Thoughts and insights

[Jannes]

Human species caricature

Aliens look at humans in a large zoo with many life forms. One alien says to the other: "Lets look at something more interesting."

Edited November 24, 2024 by Jannes

[Jannes]

Lasertek-Park

I sometimes think about starting a lasertek park. It would have all kinds of stuff. It would be soft park parkour oriented and so would allow for many creative maneuvers. I would integrate hiding options and as many diverse weapons as you can possibly get with lasertek. Maybe robots as well. Different game modes from king of the hill, to team fights to zombie fights. A place where you can experience your whole being alive and go all crazy without much risk of getting injured. It would be very inclusive also. For example for elderly people there would be a big sign: "Respect the elderly. Elderly get bigger guns." and they would get bigger guns. 

[Jannes]

I am in love with bullshit.

[Jannes]

On 28.4.2023 at 10:11 PM, Jannes said:

Predictability

Animals are very predictable in their behavior which means they are pretty consistent.

Humans on the other hand are a lot harder to predict.

Jean-Paul Sartre goes so far in comparing animal and human that he says the following.

for humans: existence precedes essence 
for animals: essence precedes existence

Meaning that it's clear what an animal will do if it is put into the world. If you put a lion into the savanna there is just one thing which it could decide to do which is doing lion stuff. 
A human on the other hand can't be predicted like that. A human could invent shit, commit suicide, play the guitar, ..

I don't think that's an absolute statement though. Even animal behavior is very complicated and most of the time not fully understood and at the same time you can predict the behavior of many humans pretty well. So hypothetical from an all intelligent entity there might not be a big difference between animal and human, there might just be more details to consider when predicting human behavior.

The interesting question is what does it mean that certain behavior is more predictable than others? Is little predictability a sign of intelligence, wisdom, consciousness, .. ? We speak very badly of people who are easily to predict. Bots is a funny new swear word and it describes exactly a person who is very predictable so we intuit that it's a "bad" thing.

So let's dive deep into what makes for predictability.
If an object is very simple it's easily predictable.
A rock is as predictable as it gets.
A flower is more astronomically more complicated than a rock but still easily to predict.
A bear is astronomically more complicated than a flower but still relatively predictable if you dive deep into studying a bear.
A human is astronomically more complicated than a bear and pretty hard to predict, definitely not with certainty.

So it seems with primitivity and simpleness comes predictability.

A human is much easier to predict when strong emotions are at play. (Rationality is informed by emotions).

What seems very hard to predict is when humans/ other evolved sentient beings act out of intuition.
What is also pretty unpredictable is when humans act out of selfness motives.

Selfishness makes predictability. And selfishness also seems to be rather primitive.
Intuition is a complicated one. Its a form of intelligence but does it have different traits then reason for example?

Is intuition a trait of of high intelligence?
Does high intelligence has to be selfless?
 

Building on top of my old thoughts on Predictabiliy:

A person with attachments in this world is predictable. A person who trades attachments for virtue, for example truth is not predictable because you cant have truth. You can try to come closer and closer to truth but you will never get there. Meaning a person who is committed to truth will never reach an end its an infinite process that person is committed to. That person won't settle for a "truth" that is comfortable. So all attempts to capture the truth seeker won't work. It will backfire. 
Which is why people who seek truth seem scary. Society rather wants to have people who are at least a little corrupt because they are predictable and can therefore be used for ones own need.

 

I asked chatgpt for a better articulation of my thoughts. This is so well articulated, I dont even feel like I contributed a whole lot to this.  

Your perspective here is profound and touches on the tension between society’s desire for control and the unpredictability of genuine seekers of truth. Here’s an enhanced articulation of your thoughts:

A person tethered to worldly attachments is inherently predictable. These attachments—whether to wealth, status, relationships, or ideologies—serve as anchors, defining and constraining their actions. They create vulnerabilities, levers through which society or individuals can exert influence.

In contrast, a person who forsakes attachments in pursuit of virtue—such as the unending quest for truth—transcends predictability. Truth is not a destination but an infinite process, an ever-receding horizon. To seek truth is to embrace uncertainty and reject comfort, to dismantle illusions, even when they provide solace or societal approval.

Such a person refuses to settle for convenient or palatable truths, rendering them impervious to manipulation. Attempts to control them fail because their commitment to truth supersedes any external influence or internal bias. This defiance of categorization or coercion is unsettling, even frightening, to those entrenched in the predictable systems of attachment and control.

Society, by its nature, prefers individuals who are at least partially corrupt—those with attachments that can be exploited. A person free from these entanglements is not just unyielding; they are also a mirror, reflecting the compromises and hypocrisies of those around them. This mirror can provoke fear and resentment, as it forces a confrontation with uncomfortable realities.

Thus, the truth seeker, by embodying a commitment to an infinite and unattainable ideal, stands outside society’s frameworks of control and predictability. Their existence challenges the very foundations upon which societal power structures are built, making them both admired and feared.

 

[Jannes]

Another Dalton like idea 8:

Pessimism saved my life! - life after death probably sucks even more!

37DDA927-D619-4D27-87F9-EC6E41E25D28.pdf

Edited January 31 by Jannes

[Jannes]

Catching the devil

You cant ultimately grasp the devil because you are it. You are the devil. And all you are doing is deviling. Trying to grasp what the devil is itself deviling. 

Like a finger that tries to point to itself. But it can only point away from itself. 

[Jannes]

On 15.4.2024 at 7:18 PM, Jannes said:

The deepest beauty in the most ugly:

The more ugly something is the less you can see relative beauty in it because relative beauty is beauty relative to other ugly things. So when you find the most ugly thing in the world and try to find beauty in it and there is nothing more ugly to compare it to you can only find metaphysical beauty in it because metaphysical beauty is above comparison. So paradoxically the the most ugly things reveal the biggest picture of beauty. I snapped an even better picture which brought me to this thought but I cant find it anymore.   

 

Looking back at it this comment it didnt make much sense. Theoretically it seemed like I might have had a point but in actuality I pretty much dont see any metaphysical beauty in this picture, I just see non metaphysical non beauty. It tells me something very important about the state of my mind though: My mind is lost in concepts. I put them over my direct experience. 

[Jannes]

I know that a good chunk of what I write in this journal is complete BS and I am fine with that even though the goal always is to be truthful.

It's about experimenting with thoughts and a journey. 

If I pressured myself to be correct all the time I wouldnt have fun doing this journal. 

[Jannes]

Sally & Harry <3

Sally loves Harry but Harry doesn't love Sally. But if Harry loved Sally, Sally wouldn't love Harry because then Harry wouldn't be Harry because what we love is connected to who we are. So Sally shouldn't want Harry to love Sally because then there wouldn't be anything Sally would love.  

[Jannes]

Reality is a constant war of states of consciousness. States of consciousness wanting to et up other states of consciousness.

[Jannes]

With every decision you take which puts you into a different survival position you can feel your bias adapting.

[Jannes]

A person who seeks truth and tries to unbullshit his mind is kind of a strange pervert to society.

He searches for deeper and deeper ways of self deception and when he finds them and airs them out he gets off from it. The deeper the self deception the stronger the kick. Like a person who gets satisfaction out of squeezing out pimples. This person searches for the ultimate pimple because he knows what a kick squeezing out the last big pimple got him. In the same same a truth seeker knows how satisfying finding a big pimple of self deception in ones mind is and that finding the ultimate self deception will lead somewhere profound.

[Jannes]

Oh wow I just remembered this part of my past self. I think over my lifetime I sometimes remembered that and then my memory closed again.

Back when I was in like third grade I had this tendency to never ever say that a thing is like this or that I always answered with at least I think or guess so. Partly because of my adhd which made it hard to know what was going on but also because I came to the realization that I never ever completely knew something for a fact, there could always be errors in perception, bad information source, etc. I had come to this realization and it had a strong emotional weight for me, it was an authentic expression of who I was when I didnt fool myself into saying I knew something when I didnt. So people said that I should be more decisive and even said that whenever I said that I made a sentence and added "at least I believe so" or something similiar they said to each other that you can take that last part of the sentence out. But for me it was natural. I thought that we could all just adapt our language in such a way that we always said I think before a sentence. I thought a lot about why I thought so differently about the world and remembered that besides my adhd I also made some actual mystiqual experiences where were just undoubtetly true / a higher form of true even though at this age I still could only remember them vaguely. So I compared that to all the other things and they didnt have that undoubtetly true quality to them so it made sense for me to look at them like guesses but for a person who didnt make that super true experieces these guesses are likely the most true thing there is for them.

[Jannes]

AI replaced many of my doctors and advisors and might replace my therapist. All fields which require lots of qualification. I thought that many jobs will be replaced, but I didnt expect that AI could even replace some social work as well, so the fields which stay open are quite few. Social societies will probably remain adamant for quite some time that humans are neccessary for some jobs, but in the long run I think most will be replaced. From what I know High level mathematics is something AI cant do well and with that maybe some other things which require advanced reasoning and also genuine ingenuity and creativity as well. But these are just a few fields. And just for getting by, securing that survival is handled, AI will cover almost everything. If societies divided wealth fairly that is.

So the question arises how can a jobless person which provides no value to the world at large be happy?

I think its important to look at categories of people in society who already dont work and live happily doing so which would include: elderly, disabled people, long term unemployed, nomads, very wealthy people.

You can of course create artificial work, many people might need that for their mental health. Which really makes me think of the little society in Jim Knopf. In one season they collect gold, in the next they hide it. So nothing is gained of course but they always have something to do. Jim says at the end of the epidose that they might be happy living that way. Maybe we need that kind of job as well where the ciycles are just much more complex so that it isnt obvious that the work doesnt reach a higher goal.

Well lets see how things will work out, I am not throwing my career away like that.
 

 

[Jannes]

Science is this.

Science makes assumption about the world and by that bends reality into the direction of untruth permenantly. Then as this field of science evolves it is in constant exchange with reality by doing empirical experiments and builts a stronger and stronger correlative connection in an attempt to solvish the untruth basis that it started with which it never fully can.
Like getting into a relationship out of the wrong reasons and desperately trying to make it work.

[Jannes]

Angels

If an angel visited you for a single day and offered you love, freely and without condition, by nightfall you would try to break his wings—just to keep the love for yourself.

[Jannes]

Very interesting insights while I was contemplating with chatgt. I asked it which personality types are most likely to follow philosophical, theological, or spiritual questions and how these personality types differ in their exploration on the subject:

 

🧠💫 Most Spiritually/Philosophically Inclined Types:

 

1. INFP – “The Inner Seeker”

Why they’re drawn: Deep need for personal meaning, moral truth, and emotional authenticity

Style: Poetic, mystical, emotionally guided

Themes: Goodness, suffering, soul, purpose

Typical path: Journaling, poetry, ethics, mysticism, personal spiritual practice

 

Wants to feel God or truth — not just define it.

 

2. INFJ – “The Visionary Mystic”

Why they’re drawn: Seeks deep symbolic understanding of the world and human nature

Style: Structured, symbolic, often influenced by psychology or archetypes

Themes: Unity, transcendence, morality, collective soul

Typical path: Jungian thought, mysticism, spiritual systems, religious studies

 

Sees God in patterns, symbols, and inner transformation.

 

3. INTP – “The Metaphysical Analyst”

Why they’re drawn: Fascinated by existence itself, truth, and logic

Style: Abstract, skeptical, curious

Themes: Ontology, consciousness, paradox, epistemology

Typical path: Reading dense philosophy, theoretical theology, questioning belief systems

 

Wants to understand God or truth — not necessarily believe in it.

 

4. INTJ – “The Rational Mystic”

Why they’re drawn: Needs a coherent worldview, order in chaos, ultimate structure

Style: Strategic, abstract, system-building

Themes: Destiny, cosmology, ethics-as-system, spirituality-as-strategy

Typical path: Structured theology, Stoicism, existentialism, sacred geometry, systems-based spirituality

[Jannes]

Political Take #1:

So in most countries wealth is distributed very unequally. In America for example, there is a big difference in income, where a Ceo can earn about x10 as much as an averge worker but a way bigger difference in wealth where the difference can easily be x1000 of the amount. These are rough estimations of course, exceptional cases like an Elon Musk are even more extreme. If everybody in america would put their whole wealth in one pot and then the wealth would be distributed equally to everybody then everybody would have about half a million dollar. That would include children, non-worker, homeless people (everybody). Would that be fair? No, but it gives an important perspective of how much wealth there is.

The magnitude of the wealth gap raises questions of equity. Even assuming some fortunes are fully earned, two structural points remain:

1) once you get rich you basically won monopoly and can just let your money work for itself, so no hard worker could ever catch up to you and 

2) the wealth of the richest people is often not reinvested in the economy but dead money invested in stocks waiting to increase by itself.

 

So policy steps are needed if people at the bottom are going to catch up. Some countries do a better job than others. Scandinavia is often held up as proof that more even distribution can still go hand-in-hand with a healthy economy. What should be noted however is that even if the economy takes a small hit from radical wealth redistribution, it would still be an incredible moral victory because the life quality of the mass increased significantly. And along with that the country becomes more stable which in a holistic view is also important for the economy because it could prevent future headaches like inner polarization, conflicts with other countries, ... which all hurt the economy as well.

What prevents a country from doing major wealth distribution (besides plain corruption) is often that the very rich might just leave the country if the taxation is too much which would hurt the country itself, leaving no money left to redistribute.

 

So that got me thinking: countries actually have a responsibility for taxing the rich (!) , because if they dont then they become low-tax havens that undermine the moral fabric and the tax bases of other nations.

So to solve this there would need to be power measure that keep countries in check. One that came to mind was that there could be economic favors for countries which do stronger wealth distribution. For example countries with strong wealth distribution could have tarrif cuts while countries with bad wealth distribution get higher tarrifs. A third neutral party would be responsible for collecting the data and making suggestions based on transparent calculations. This would make it more beneficial for countries to redistribute their wealth even if some of the richest people in their country left. The more countries which would take part of this, the stronger the effect, the stronger the rich can get taxed. If everybody would be on board the only limit would be that it still needs enough of an incentive to start a biz.

 

The problem however is that this would pose a thread to many corrupt countries where the rich and powerful are in power. So realistically this could maybe only be applied in parts of Europe and some other countries scattered around the globe which are socially progresse (stage green). So to really be effective basically the center of gravity/ the general mindset on earth would need to be progressive and egalitarian. Because most countries in the world arent, billionares still have way to many places to run. 

The seed however can already be planted and slowly be expanded when countries manage to catch up. Similar to other ideas like the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) or OECD “Pillar Two” 15 % minimum corporate tax.

 

 

 

Edited Saturday at 08:49 PM by Jannes