Trillenial @Trillenial@qoto.org

As much as I try to appreciate art and have made it to some world class museums.

At the end of the day even a simple piece of elegant code like this. Is far more beautiful to me than even the highest regarded artwork.

I must accept my fate as a robot

I'm personally looking to being called an "AI Bro" in 2024, after people still don't really understand why it's useful but hear people talk about it all the time.

Damn he kinda nice with it

I don't mean to brag guys but I kinda have a date tonight 😎

I must give you a piece of intelligence that you perhaps already know — namely, that the ungodly arch-villain Voltaire has died miserably like a dog — just like a brute. That is his reward! - Mozart on Voltaire's death, hilarious

Found my very first compiler bug whilst coding, big milestone

I'm rethinking this, I can now think of so many ways in which "God" (not a religious God, the idea of God).

But I still think this has power as an idea of God, I guess it's comparable to the illustrious "Theory of everything" so desperately (& nobly) sought by so many physicists

Man, we really fucked up letting epistemic anti-realism slip onto social media.

You awake in the morning to 48 voice messages from Bach talking about how sick counterpoint is ad nauseam

Unless there is infinite regress in abstraction of course

I think "God" as a concept is the ultimate abstraction

If you keep understanding reality at more and more abstract levels, you run into a problem.

There is neither no ultimate abstract - phenomena is distinct governed by discrete abstractions. Or you abstract indefinitely and the final abstraction is what can be called God.

If you start your article with "the first time I..." I will immediately close it

Pinocchio acts as if he were cursed but he possesses ultimate self-knowledge & self-honesty. Sounds like a pretty good deal to me.

Every philosopher who mentions Kant is like,

"Kant is one of the great geniuses of all human history, but he got these things wrong, unlike ME who got them right.

Maybe then... you could say, I'm in fact, the bigger genius? no no no of course not, how ridiculous. but maybe though? please?"

I have long believed that objectively experiencing an object is impossible and sided generally with Kant's opinion that any object can only be experienced as a phenomenon, an experiential representation.

To make my next point, I need some Sets.

Set A) An individual human's experience of a chair in a specific room
Set B) Every living human experience of a chair in the same specific room
Set C) Every possible human experience of a chair in the same specific room
Set D) Every possible known animal experience of a chair in the same specific room

These sets are coming out of a greater subset of every possible experience (Set E). Sets A-D presumably make up an infinitesimally small subset of all possible experience, but this tautologically must exist, as the qualifier possible is used.

Let's say a hypothetical being were to experience everything in Set E simultaneously (not overlapping experiences but separately). I claim its holistic experience of the chair would be objective, as the being experiences the chair expression in every perceivable form.

That is not to say the experience objective is the illusive "thing-in-itself" but rather an objective experience. This is, of course, only in terms of matter, but if you were to extrapolate this example to time, adding every possible experience in every possible moment, this should work fine too.

How naive I was

I'm in love with a man and his name is Jenkins

Anytime I read "fourthly" in philosophy I know I'm gonna be bored out of my fuckin mind for the rest of the book

If you think that one side of the political/religious/scientific spectrum beliefs is completely unfounded and delusional. Perhaps you are the one that is deluded.

I find almost every idea that humans deeply believe has some level of wisdom to it, even if there are many fundamental misunderstandings.

Even many "absurd" ancient beliefs like animism and totemism have a lot of intuitive wisdom that modern society could learn a lot from.

I think Twitter is having a hugely negative effect on discussion. Obviously, there are more typical reasons such as algorithms incentivising more extreme positions. But there's another fact I really hate.

One of the core philosophies of Twitter's design is posting arbitrarily short statements. You can create a thread but they are far less appealing to the average Twitter user. This arbitrarily small-sized message normalises the age-old problem of politicians having to make their ideas short and snappy.

In every field I'm slightly knowledgable about no subject of debate is ever that simple, there usually several layers of nuance. Because I believe reality is nuanced.

Twitter is literally incapable of this nuance and so in my opinion I believe twitter posts are (for the most part) fundamentally incapable of expressing ideas that reflect reality to a sufficient degree.