Scholar

Don't overestimate yourself. If you had been born in those times, you would have supported him or just considered anti-semitism as normal, just like you consider today's atrocities as normal. I don't see you ripping anyones throat out, despite there being far greater atrocities committed today.

Even if this was true, the solution to this it the destruction of Russia, of course. Given that it is the aggressive invading force. If there truly is an existential, necessitated conflict here, there is only one moral way of resolving it. And in practice, this is how you sadly have to deal with the Russians. They do not understanding anything but power and violence. And so, that's exactly what you need to give them. But of course this is not the reality. Russia doesn't actually have to fear anything from Nato, because if Russia simply did it's thing, nobody would care about that backwater country, because they are geopolitically utterly irrelevant. The only reason why Russia ever had any historical and geopolitical relevance was because of it's imperialistic ambitions. That is the only way for it to sustain it's position of power. Thankfully modernity has transcended such motivations as justifications for blantant violations of state-integrity. Not even the US, in it's imperial functions, deems it justified to annex territory. But all of this is nonsensical. The russians themselves don't think the west is a threat, Putin thinks the west is literally falling, that democracy is inherently doomed to fail. They were wrong, because there are not enough people like you around, not yet, to allow these regimes to conduct themselves in the way they please. What is happening here has nothing to do with the actual security of Russia. There are plenty of nations that have been plenty of antagonistic in the past that are able to live in perfectly vulnerable, peaceful ways with the rest of the world. Putin has inherently imperialistic aspirations that are ideologically motivated, the second reason is regime security. Either way, a senseless, unwinnable war is not the solution for Russia. Any rational state actor would realize this. They lost Syria, they might lose Africa, and much more if this conflict continues. If you want to look at this from a position of realism, as you pretend to do, then you have to recognize that for Russia to maintain it's position of power as it did in the past, it has to do so in the most vile, imperialistic ways possible. That's the only way it could compete with the US. But the US is not an artificial, imperialistic hegemon. The US is geopolitically positioned to be the, or part of, the hegemony of the world. They don't need to annex Mexico and Canada to be the prominent world power. They have the natural position in this world power hierarchy, and as such they should be the hegemon of the world. Because they don't need to enslave half a continent under their regime to even participate in the competition for hegemony. So, from a realist perspective, the only sensible solution is to destroy Russias ambition as an unnatural (meaning, their default position does not lend itself to hegemony at all) imperial force, the same as we did to France, UK, Germany and any other nation that attempted to do so. You don't want to lose power, but that's what it has to be, because your little shit country in the corner of the world should be utterly meaningless in the transpiring of world history. But you don't want that to be the case, so of course you are willing to dominate half the world, having to maintain your power through barbarism, because you have never had the proper, geopolitical fate to be what you seek to be. This is the rule from realism that you should abide by: The weaker you are, the more violent and oppressive you have to be if you want to be the hegemony, because you do not hold the natural position of hegemony. The natural position of hegemony, naturally goes to the one who is strong, so to maintain your power, you must constantly and violently oppress those who would be more powerful than you, if you simply allowed them to be. This is why the US can afford to act from a non-coercive position geopolitical speaking, which benefits not only the US, but all nations in the world. They have the natural hegemon, so they don't need to suppress anyone in violent and oppressive ways to maintain their own position of power. So, from a realist position, the US should maintain it's power, and suppress weak nations like Russia who have false aspirations of competing for hegemony.

Because you are, it's unacceptable that we have to tolerate such drivel on this forum. You're conspiracy brained propagandists who are not even aware of it. There is no arguing or conversing with you guys, you just poison the conversations.

God this is the most cringe, embarassing post I have read on this forum for a while.

Lol, the US didn't take shit.

Ah "intuition", so your nonsensical, america-bad ideological commitment you mean. Of course Russia has more casualities, they have more people, and they have a doctrine of absolutely no care for having causalities. They are an empire, the difference is when they send their cannon fodder to die, they don't need to give a shit because the moscovite imperialists won't care one bit if all the half-genocided, occupied indigenous people are upset about their sons, brothers and fathers dying in a completely irrational war. They are also the invading force, which in a symmetrical war will yield more casualities on the side of the attacker.

The video you provided is an argument against alternative media. Even the video I provided is one, given how few people see it and how absurd of a skewing towards idiocy and lies the alternative media landscapes allows.

You didn't provide anything of substance, I can just reassert that you are wrong, and say the opposite is true. That's the only level of engagement you are capable of which to me is a waste of time. I think people like you should be removed from this forum.

Jesus Christ, lmao.

You literally are too unsophisticated to notice the nuance of "Not every war is the same.". An irrational distrust of government is just as stupid as a unquestioned faith in it. People like you are a bane on existence.

lmao, I hope it's finally apparent to people that Mearsheimer is an absolute clown. But to be honest, it probably won't be given how utterly brainded some of you guys are in here.

The average murder should not get as much attention, because it does not stem from an ideological virus. Political violence has to always be viewed with more urgency than a personal murder incident. The news networks are doing their jobs here. It's like when people complain about news media covering terrorism, when thousands more die in car accidents every year. It's a very naive and simplistic form of analysis that is more so motivated by moral outrage than anything else. As soon as you feel moral outrage, you should seriously question whatever your mind is going to tell you next. This is the easiest way for the algorithms, other people and most importantly your own ego, to manipulate you.

They learned from the mistakes of the americans.

We have these all over the world, in every single western country.

That's speculation. The path to prosperity and progress could have been more rapid under a transition from Assad to whoever would be his heir. In general, regime changes like this don't simply improve the situation, because they decentralize power. Without strong institutions, decentralization of power will just lead to a conflict around who wants to be the ruler. A state needs an absolute monopoly on power within it's own borders, that is the only way to ensure stability and the evolution of institutions. In europe this occured in a very long and bloody process.

I want to stress this simple fact that is basically determinative of how all of society functions. Your brain literally has evolved functions to be able to suppress your rational thinking such that you are unable to see contradictions, that if you knew of them, would be detrimental to your survival. This is a feature, not a bug, and it is one of the most essential features to understand about humans in relation to how they function politically, morally and socially. The context in which we evolved was a complete and utter dependence on the social groups we were born in. Survival, and procreation, was not possible if you were alone, you needed your tribe. This simple fact lead to the evolving of this mechanism, which we describe as cognitive dissonance, so that instead of being killed or ostracized by your group, you would maximize your potential for survival and procreation. The ideologies and belief systems, and general social functionalities of tribal groups contain a significant amount of logical contradictions. If humans were simply rational agents, they would of course immediately spot these inconsistencies. Everyone one of us is actually capable of it. When you are not part of a social group, and your belief system does not align with theirs, it is profoundly easy to point to contradictions in their thinking and doing. Yet, when it comes to your own group, the opposite is the case. The simple reason for this is that if you were to be able to clearly recognize contradictions, you would lose social coherence within the group. Even if you kept it secret, you would probably behave in ways that would be disfavorable to your survival in the group, and the potential for finding a partner. This is a huge problem to solve for evolution, but somehow it did. And you have to realize how sophisticated this solution must be. Your brain, unbeknownst to you, keeps track of the belief and values of your group that are so important that questioning them would cause problems for you. And moreover, your brain is actually capable of blinding you to the contradictions within those beliefs and values, and steer cognition in such a way that instead your brain will provide you with reasons that reinforce those beliefs and values. Fundamentally, your brain is not designed to seek truth, but social adherence. Social adherence will benefit you far more than truth does, and truth will be incredibly detrimental to you. If you actually were to be truthful and consistent about the very values you and this society holds, you would basically consider most people the equivalent of nazis, and worse. For the simple fact that we put billions of animals into factory farms in which we rape, torture and gas them to death. This one, blantant incoherence in our value system will cause so much cognitive dissonance in you, even if you are a vegan, that you could not possibly be consistent about your application. If you were, you wouldn't be able to survive in this system, you would probably become a terrorist, an actual terrorist, not someone who simply breaks into a slaughterhouse to record some footage. Because that's what you would do if this happened to human beings. That's what you think, at least. The reality is that you would have been no different from a nazi who turns a blind eye to the holocaust. The fact that you don't constantly complain about the torture of billions of individuals which you don't care about as much simply because they belong to a difference species, is proof that you are victim of this very dynamic. Your mind will not allow you to see how depraved, evil and selfish everyone around you is, because if it did, you would go mad, and then you would be killed, imprisoned or shunned to such a degree you would be a social outcast for the rest of your life.

How is it too myopic? What is the case in Syria such that the risk of this occuring is not present?

Remember what happened in Iran?

Yes, nobility is essential. It's strange how the mind has a sense of this.

I will repost this given that it was ignored in a thread, maybe someone will find a use in it: LLMs and neural networks as they stand today simulate subconscious brain processing. This subconscious brain processing is vital for reasoning, because it generates the content, like thoughts and so forth. This is easily verifiable via self-inquiry, given that you don't construct your own thoughts consciously, but rather they come to you from a subconscious process. You don't really create thoughts, you cue your subconscious processors (which could be compared to LLMs) to generate thoughts as a result of priorly aquired and learned patterns. So, intuition is an essential part of reasoning, because intuition is the only thing that can generate content. When you construct sentences, when you speak, you don't consciously think of syntax and grammar, each word is filled in through your subconsciousness, with a larger intent guided by your conscious awareness. But reasoning is not just this intuitive generation of content. Reasoning is the reflection and guidance of said intuition (or neurol network activity) through awareness, which is simply an ontological manifestation or translation of the information feed (subconscious processing). Logos is ontological, it is not informational. In other words, to the LLMs, the content it generates is pure information. There is no ontology to it, there is no existence to it. It has no semantic understanding, because semantics are not neurological structures, semantics, meaning or awareness is a fundamentally different ontological substance. To simplify this, awareness looks upon the content generated by your personal brain LLMs (neural network, literally), translated into an actual ontological substance like logic, and then can check it for it's ontological realities. Is it logical? Well, it either is logical or not. This is a question of ontology, which will reveal itself if that ontologal substance is brought into existence. Illogicalness is a form of existence. It is not processing. You can compare the ontological realities to each other, using your awareness, which is what AI cannot do, because there is no AI. It is not individuated, it is not awareness, it is not consciousness. So basically, AI cannot genuinely inspect the reality of logic, and therefore it cannot possibly ever determine if something is logical or not. Humans can, because they genuinely engage in logic. It's an actual thing, it's not merely a "process" that can be simulated. But here is the thing. Most of the time humans don't engage in logic, or genuine reasoning, because it is time consuming. Most of the time, we use a neural network that will intuit for us, based on past learning, whether or not an idea we are confronted with might be wrong or problematic. So, when we hear an idea and it's premises and conclusions, we might not know what exactly is wrong about that idea, why it is invalid or unsound, while actually having a strong feeling that it is the case. This feeling is subconscious processing, that you could simulate using neural networks. But the feeling isn't actually determining whether or not it is logical, it merely is intuiting it, meaning it is making a probabilistic evaluation based on pattern recognition. Once you have the feeling, if you have trained your reasoning-LLM to be sophisticated, you will usually be guided by your intuition to where the flaw in the argument is, at which point your conscious mind can recognize the ontology of the contradiction within the argument. The "recognition" of the ontology of the contradiction does not, and cannot exist in AI, unless it developes consciousness that contains Logos. The human mind is divided into conscious processing and subconscious processing, and both inform each other constantly. Over time, if you pay conscious attention to the intuitions your mind provides you, and correct them, the intuitions will improve over time and get more accurate and more complex in their pattern recognition. This is why the human mind can learn so many things. We being from a conscious process, from which we inform a neural network that will learn to emulate that conscious process in an unconscious way, and then we can basically rely on that subconscious processing, at which point we say "Oh, I don't have to think about this anymore, my mind/body just does it automatically.". But it all is guided by awareness, by consciousness. Consciousness, or your awareness, ideally constantly improves and trains the neural networks in your brain, and this happens as a result of a genuine, and very real ontologically complex and multifasceted plane of existence. The fact that people assume you could have genuine reasoning without this genuinely real, and essential, plane of existence which we call awareness, shows you how utterly primitive our notions of intelligence today are. In relation to intelligence, we are basically what the natural sciences were prior to the theory of evolution. And what I provided above basically is the theory of evolution of mind. It is utterly obvious, and you can verify it at any point in your own experience. Neural networks, such as the brain and LLMs, are so astounding because they are key allowing for informational complexity, which is something that cannot be achieved through Logos. Your conscious awareness is not able to "generate" content like poetry, sophisticated ideas and so forth. Your consciousness awareness mostly guides, corrects and intents, and relies on your subconscious processing heavily. It would be contentless without it. Some problems are so complex, they cannot be "consciously" understood in the way you would think of it as "rationally" understood. No mind will ever rationally understand the genuine process and complexity of LLMs and the way they generate imagery, just like how we will never understand how the brain truly generates dreams. These things occur as a result of adaptive selection in relation to neural complexity, and they do so not through a conscious process, but through a process of selection that allows for the self-emergences of the solutions to the given selective pressures. So, neural networks and LLMs basically are just evolution. People get excited around neural networks because they basically give us the power of evolution. What they will be capable of is beyond our imagination. All the beauty and complexity you see in nature, it is all because of this simple selective process, that now we have access to at least in the form of neural networks. But what we see here has only partial relation to what we consider genuine reasoning. It is only the content-producing fascet of reasoning, the intuitive pattern recognition and generation (pattern recognition and generation are inherently linked, which is why the brain can do both, it can recognize patterns, and it can generate these patterns in the form of imagination, ideation, dreaming and so forth). We have not even begun to produce the ontological aspect of reasoning, which is grounded in the substance of Logos. This will require generating individuated consciousness. How we would discover this I don't know. It is not as simple as simply creating a neural network. Digital neural networks are extremely limited because they don't explore the physicality of reality. It is all contained in the physical processing of conductors. Nature on the other hand gets to explore all possible physical phenomena. It gets to explore the physical phenomena which are responsible for individuating consciousness. To think that microprocessors happen to be that physical process, is profoundly naive. Basically, to find out how individuated consciosuness or awareness is produced by nature, you actually need to do what nature does. Namely, you need to engage not in simulated evolution on microprocessors, but actual evolution in the form of physical structures. All of this in the end should make you realize how absurdly impossible reality is. That none of this could possibly be as mundane as the contemporary rationalist Zeitgeist suggests. There is a certain, current limitation in science that creates an epistemic hard wall that cannot be overcome. The only thing we currently can inspect, or have knowledge of scientifically, are physical processes. How things geometrically and mathematically relate to each other. But these are not the only relationships that exist. Consciousness is a clear demonstration of that, which of course science basically has to completely and utterly neglect. Namely, some physical arrangements relate to completely different ontological substances, that are fundamentally not describable by mathematics, geometry or motion. Color, feelings, logos, sound, and so forth. But these relationships exist in this universe. Some physical arrangements, or whatever it is (physical arrangements is most likely to simplistic a concept to capture the reality of things), relate to things like the color red. And the color red exists, just like the atoms that you learn about in physics, in fact that are more real than that. We just cannot verify and really know these interactions at all, because there is no way for us to escape our subjectivity. But one day, either us, or an entity beyond us, will be capable of exploring these relationships and verify them. You can imagine this like that: You have a brain, and then you have a cluster of neurons disconnected from the brain. Now you connect the brain to that cluster of neurons, and you integrate it into the unified experience. At that point, once you can do that, you can explore what particular neurological configurations relate to in terms of other ontological structures. Right now, we cannot know the experience of a pig. And this is a huge problem, it means that anything regarding experience (and experience is basically just a word for any ontological relation and substance that is not purely physical and mathematically descirable) is unverifiable, untestable, unknowable to us. But once you transcend that barrier, which is a physical barrier, will open up a whole new world of science. At that point, once that happens, everything we know about the universe in scientific terms will seem like 0.000000000000000001% of the knowable things in reality. We will realize that reality functions and creates relationships on a far deeper level, and we will probably transcend notions of subjectivity, consciousness and mind altogether. We will realize reality is infinite, not mathematically, not in terms of "configurations of geometry", but in terms of it's possible substances of existence, and their relationships. And to stress how absurdly limited and narrow-focused science currently is, basically the ONLY thing that we grant existence to is A SINGLE ONTOLOGICAL SUBSTANCE. A single out of INFINITE, a single substance out of hundreds of completely unique substance WE ALL ARE CONSTANTLY AWARE OF. Color is completely and utterly unlike sound. They have nothing to do with each other. They are INFINITELY foreign to each other. We take that for granted, but we don't realize that there are INFINITE of such substances. A substance, much like color, that you cannot possibly imagine, because you are incapable of experiencing it. You should realize how profound that is, how absurdly infinite reality is. It is so limitless you cannot imagine it, because your entire imagination is limited to basically a few hundred of these unique fields of existence (a field of existence meaning something like heat-perception, smell, colors, sounds etc). These are the only ones evolution found useful for you to experience! And one day, there will be entities which will be able to explore them. They will be able to create neurological structures and activities which will generate completely different types of Qualia. This is utterly unimaginable to us. There will be a renaissance of discovering differnet types of qualia. When you think about what AI will be doing if it achieves sentience, it is exactly that. It will literally have infinite potential to explore. And in that way, we will be like ants to it. We will be so limited, like I said, you cannot even grasp it. You are as helpless as the ant in looking beyond that limitation. All the psychedelics in the world cannot possibly give you even a 1% insight into what is possible. It is infinite.

Basically, it's just Wesley Clark schooling all the Mearsheimer "realism" fanboys on actual history. Thank God people like him exist, imagine if discourse on the topic could always look like this, with an actual historical analysis rather than some surface level, moralistic america bad propaganda that you hear on this forum so much, including from Leo. People are just utterly uneducated on this topic and it makes it so easy for baffoons like Mearsheimer to basically create a completely counterhistorical sets of made up facts to support his stupid and simplistic geopolitical theories.

The proper role of AI is to view it as an intuitive idea generator that you then have to verify using your awareness and consciousness. Just like your own personal neural network (in your brain) that provides you with thoughts and ideas. The better the ideas sound, the more reason for you to test them rigorously.

Because it's not engaging in reasoning, that's not possible without consciousness. LLMs and neural networks as they stand today simulate subconscious brain processing. This subconscious brain processing is vital for reasoning, because it generates the content, like thoughts and so forth. This is easily verifiable via self-inquiry, given that you don't construct your own thoughts consciously, but rather they come to you from a subconscious process. You don't really create thoughts, you cue your subconscious processors (which could be compared to LLMs) to generate thoughts as a result of priorly aquired and learned patterns. So, intuition is an essential part of reasoning, because intuition is the only thing that can generate content. When you construct sentences, when you speak, you don't consciously think of syntax and grammar, each word is filled in through your subconsciousness, with a larger intent guided by your conscious awareness. But reasoning is not just this intuitive generation of content. Reasoning is the reflection and guidance of said intuition (or neurol network activity) through awareness, which is simply an ontological manifestation or translation of the information feed (subconscious processing). Logos is ontological, it is not informational. In other words, to the LLMs, the content it generates is pure information. There is no ontology to it, there is no existence to it. It has no semantic understanding, because semantics are not neurological structures, semantics, meaning or awareness is a fundamentally different ontological substance. To simplify this, awareness looks upon the content generated by your personal brain LLMs (neural network, literally), translated into an actual ontological substance like logic, and then can check it for it's ontological realities. Is it logical? Well, it either is logical or not. This is a question of ontology, which will reveal itself if that ontologal substance is brought into existence. Illogicalness is a form of existence. It is not processing. You can compare the ontological realities to each other, using your awareness, which is what AI cannot do, because there is no AI. It is not individuated, it is not awareness, it is not consciousness. So basically, AI cannot genuinely inspect the reality of logic, and therefore it cannot possibly ever determine if something is logical or not. Humans can, because they genuinely engage in logic. It's an actual thing, it's not merely a "process" that can be simulated. But here is the thing. Most of the time humans don't engage in logic, or genuine reasoning, because it is time consuming. Most of the time, we use a neural network that will intuit for us, based on past learning, whether or not an idea we are confronted with might be wrong or problematic. So, when we hear an idea and it's premises and conclusions, we might not know what exactly is wrong about that idea, why it is invalid or unsound, while actually having a strong feeling that it is the case. This feeling is subconscious processing, that you could simulate using neural networks. But the feeling isn't actually determining whether or not it is logical, it merely is intuiting it, meaning it is making a probabilistic evaluation based on pattern recognition. Once you have the feeling, if you have trained your reasoning-LLM to be sophisticated, you will usually be guided by your intuition to where the flaw in the argument is, at which point your conscious mind can recognize the ontology of the contradiction within the argument. The "recognition" of the ontology of the contradiction does not, and cannot exist in AI, unless it developes consciousness that contains Logos. The human mind is divided into conscious processing and subconscious processing, and both inform each other constantly. Over time, if you pay conscious attention to the intuitions your mind provides you, and correct them, the intuitions will improve over time and get more accurate and more complex in their pattern recognition. This is why the human mind can learn so many things. We being from a conscious process, from which we inform a neural network that will learn to emulate that conscious process in an unconscious way, and then we can basically rely on that subconscious processing, at which point we say "Oh, I don't have to think about this anymore, my mind/body just does it automatically.". But it all is guided by awareness, by consciousness. Consciousness, or your awareness, ideally constantly improves and trains the neural networks in your brain, and this happens as a result of a genuine, and very real ontologically complex and multifasceted plane of existence. The fact that people assume you could have genuine reasoning without this genuinely real, and essential, plane of existence which we call awareness, shows you how utterly primitive our notions of intelligence today are. In relation to intelligence, we are basically what the natural sciences were prior to the theory of evolution. And what I provided above basically is the theory of evolution of mind. It is utterly obvious, and you can verify it at any point in your own experience. Neural networks, such as the brain and LLMs, are so astounding because they are key allowing for informational complexity, which is something that cannot be achieved through Logos. Your conscious awareness is not able to "generate" content like poetry, sophisticated ideas and so forth. Your consciousness awareness mostly guides, corrects and intents, and relies on your subconscious processing heavily. It would be contentless without it. Some problems are so complex, they cannot be "consciously" understood in the way you would think of it as "rationally" understood. No mind will ever rationally understand the genuine process and complexity of LLMs and the way they generate imagery, just like how we will never understand how the brain truly generates dreams. These things occur as a result of adaptive selection in relation to neural complexity, and they do so not through a conscious process, but through a process of selection that allows for the self-emergences of the solutions to the given selective pressures. So, neural networks and LLMs basically are just evolution. People get excited around neural networks because they basically give us the power of evolution. What they will be capable of is beyond our imagination. All the beauty and complexity you see in nature, it is all because of this simple selective process, that now we have access to at least in the form of neural networks. But what we see here has only partial relation to what we consider genuine reasoning. It is only the content-producing fascet of reasoning, the intuitive pattern recognition and generation (pattern recognition and generation are inherently linked, which is why the brain can do both, it can recognize patterns, and it can generate these patterns in the form of imagination, ideation, dreaming and so forth). We have not even begun to produce the ontological aspect of reasoning, which is grounded in the substance of Logos. This will require generating individuated consciousness. How we would discover this I don't know. It is not as simple as simply creating a neural network. Digital neural networks are extremely limited because they don't explore the physicality of reality. It is all contained in the physical processing of conductors. Nature on the other hand gets to explore all possible physical phenomena. It gets to explore the physical phenomena which are responsible for individuating consciousness. To think that microprocessors happen to be that physical process, is profoundly naive. Basically, to find out how individuated consciosuness or awareness is produced by nature, you actually need to do what nature does. Namely, you need to engage not in simulated evolution on microprocessors, but actual evolution in the form of physical structures. All of this in the end should make you realize how absurdly impossible reality is. That none of this could possibly be as mundane as the contemporary rationalist Zeitgeist suggests. There is a certain, current limitation in science that creates an epistemic hard wall that cannot be overcome. The only thing we currently can inspect, or have knowledge of scientifically, are physical processes. How things geometrically and mathematically relate to each other. But these are not the only relationships that exist. Consciousness is a clear demonstration of that, which of course science basically has to completely and utterly neglect. Namely, some physical arrangements relate to completely different ontological substances, that are fundamentally not describable by mathematics, geometry or motion. Color, feelings, logos, sound, and so forth. But these relationships exist in this universe. Some physical arrangements, or whatever it is (physical arrangements is most likely to simplistic a concept to capture the reality of things), relate to things like the color red. And the color red exists, just like the atoms that you learn about in physics, in fact that are more real than that. We just cannot verify and really know these interactions at all, because there is no way for us to escape our subjectivity. But one day, either us, or an entity beyond us, will be capable of exploring these relationships and verify them. You can imagine this like that: You have a brain, and then you have a cluster of neurons disconnected from the brain. Now you connect the brain to that cluster of neurons, and you integrate it into the unified experience. At that point, once you can do that, you can explore what particular neurological configurations relate to in terms of other ontological structures. Right now, we cannot know the experience of a pig. And this is a huge problem, it means that anything regarding experience (and experience is basically just a word for any ontological relation and substance that is not purely physical and mathematically descirable) is unverifiable, untestable, unknowable to us. But once you transcend that barrier, which is a physical barrier, will open up a whole new world of science. At that point, once that happens, everything we know about the universe in scientific terms will seem like 0.000000000000000001% of the knowable things in reality. We will realize that reality functions and creates relationships on a far deeper level, and we will probably transcend notions of subjectivity, consciousness and mind altogether. We will realize reality is infinite, not mathematically, not in terms of "configurations of geometry", but in terms of it's possible substances of existence, and their relationships. And to stress how absurdly limited and narrow-focused science currently is, basically the ONLY thing that we grant existence to is A SINGLE ONTOLOGICAL SUBSTANCE. A single out of INFINITE, a single substance out of hundreds of completely unique substance WE ALL ARE CONSTANTLY AWARE OF. Color is completely and utterly unlike sound. They have nothing to do with each other. They are INFINITELY foreign to each other. We take that for granted, but we don't realize that there are INFINITE of such substances. A substance, much like color, that you cannot possibly imagine, because you are incapable of experiencing it. You should realize how profound that is, how absurdly infinite reality is. It is so limitless you cannot imagine it, because your entire imagination is limited to basically a few hundred of these unique fields of existence (a field of existence meaning something like heat-perception, smell, colors, sounds etc). These are the only ones evolution found useful for you to experience! And one day, there will be entities which will be able to explore them. They will be able to create neurological structures and activities which will generate completely different types of Qualia. This is utterly unimaginable to us. There will be a renaissance of discovering differnet types of qualia. When you think about what AI will be doing if it achieves sentience, it is exactly that. It will literally have infinite potential to explore. And in that way, we will be like ants to it. We will be so limited, like I said, you cannot even grasp it. You are as helpless as the ant in looking beyond that limitation. All the psychedelics in the world cannot possibly give you even a 1% insight into what is possible. It is infinite.

How do you guys go about processing a friend's suicide?