It is not correct to say that a sound is ‘neither yellow nor not-yellow’. This would imply that the visual category ‘colour’ applies to sounds, and there is a term in that category that is not-yellow and not-not-yellow, therefore not-yellow and yellow, therefore contradiction. It is correct to say that the category ‘colour’ does not apply to sounds, therefore the terms ‘yellow’ and/or ‘not-yellow’ cannot be used to characterise sounds (if meant in the usual, literal sense).

Born this way… https://substack.com/@michaelkowalik/note/c-90904407

The laws of sense are not a mysterious property. They are always, everywhere and in everything, they are the light of the world, and yet hardly anyone is aware of their immutable presence, and so people dwell in the shadow of being, blind, scattered in fragments. Once the omnipresence of the laws is realised, there is clarity, but also the trauma of being alone among the living shadows and fragments of consciousness, broken pieces of a mirror in which to recognise my-Self.

There is no such thing as “reasoning at superhuman level”; consistent reasoning is the human level. AI either complies with the laws of sense or it doesn’t, and when it doesn’t there is contradiction. There is no “superhuman level” of understanding of the law of non-contradiction: not(x and not-x). Musk’s assertion only shows that he cannot reason at the human level, and does not even understand what consistent reasoning means. https://news.1rj.ru/str/rtnews/116996

I am tired of people speaking to me out of habit, demanding attention, disrupting my thoughts, but giving me nothing meaningful in return.

I wish it were possible to ask anyone who says ‘Good Day’ or ‘How are you’ what they mean by ‘Good’ without them turning all weird or indignant. Don’t say ‘Good Day’ to me if you do not mean anything by it. I am not even sure whether there is such a thing as ‘Good Morning’. Why don’t we start greeting each other with more seriousness, like: “Hey you, what’s your argument?”, or “what does it mean to be?” :)

Money (a token that can be exchanged for goods and services) is a representation of real value. It functions as a mirror-image of all real value in existence. It is this property of money that allows the rich to do nothing and just absorb wealth created by others. For example, if you build a house, all by yourself, where materials cost you 200k but the final product is worth 600k, and you exchange it for $600k (of money), you have instantly enriched the biggest money holders by $400k (the banks and their real owners: bond holders), because all money in circulation just increased its purchasing power (the real value is ‘represents’) by just that number of tokens, as a percentage of the total amount of which commercial banks own 97% of as someone else’s debt. I explained this mechanism here: https://philpapers.org/rec/KOWAMC-2

God created Man to be in good company, but it is still a work in progress. There’s a point in the act of creation where Man has to create himself, by his own choices. Only then there is company.

What do you do when talking to people is more alienating than not talking to people?

A typical adult reasons at the level of a 5 year old child (including most scientists and philosophers). They have not improved their capacity for discerning sense from nonsense since they figured out how to construct complete sentences and kick ball. They function only because of social programming, which extends to academic indoctrination and literature, not because of consistent reasoning. Nobody taught them the foundations of logic because their teachers didn’t know either, and the students lacked the curiosity or courage or care to explore beyond the unconscious utility of social programming.

https://michaelkowalik.substack.com/p/what-is-sense

Religious noscriptures present the reader with contradictions, with moral conflict, and therefore with the necessity of moral choice. For example, 'kill the Amalek' or 'kill your firstborn' must be juxtaposed with the commandment 'thou shalt not kill’. If God had ostensibly commanded us to violate the moral law, demanding blind obedience, we would be compelled by our moral essence to defy the immoral command. Only a test of independent moral discernment can prove that we have internalised the essence of morality and are therefore true to the image in which we were made.

Or, one may reject religion because of the noscriptural contradictions and just do what is objectively right, but this requires the knowledge of what is objectively right, which implies being able to prove that it is objectively right, or else still contradiction, and one must still choose.

The category good/evil does not apply to symbolic systems; they can be interpreted in opposite ways, precisely because of their nominal contradictions. As a ‘system’ all religions/traditions/cultures/ideologies are inconsistent, capable of constructive/reflexive behaviour or the most grotesque abuses, but this part is always subject to individual moral choice that transcends the terms of the system. Our moral choice does not follow from ‘adherence’ to any nominal system, and these should not be equivocated. When one rejects a system as evil because of a contingent interpretation being taken as definitive or logically necessary, one is already captured by another symbolic system, equally irrational, and no progress is made.

The reflexive attitude that supports consciousness demands a constructive approach, a continuous transformation of symbolic systems towards greater consistency. Moreover, constructive interpretations are retroactive on language and history, but this is another analytical rabbit hole: https://philpapers.org/rec/KOWTT

At the fundamental level of being, there is only sense vs non-sense. Our conception of Self is riddled with non-sense, which is to say, lacks synthetic unity but arises in fragments that cannot be integrated as one, and this manifests as ‘evil’ and suffering. The symbolic systems people conceive of are a consequence of human dis-integrity, not its cause.

Remember, if the NEWS makes you upset, then you are probably being intentionally provoked, expected to react.

On the planet of the apes, the apes do not know they are apes. They think they are human; the peak of moral evolution.

Antivaxx group-think is not morally superior to pro-vaccination group-think

Bad reasoning is an incommensurably greater threat to humanity than vaccines. Those who oppose vaccines at the expense of good reasoning are therefore causing more harm than good. They are a liability no lesser than those who fanatically defend vaccines: they come from the same corrupt mindset, they are cut from the same cloth. Vaccines are just one way of doing harm, which can be avoided if harm is suspected, but bad reasoning that underpins dogmatism, gullibility and group-think is the most enduring, entrenched evil in this world. Those who form convictions without sound reasoning can be persuaded to commit any moral wrong.

This is a wake up call to home buyers in Australia. You are being systematically fleeced and sooner or later someone will end up holding the bag. This is inevitably coming to Aus, only a matter of time. https://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/travel-stories/man-gives-up-on-homeownership-in-australia-buys-5000-house-in-japan/news-story/d96659dd14a7b1f52715139c2815c109

An average person who lived during the Stone Age would nowadays be diagnosed as a schizophrenic. Similarly, what nowadays is considered an average level of irrationality will in the future be considered a mental illness (assuming that humanity will keep evolving in rational capacities). https://news.1rj.ru/str/NormalParty/3930

When our primordial ancestors thought “I am” for the very first time, this original flash of reflexive consciousness must have felt otherworldly, like the voice of God.

When the slave-owners of the ancient world built roads and sea ports and markets and armaments, they did not do so for the benefit of the slaves but to maximise their own profit, to extract more value from the slaves. Similarly, the rulers of today “tax” you for the sake of roads and sea ports and markets and armaments for their own profit. The roads are not ‘for you’, they are not ‘yours’; you are just required to use them in the service of your master, according to the rules laid down by your master. If you stray off the road, disrupt the smooth functioning of their business, you get punished. Tax is an ownership claim over you.

Hypothesis. God never created the heaven and the earth, not the animals, not Man. All of these are just thoughts in the mind of God, and nothing apart from God exists. God is then necessarily not an individual mind but a multiplicity of minds, each mind sustained by the same thought being reflected by other minds and reflected for other minds: the thought of being Man that thinks the multiplicity of minds.