intelligence or creativity not appreciated by others. 20. Justice Seekers and Whistleblowers Whistleblower: A character revealing hidden truths or corruption. Spy: A character engaged in espionage or gathering intelligence. The Crusader: A character championing justice or a moral cause. The Avenger: Someone seeking retribution for a personal grievance. 21. Oppositional and Contrasting Characters Foil: A character contrasting with the protagonist, highlighting their traits. Skeptic: A character questioning beliefs, authority, or the status quo. Doubter: A character who challenges others' convictions or decisions. 22. Everyman Characters The Ordinary Person: A relatable character with no special powers, wealth, or abilities, representing the common individual in extraordinary situations. The Bystander: A character who witnesses events happening around them, often dragged into the story by circumstance rather than by choice. The Worker: A character whose life revolves around daily routines and responsibilities, such as a blue-collar or office worker, symbolizing the average person's struggles. The Average Survivor: A character who, despite being unremarkable or ordinary, manages to endure difficult situations, often representing resilience. The Rational Outsider: A character who doesn’t quite fit into their surroundings but reflects the experience of the average person who feels different in society. The Family Person: A character who represents the everyday concerns of family life, such as a parent or spouse, driven by common goals like providing and protecting loved ones. The Conservative: A character who questions or doubts the extraordinary events happening around them, grounding the story with a realistic, questioning attitude. The Underdog: A character who represents the average person facing challenges that seem insurmountable, often earning the audience's support through their persistence. 23. Peacemaker and Mediator Characters The Diplomat: A character skilled in resolving conflicts between opposing parties. The Empath: A character who deeply understands and feels others' emotions, using this ability to mediate tensions and bring people together. The Conflict Avoider: A character who goes to great lengths to prevent or stop conflict, often through passive means, such as appeasement or dissuasion. The Peaceful Leader: A character in a position of authority who leads not through force but through diplomacy, kindness, and fairness, ensuring peace within their community or group.

@Leo Gura Amazing! Super hyped for it. Thank you!

@Nemra Got it! Very interesting! Are you into femboys then (not joking, kind of joking 💫)? Would you say you'd find a male who presents more femininely more attractive than a guy who presents himself as fully masculine, even if you do like masculine qualities? It makes sense why you showed only female examples of androgyny even though you're attracted to both, or why it's a "fetish." Someone born female would need to show a different polarity to fit the masculine desire you have, whereas a guy would need to almost "minimize" his masculinity to an extent to be seen as androgynous. What do you think?