A Philosophical Dialogue

geza: >>>>>>Everything you’re saying makes perfect sense, and I follow your logic. However, my question is focused slightly more "ahead" of that—it essentially boils down to the qualitative transmutation of our inherited environment into something entirely new. Of course, this is merely a working theory, a hypothesis... though it increasingly feels to me as if such a transmutation is already underway. Within this framework of transmutation, "destroying nature" would be recognized as the process of transmuting a God-given landscape into one that is fundamentally man-made. This interpretation of "nature destruction" would be far more profound—and arguably more responsible—than simply shedding tears over the disappearance of species, old-growth forests, ores, or minerals.
I was recently exploring a cave system near Mount Rainier, tucked away under the shadow of the Appalachian Mountains—the temperature there stays at a constant 50-55 degrees Fahrenheit, and the corridors stretch out for about 4.4 miles. There were six or seven of us in the cave, and even our instruments immediately "sensed" our presence and the impact we were having on the cave's microclimate. During the winter, the cave serves as a habitat for bats hibernating there, so access is strictly prohibited to visitors—specifically because those bats can only survive two or three awakenings without food; any more than that, and they'd burn through the energy reserves essential for surviving the winter. It’s a perfect illustration of how sensitive nature truly is—a testament to how even the slightest shift forces an ADAPTATION. Adaptation is nature's primary mechanism, which means any change, however imperceptible to a human eye, triggers a natural response through adaptation.

What this implies is that what you refer to as "inherited nature" is actually a state achieved through constant adaptation—a state that creates the illusion for humans of a static, "natural" baseline. In reality, humanity is itself a product of nature's adaptation, meaning we are active participants in its ongoing transformation. Nature is therefore always "new," always "transmuting," and always "transmuted." It is also "man-shaped"—defined by the emergence of mankind. If humans were to disrupt the conditions necessary for our own survival, we would certainly ruin the conditions for many other species, but we wouldn't "destroy" nature itself; nature persists without us precisely because of its capacity for adaptation—a capacity humans simply couldn't match. Should our own survival conditions be compromised, we would have to engineer "natural conditions" within "unnatural" environments... but even then, all of that remains part of nature's "natural" response and man's "natural" response.

hollowpilot9 said:.... that’s 154,800,000 people killed—which is... well, enough to build a bone pile stretching from Earth to the moon and back?! I guess how much intelligence went into all that is a question left for philosophy...

Death by Government by R. J. Rummel [1994]

If the title translates correctly as "Civilians Killed by Governments in the Twentieth Century"—meaning, if it isn't just being overly literal—then there isn't much room for philosophical debate here.

See, if we're talking about victims of the state, then we're really talking about victims of the very institutions we built to ensure our laws aren't just empty words on a page—basically, they are victims of RIGHTS. And, since laws and rights are established solely to achieve justice—you know, to prevent and eliminate injustice—THEN WE HAVE TO ASK: was that actually a government representing the people? Because, honestly, if a "government" is killing its own citizens, is it even truly *their* government anymore?

hollowpilot9 said:Again, I’m just not quite sure that the enemy always presents itself solely as a physical entity...

It kind of goes back to what the ancients thought—humans settle their differences through negotiation and treaties, while animals just rely on brute force and conflict.

"Mental terrorism"—in a democratic society (meaning, a society where the tools to fight back aren't being blocked)—can't really be the root cause of hostility, unless that kind of violence is actually PROTECTED BY PUBLIC FORCE. So, the stuff that's supposed to be the core of the democratic process—you know, the struggle to stop the tyranny of interest groups from the "big" parties over the interests of the "small" voters—basically the fight against the tyranny of the majority over the minority—REMAINS A THEORETICAL SPACE where this kind of terrorism could happen. In reality, though, mental terrorism is way more widespread—but most people who are being terrorized don't even realize it! Part of them actually enjoys being a follower because it lets them feel like they can terrorize those even smaller than themselves (sort of like playing "follow the leader" but with a mean streak), so the minority ends up being the only ones who truly see the situation for what it is. But, if I have any right to judge a collective, then it's a TYRANNY THAT THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE DON'T EVEN FEEL. Because those people who are happy to just play the submissive role—they aren't really the heart of the problem. They’ll probably just change their coat when circumstances shift.

hollowpilot9 said:Processes and facts suggest otherwise. AI is already a reality, and with the advent of 3D biochips, that reality is becoming universal. Many analysts, like yourself, imagine the brain as the ultimate memory "machine" of the universe, which I think is totally off base because the biological brain operates chemically, not electronically. ...

The brain is the brain—that's the hardware—while the Mind, Reason, and Will make up the software.
Either way—I tend to view this new type of existence as a continuation of our own, maybe an evolution from the "unfinished" human to the "complete" one. I don't really see a direct causal link with the technical tools, though.

hollowpilot9 said:I don't think it's about whether we should love or hate the cyborg; rather, the cyborg is an existential prosthesis—a necessity for humans to SURVIVE in environments on Earth that are hostile to us, like on Mars, for example. The cyborg might actually arrive BEFORE HUMANS to prep the ground so we can survive there...
...

And that’s it. That's all it is. Because cyborgs, unlike living species, don't have the power to reproduce. Giving them any kind of authority over humans would just turn ourselves and our own kind into mere raw material—which would be completely nonsensical.

hollowpilot9 said:... I don't share the view that the inventor of DYNAMITE deserves respect, while the person using it is an idiot!? It's true that a person DOESN'T HAVE TO DO IT, but it's also true that THE INVENTOR OF DYNAMITE DOESN'T HAVE TO INVENT DYNAMITE. ......

On the contrary, a mental being doesn't have any drive GREATER THAN THE DRIVE TO CREATE AN INVENTION. Even if you raised someone with a Spartan upbringing to be a fanatic—neither the Mind nor the invention possess the POWER AND POSSIBILITY OF THE INDIVIDUAL. Whatever one "fails to complete," the other will finish. We simply don't have works greater than inventions!
By the way, it isn't the person using dynamite who is the idiot—it's the one who ABUSE IT.
Well, I guess you also have to count the people funding it all with taxpayer dollars—and then there are the ones handing out the medals, awards, and official praise for that kind of work... not to mention the historians who somehow manage to turn mass murderers into public role models and national heroes!

hollowpilot9 said:The thing is—and I really think this is the core of the issue—protection always seems to be playing catch-up with innovation. There’s always this gap where we're just waiting for the safeguards to catch up to what's been discovered, and sadly, people end up getting hurt during that interval. I guess you could say the responsibility lies with the inventor rather than the victim—it's just how it feels to me!

Hey—wait a second—why on earth did you leave out the perpetrator?!
An inventor—at least at the very moment of creation—is probably the loneliest person in the whole country. It’s such a solitary thing! And honestly, an invention always starts out in its most raw, unpolished state. Only after that does it actually become a "thing" to be studied, refined, or even figured out how to use in different ways. Of course, once it hits the world, you've got everyone involved—from the people who find it useful to those who might try to misuse it. Since an invention is essentially a social asset, I guess it falls on society to figure out how to prevent that kind of abuse. We basically build our entire system—our government, public institutions, and laws—for that exact reason, right? To create a framework within our relationships that helps us prevent injustice from happening in the first place.

hollowpilot9 said:I honestly think RAT is this massive existential phenomenon that’s been around since the very beginning—I mean, we're talking all the way back to the biblical era through to right now! Because of that, I tend to look at it through the lens of existential necessity. It’s almost like a fundamental rule of nature where the death of one thing essentially paves the way for the life of another—at least, that’s how it seems to work in the biology of the animal kingdom, anyway!

Actually, I’d argue the opposite—war was a phenomenon right up until we started digging into its actual causes. And honestly? Whether war remains a true mystery is something we'll only figure out once practical reality proves us wrong—like, if it turns out our collective understanding of conflict is just half-baked or totally off base—or maybe even when it shows that war actually does more good for people and society than harm. Who knows!

So, at the end of the day—if you ask me—war is just nothing more than a raw, brutal display of savagery carried out by the social elite. I guess that’s just how it stays.

hollowpilot9 said:Fair enough comment—but honestly, that whole "negation of a negation" thing? It’s been used to justify actual violence and psychological terror throughout history. I mean, if you didn't grasp it back then, you failed the test—and let's be real, nobody actually knew what it meant then, or even now. Not even Hegel himself could probably give a straight answer on what a "negation of a negation" truly is! It’s just one of those instances where incredibly "smart" people end up peddling absolute nonsense, I guess.

So, here we go again—now the inventor is the one to blame?!
Everything went sideways because even the top brass in the regime didn't actually get it. Take that inner circle that used to hang out at those fancy political seminars in places like DC or Boston—you know the type. I guess they don't really grasp basic concepts like negation, let alone causality! So, if you try to explain that causal link using different terms—like, say, the negation of a negation—to them, it probably looks absolutely terrifying. It reminds me of that old gag in a classic American sitcom where the police are rushing around looking for an illiterate person, only to end up arresting a schoolteacher instead!
On the flip side—there’s still that fundamental need for a method. Whether it's something based on Hegel, some sort of updated version, or just a completely different third option entirely—it doesn't really matter! I guess whenever we can actually spot those little tricks and mental illusions—you know, those moments where consciousness trips itself up—that's exactly where a method becomes necessary. It's about taking those patterns and bringing them under some kind of principle or organized system. Whether we personally like it or not, or whether we even recognize it when it's happening—the method is always there!

hollowpilot9 said:Sometimes you just find yourself stuck—like a deer in headlights—with absolutely no way out of a messy situation. I guess what I'm trying to say is that occasionally, you need a massive leap forward to actually fix those annoying little problems. One way to do that might be to develop this idea of a Creator—you know, a Higher Power—that possesses an earthly "mind." If that’s the case, then maybe the scammers and the thieves would just... disappear. I mean, if they had to answer to a cosmic vault or a Higher Being watching over them, their whole game would fall apart!

Honestly, it doesn't really matter—any person venturing out into space isn't going to discover anything besides their own reflection—just an INTELLIGENT BEING FROM EARTH. On the flip side, I guess space will just provide enough distractions and material to let them put off that fundamental, inherent task for a long, long time: actually getting to know themselves.

Some hiker mentioned they were hanging out in the Veternica cave near Mount Rainier recently—apparently, the temperature stays at a steady 46 to 50 degrees Fahrenheit in there, and the tunnels stretch on for about... 4.4 milesWe were only in the cave for about six or seven minutes before the instruments started picking up our presence—basically sensing how we were messing with the microclimate. It’s a delicate thing. In the winter, this place serves as a sanctuary for local bats that hibernate here, which is why they actually ban visitors from the entrance during the season. See, those little guys can only handle maybe two or three "wake-up calls" from external disturbances before they burn through too much energy. If they wake up more than that, they won't have the reserves left to survive the winter. It’s a perfect, if somewhat grim, illustration of how sensitive nature really is. It shows just how much even the smallest shift forces a process of ADAPTATION. Adaptation is essentially nature's primary mechanism—meaning any change, no matter how invisible it might seem to us humans, triggers its own natural response through adaptation.

hollowpilot9: Look, everything you’re saying about environmental sensitivity and adaptation—it’s fine. It’s all perfectly reasonable. But if I can throw another argument into the ring, it’s this: life on Earth exists within an incredibly narrow temperature window. So, we aren't just talking about shifts in climate here; we’re talking about phenomena actually *created* by humans that exist entirely outside the bounds of traditional nature. Sure, we could technically label human activity as "nature," too—but it’s a different kind of nature altogether, isn't it? A second, artificial layer layered over the original. To make my point, I’ll give you two examples.

Matter is made of atoms—the fundamental building blocks of everything on Earth (and out there in space) that we typically label as "nature." You know, the classic imagery: a wide-open meadow filled with wildflowers and wildlife. But alongside this inherited atomic legacy, we’ve stumbled upon a different kind of atomic reality that simply doesn't exist in "old" nature. I'm talking about transuranic elements. To me, this represents a whole NEW KIND OF NATURE—one that seems to carry an entirely different role and significance than what we're used to. Now, our traditional atomic makeup is either the result of the vast cosmos—think Big Bang, supernovas, all the way to the present day—or, if you're looking through a religious lens, the work of God. In such a material world, whether God exists or not, this "MONSTER" called Man has emerged. Through sheer willpower and a growing understanding of "old" nature, we’ve learned to physically and chemically manipulate these atoms. But here’s the kicker, and it's more than just manipulation: humans aren't just tweaking things; we are actually CREATING atoms in our laboratories, ranging from hydrogen all the way up to uranium. More importantly, we’re synthesizing transuranic elements—elements that don't naturally occur in "old" terrestrial nature. This realm of synthetic atoms is undeniably a separate kind of existence from the "old" nature we know. Of course, the physicists over on the "organic" science forums can't stand the mere suggestion of this—let alone the fact itself. Why? Because it threatens their precious little thesis that matter must always precede life. It's a bit of a headache for them, isn't it?

Take biology, for instance. Up until "yesterday," the whole mystery of life—whether you looked at it through a scientific, philosophical, or religious lens—was something only Mother Nature or God could truly wrap their heads around. It was a total enigma. But things aren't quite like that anymore, are they? If you actually sit down and do a proper analysis of how much we've stripped the mystery away from life since the days of Watson and circa the dawn of modern computing, you see a massive shift. Even the possibility of cloning suggests we're demystifying the very essence of being alive, though, granted, that all still plays out within the traditional boundaries of our "old" nature. But there’s this other thing happening too. It’s not just biologists working on this; people from all sorts of disciplines are pushing toward a completely different kind of existence altogether. We call it a dozen different things—robots, cyborgs, computers, cyberspace, various automated systems, sensor-driven artifacts, you name it. But if you look past the jargon, the common thread among all these "mechanical manifestations" of life is that they are built from physical, chemical, electrical, and electronic circuits. And everyone seems to be saying that, thanks to nanotechnology and advanced computing, these things will very soon "come alive" with all the hallmarks of traditional biological life. It feels like we're witnessing a new kind of nature emerging within the old one—at least, that's how I see it.

I guess I should probably explain why I keep harping on this whole NEW NATURE thing—since it’s pretty obvious that this "new nature" is busy transforming, transmuting, shifting, and basically tearing down our good old reliable nature in a dozen different ways. But honestly? To give you a real explanation for that, we’d have to start sprinting through the entire evolution of the spirit or the mind... and that’s a much bigger mouthful than this thread can really handle.

The only caves I’ve actually spent time in were the ones near Postojna and over by Mount Rainier—where, honestly, those fossilized remains of ancient marine life really blew me away. Back when I mentioned in a previous post that we essentially deal with at least two distinct types of calcium—mineral and biological—I got absolutely hammered with corrections. Apparently, I was an idiot or just plain ignorant because, according to the experts, what I suggested is physically impossible. Fast forward to today, and suddenly everyone is out here peddling "biological coral calcium" as the one true, holy grail of calcium for the human metabolism. Funny how they all managed to stay smart while I stayed "stupid," isn't it?
Relying on just one single version of nature to truly grasp how reality works is—to put it mildly—totally insufficient for any serious scientific or philosophical mind. In the context of "The Game," there are at least two versions of nature, though I’d argue there are actually four—even if we're desperate to pretend they're all the same thing. Does it actually matter which version we're talking about? One, two, three, or four...?

Walter Foster87: If that title translation—"Death by Government in the Twentieth Century" by R. J. Rummel—is actually accurate, then there isn't much room left for philosophy here.

hollowpilot9: Well, in a strictly literal sense, maybe not, but from a phenomenological standpoint? Absolutely. Interpersonal killing has been a fundamental phenomenon since the dawn of time—it's baked into animal nature, too. That’s why DEATH is such a primary question in phenomenology. It’s a first-order issue, which is why scientists working in nanotechnology, molecular DNA biology, computer science, and futurology are all hinting at human immortality. This is that exact point I made before—that science is essentially trying to manifest what religion merely anticipates.

Walter Foster87: The old guard hit the nail on the head: humans settle their disputes through negotiation and treaties, while animals just rely on brute force and conflict.

"Mental terrorism"—in a democratic society (meaning a society where the means to fight back haven't been stripped away)—can't really be the cause of hostility, unless that violence is being PROTECTED BY PUBLIC FORCE.
hollowpilot9: Mental terror is any action taken by another person that uses external messages, suggestions, demands, or orders to manipulate a person's mental state. Advertisements are just the mild, mass-market version of that kind of terror. A far more significant version would be, say, when a Marine candidate is scrubbed clean of their civilian identity and rebuilt with a brand-new military mindset. I also find it to be blatant mental terror when a professor demands a student KNOW SOMETHING that is patently obvious nonsense. In daily life, you see elements of mental terror everywhere—in newspapers, on TV, on the radio, and in basically every form of human communication. But there’s a huge problem there, like you mentioned—the sheer apathy or "numbness" most people have toward mental terror; they seem to handle it with a "one ear in, one ear out" approach.

Walter Foster87: The brain is just hardware—Mind, Reason, and Will are the software.
As I see it, any new kind of existence would just be an evolution—taking our "unfinished" human state and making it "finished." I don't see technical gadgets playing a role in that causal chain.

hollowpilot9: We're talking about processes that a human can no longer control through willpower, even if those processes were originally products of that very will. It's like the "mystery" of the sympathetic and parasympathetic systems in biology—or how technology constantly demands higher levels of technology, creating more problems that humans eventually lose the ability to solve. There's a reason we FEAR technology; by its very nature, it is AGGRESSIVE. The only way to compensate for that aggression is with a BRAIN that is stronger than the technology itself, and even stronger than the tech used to build that brain. That's why it seems to me the real answer lies in networking human brains into a global super-brain; only a collective mind could stand on equal footing with a mechanical brain, which is already functioning experimentally.

Walter Foster87: And nothing more. Because a cyborg, unlike a biological species, doesn't have the power of reproduction. Giving them any kind of authority over humans—which would effectively turn us and our own species into mere raw material—would be pure madness.

hollowpilot9: Not quite... a cyborg has the capacity for self-repair and self-replication; at least, that's what a certain issue of Wired magazine claimed about the cyborg. If a cyborg isn't capable of renewing or multiplying itself, then it isn't a cyborg—it's just a ROBOT.

Walter Foster87: On the contrary, no being has a STRONGER IMPULSE THAN THE DRIVE TO CREATE AN INVENTION. Even if you raised someone with a Spartan upbringing to become a fanatic—neither Mind nor Invention possesses the individual's POWER OR POTENTIAL. Whatever one person "fails to finish," another will complete. We aren't exactly known for producing many great inventions!
By the way, it's not the idiot who uses dynamite; it's the one who ABUSE it.
And that extends to the ones funding it with taxpayer money, the ones handing out medals and praise for such work... and even the historians who turn mass murderers into public icons and heroes...

hollowpilot9: I agree regarding the impulse, but that isn't an ALIBI for the inventor. An inventor is a responsible individual just like anyone else, and I'll say it again: I think it's hypocritical to claim the fool is the one who "misuses" an invention just so the inventor can stay "purely" intelligent. That logic doesn't fly with me, because I'm well aware of the MOTIVES behind an inventor's actions—what you call an "impulse." That motive can be good or bad, just like everything else in this world. Didn't Oppenheimer demonstrate the entire MORAL CRISIS of the creator once he realized what he had actually DISCOVERED?

Walter Foster87:
Wait—why did you let the perpetrator off the hook!?
An inventor, at the very moment of creation, is arguably the loneliest person on Earth. An invention, once finally realized, always starts out in its rawest, most primitive state; only then does it become an OBJECT of study, refinement, and the discovery of various practical applications.

hollowpilot9: Which perpetrator? Of what? Was Nobel some lonely soul when he "invented" dynamite? Was Edison isolated while tinkering with the lightbulb? Loneliness probably applies to Tesla, who was—how should I put this?—an "eccentric," whereas most inventors are quite social at the moment the "lightbulb goes off," since that spark often happens only after someone else triggers it. Watson and Cirka are perfect examples of that.
What you wrote about how inventions come to fruition is absolutely wrong. When a POISON is discovered, it is POISON from the second it’s found and every second thereafter—just like a cannonball or a laser beam is lethal the moment they are conceived. You’re likely talking about the *refinement* of an invention, which is really just a quantitative shift: whether it's 1 pound or 1,000 pounds of poison, 10 or 1,000,000 cannonballs, or a laser used for pointing versus one used for destruction. I think it’s totally misguided to assign some kind of moral innocence to the inventor, while blaming all the evil of an invention solely on the user. An inventor is a dualistic human being, just like anyone else, until they become a "complete person" (as you put it), but that’s a different conversation entirely. It’s easy to say society needs to figure out how to prevent misuse, but my question is: why create an invention with such high potential for abuse if the "protection" against that abuse can only be developed over TIME? In the meantime, as I said, people die, and inventors become RICH through production and trade, much like Nobel did. Royalties are a pretty sweet thing and a powerful MOTIVE to be an inventor, don't you think?

Walter Foster87: On the contrary. War was a phenomenon until its causes were uncovered. And is war still a phenomenon? Well, we'll find out when practice shows that our human understanding of war is insufficient (half-baked) or incorrect—or when it proves that war actually benefits humanity and society more than it harms them.

Until then, war remains a simple act of savagery perpetrated by the social elite.
hollowpilot9: I agree that war is an act of savagery, but it’s not just the social elite—it's also the folks in Puebla when the citizens are STARVING!
Walter Foster87: There it is—so now the INVENTOR is to blame again!?

hollowpilot9: Are you telling me it's clear the INVENTOR is to blame? I suppose the workers aren't to blame for the nonsense Marx and Engels wrote about them then!!? The elite you're talking about is merely a byproduct of the original stupidity known as an INVENTION—in this case, an IDEOLOGICAL INVENTION.

Walter Foster87: Regardless—man won't discover anything in space other than himself: a MENTAL BEING FROM EARTH. On the other hand, space will only provide him with enough material to indefinitely postpone his true purpose: the realization of self.

hollowpilot9: That's not the point. Space isn't the "dog" here; it's the mountain of nonsense accumulated due to our earthly, rather than cosmic, perception of SPACE-TIME. It’s like when a driver
firmly and aggressively believes they are driving FORWARD in their car, while the cosmic TRUTH is something else entirely—the truth being that they are moving FORWARD AND BACKWARD simultaneously. I've already said it: it's not the same to think we are MOVING AWAY FROM THE BEGINNING as it is to think we are MOVING TOWARD THE BEGINNING. Most people believe and feel that we are moving away from THE START, whereas I am CERTAIN we are moving toward THE START. Once you have two such conflicting BELIEFS, massive problems arise: What is Truth?

geza said:geza:
Relying on JUST ONE version of nature to truly grasp and comprehend how things work is—quite frankly—utterly insufficient for any serious scientific or philosophical mind. In "The Game," we aren't dealing with one single facet; there are at least two, though I’d argue there are FOUR distinct natures at play... even if we desperately wish they were all just one and the same. And really, does it matter which version we're talking about? One, two, three, or four...?

My own impression is that nature, viewed as a singular entity, possesses a multitude of faces—so your example of a pleasant, familiar meadow needs to be balanced by countless images of nature that look nothing like it, yet possess their own vitality, much like our own human existence.

You seem to assume that whatever is new or unknown to nature represents a branch extending from the known—essentially creating a second, different nature... whereas I tend to believe it is simply the same nature expressing its own latent potential.

Consider this: if a person wanders into a cave seeking shelter from an American winter storm or a torrential downpour and lights a fire to stay warm, they are acting on a perfectly natural impulse—one that the human mind is essentially "wired" to follow. Yet, that very act might endanger local bat populations or destroy their habitat entirely, which is also a perfectly natural and expected consequence.

The example you brought up regarding transuranic atoms follows a similar logic; man utilizes his innate intellectual capacity to engineer something previously unknown. If humans are exercising their inherent abilities, isn't it possible that nature is simply using humanity as a tool for its own self-actualization?

Now, here lies the crux of the matter—is man a part of nature, an ally in its unfolding, or is he an interloper, a monster, something detached or fundamentally opposed to nature itself?
I find myself leaning toward the view of man as an ally of nature; as long as the "new" and the "unknown" is derived from what is already established and ancient, there is no such thing as something being "unnatural."

Planinar says:

My take is that nature—if we view it as a single entity—has countless different faces. So, that example you gave about a pleasant, scenic meadow needs to be balanced out by an infinite number of other images of nature, all just as vital, which also possesses its own life, much like our own.

Your premise suggests that whenever something is new or unknown to nature, it’s just a branch growing from what’s already known—a new layer of nature. Personally, I think it’s just the same nature expressing its own potential.

Think about it—if a person walks into a cave to shield themselves from a winter storm, rain, or snow, and then lights a fire, they’re doing something completely natural; it’s exactly what the human mind is wired to do. But that same act might endanger bats or destroy their habitat entirely, which is also a perfectly natural and expected sequence of events.

That example you brought up regarding transuranic atoms is basically the same thing—humans using their innate mental abilities to create something that was previously unknown. If we're just utilizing our inherent capacities, isn't nature essentially using humans as a tool for its own self-manifestation?

Now, here’s the crux of it: either man is a part of nature—an ally involved in its self-creation—or he’s an intruder, a monster, something detached from nature or standing in direct opposition to it.
I lean toward seeing humans as allies of nature. As long as everything new and unknown is derived from what is already known and ancient, there isn't really any sign of anything being "unnatural."

hollowpilot9: When you say your impression is that nature is ONE BEING with many faces, I interpret that like saying color is ONE thing with a vast array of hues and shades. So, I actually agree with you—nature is One with many faces—but perhaps we differ in this: I see that ONE as a polar complexity of four parts that, through further interaction and overlap, branches out into the many faces of nature. For me, the ONE nature is defined by this quaternary structure, which can be proven by various natural phenomena. Within this four-fold context, at the fourth level, nature closes itself off—completes itself—into a single nature capable of catalysis, self-renewal, adaptation, and the things you mentioned.

Therefore, in this "CRITICAL" context, man is a part of nature acting as its creator. Honestly, traditional evolutionists get incredibly worked up when I suggest that it was precisely because of evolution that humans shifted from being objects of nature to being subjects of it. It’s a massive realization that implies an inversion in how we perceive nature !? I often find myself thinking this mirrors religious perspectives, to which I usually respond: science is simply the mechanism that fulfills what religion anticipates. If someone can't wrap their head around that sentence, that’s not on me—it’s the fault of the receiver who believes that "man is not God" and treats that as the finality of reality—a reality that inherently defies such a belief.
I laid out this entire perspective quite thoroughly during my dialogue with demos!
So, to wrap this up: we clearly agree. My sense is that we only differ on the idea that there exists nature and Supernatural that creates nature. Ultimately, it’s the relationship between matter and antimatter, masculine and feminine—basically, it's POLAR! In this framework, man is a Supernatural being because he is capable of creating, constructing, and producing everything that constitutes nature, including himself.

Walter Foster87 said:Strictly speaking, from a philosophical standpoint, there isn't much to say—but if you look at it through a phenomenological lens, there's a whole world of discussion! Human-on-human killing is, as I’ve mentioned before, a phenomenon that has existed since the dawn of time. It’s just how nature works, even among animals! That’s why DEATH is such a primary question when viewed phenomenologically. It’s a fundamental issue, especially since scientists working in nanotechnology, molecular DNA biology, computer science, and futurology are all hinting at the possibility of human immortality...

Man, those two things could be so different! You're talking about physical immortality, but what really keeps me up at night is the continuity of existence—that "immortality" of the legal persona in that other, invisible realm.

Because, honestly, true interpersonal killing doesn't exist. A human being can't kill another with actual intent, which means entire groups can't truly kill one another either. Sure, every "entrenched" side believes they are the ones standing on the side of justice while the other side is just... well, wrong. And then, eventually, peace returns and those animalistic creatures morph back into human beings—at least until the next bloody conflict breaks out.
In this discontinuous existence of humans and humanity as a whole—physical immortality might actually be quite dangerous.
It's easy for any mortal to find comfort in their past: "Well, I was a child and didn't know anything, then I was young and healthy as an ox (I could have easily been a fascist just as easily as I was an anti-fascist!), then I started a family and had to provide for them, then the kids went to school..."—and throughout that life, you might experience one, maybe two, or even three or four wars at most.
But after the 60s, and especially after the 80s, human interests and potential have been reduced to mere memory. Now, imagine an immortal being who remembers endless wars, someone who can no longer hide behind the shield of a short lifespan... I mean, think about it (even if we wiped away all the mental ailments of old age)—once they realize the sheer absurdity of their "hardest moments," wouldn't they very quickly just want to end it all?

Walter Foster87 said:These are processes that humans simply can't control by will alone, even though they are products of our own volition. It's like that "secret" functioning of the sympathetic and parasympathetic systems in biology, or how technology constantly demands more advanced technology, which in turn creates even more problems that humans can't solve anymore...

There isn't a single problem that humans can't tackle. Sure, problems can pile up, but that really just changes the quantity of demands placed on us. Besides, why does anyone need to solve them as soon as they arrive? Why not deal with them a little later!? Honestly—just look at the kind of "GRAND problems" politicians and lawyers manufacture, and you'll see we actually have so few real issues that they're practically forced to invent and create them every single day.

Walter Foster87 said:Walter Foster87: No, no... a cyborg also has the capacity for self-repair and self-replication; at least, that's what a certain issue of Wired magazine said about Microsoft cyborgs. If a cyborg isn't capable of renewing or multiplying itself, then it isn't a cyborg—it's just a ROBOT. ...

Are we even talking about the same thing here!? A human brain combined with pure technical hardware!?
So, how exactly are cyborgs supposed to reproduce? By cloning their own brains!?

Walter Foster87 said:I mean, sure, talking about instinct makes sense, but that’s hardly an ALIBI for an inventor. An inventor is a responsible person just like anyone else—and I really want to emphasize that...

Well, there might be a little bit of a "necessary evil" thing going on here. Because, honestly, if inventors actually accepted all the responsibility you're throwing at them, they’d have to spend so much time perfecting and studying every single detail—doing such a thorough job—that by the time a prototype was finished, nobody would have anything new left to add or any way to improve upon it!
And if that were the case, we’d probably still be stuck staring at prehistoric prototypes today!

Walter Foster87 said:Which perpetrator? Of what?

The person who misuses the invention.

Walter Foster87 said:Was Alfred Nobel some lonely figure when he "invented" dynamite? Or was Thomas Edison totally isolated while working on the lightbulb? I guess loneliness mostly applies to someone like Tesla, who was a bit of an "eccentric"—if that's how you'd put it—whereas most inventors are actually quite social during that "eureka" moment, since that "lightbulb" often flickers to life only after seeing someone else's work. Just look at Watson and Crick!

Don't look at it from that angle instead, think about this: how much does the person actually relate to the INVENTION itself? And how much can one individual anticipate its evolution, uncovering all its uses, as well as its direct and indirect consequences?

Walter Foster87 said:What you said about how inventions come to fruition isn't quite right! When a POISON is discovered, it's a POISON the second it's found and forever after—just like how artillery shells or laser beams are lethal the moment they're invented.

But then again, poisons serve other purposes besides killing—they're used for medicine too, for instance.

Walter Foster87 said:... my question is: why create an invention with potential for misuse when it takes TIME to develop ways to NEUTRALIZE it—to PROTECT against that misuse?

And it's humans who REVEAL those sides of misuse. After all, plenty of inventions come straight out of the defense industry. But since the military is a product of SOCIETY, then the defense industry is a product of society too...
It's almost like you could say that evil is what motivates the inventors in those fields...

Walter Foster87 says: It’s wild how much things can vary, isn't it? You’re talking about physical immortality—that whole concept of the body living on. But for me, the real headache is the continuity of existence—you know, that "immortality" aspect regarding the invisible world of a legal entity.

Why doesn't "interpersonal killing" actually exist? Think about it—one human being can't truly kill another with actual, conscious intent, which means groups of people can't really kill each other either. Sure, every single "enlisted" side is convinced they’re the ones standing on the side of justice, while everyone else is just some kind of monster or villain. And then, once a new peace settles in, those animalistic creatures somehow metamorphose back into civilized human beings—at least until the next bloody conflict kicks off.
In this whole discontinuous existence we call being human—physical immortality could actually be pretty damn dangerous.
It’s easy for any mortal to play the part of the consoling philosopher—it's easy to look back and say, "Well, I was just a kid and had no clue what was happening," or "Back when I was young and healthy as a horse, I could have easily swung either way—been a fascist or an anti-fascist, for all I knew." Then you grow up, start a family, and suddenly you've got people depending on you to keep the lights on and put food on the table... then the kids hit school, life keeps moving... and in the middle of all that, you end up experiencing one, maybe two—hell, three or four—wars in a single lifetime.
Look, after the sixties—and especially once you hit the eighties—a person's entire range of interests and potential basically shrinks down to nothing more than a collection of old memories. It’s all that's left. Now, just imagine an immortal being who actually *remembers* every single war, every conflict... someone who can no longer hide behind the excuse of having lived a short, fleeting life. You know? Even if we could somehow strip away all those mental aches and pains that come with aging—just think about it—once that person finally realizes how utterly meaningless their "hardest moments" actually were... wouldn't they be looking for a way out pretty damn quickly?
Everything seems fine, I guess—but there’s still this massive, looming question hanging over everything: Is existence actually continuous, or is it discontinuous? Does anything in this universe even possess continuity? Based on what I know—and believe me, I have plenty of documentation and evidence to back this up—there is absolutely nothing continuous. Not a single thing. Nothing linear, either. Because of that, I tend to view every single coordinate through an inverse lens. People try to wrap their heads around mortality and immortality, but they basically just break their teeth on the concept. Why? Because most people never bother to examine those terms within the context of oscillation—you know, wave phenomena—or the inversion of those waves (kind of like how you have the inverse relationship between a negative and a positive of the exact same image). Instead, they just study them linearly along a standard space-time axis. That kind of perception simply doesn't work anymore. It’s obsolete.
Walter Foster87 says there isn’t a single problem out there that a person can't eventually tackle. Sure, they might pile up—which is a bit overwhelming, I guess—but really, that just changes the sheer quantity of demands being thrown at you. And honestly, why does anyone have to deal with them the second they pop up? Why not just let them sit for a while and deal with them later? Besides—just look at how politicians and lawyers go about manufacturing a "Grand Problem" out of thin air—you'll realize we actually have so few real issues that those people are practically forced to invent new ones every single day just to stay busy.
Exactly! There isn’t a single problem out there that a person can't solve—it really just comes down to having the willpower and the sheer determination to dig into everything we've already learned. Think about it. In this massive "Himalayas" of information and knowledge, the answers to every single question and dilemma are already sitting there waiting—you just need the ability to spot them and, more importantly, interpret them correctly. It’s all about perception, right? I mean, I was honestly floored when I stumbled upon the idea that yawning is actually a fundamental way humans communicate with one another. Sounds crazy, doesn't it? But honestly, it feels like a pretty big truth.
Walter Foster87 asks: Are we even talking about the same thing!? The human brain plus high-end technical gear!?
So, how exactly are these keyboard warriors supposed to reproduce? Are we talking about just cloning their own brains? Or what?

We aren't even talking about the same thing here. My point is about two distinct paths: one, the extrapolation of the human brain into a sort of GLOBAL SUPERBRAIN—which, by the way, is already functioning—and two, the development of a 3D-configured MACHINE BRAIN that operates exactly like ours. So, if you want to talk about a cyborg, we’re looking at a "monster" equipped with a brain like that. It could do everything a human can, plus a little extra. For instance, it wouldn't need to kill off another cyborg—or heaven forbid, a human—just to secure its existential energy. Why? Because it produces its own power, whether through photovoltaic cells or atomic transmutation... things like that. This kind of self-sustaining, self-creating GOG cyborg was actually detailed in an issue of Scientific American and even featured on TV... it’s essentially just like a human, only the internal hardware is different. Some people still find it hard to believe that we can transpose a biological human brain into a machine, but let me tell you—that work is already well underway.
Walter Foster87 says: Look, there’s an element of a necessary evil at play here. If inventors actually took on the level of responsibility you're demanding, they’d be forced to obsessively refine and study every single detail—to the point where by the time a prototype is finished, there wouldn't be a single thing left for anyone else to add or improve.
If that were the case, we’d probably still be staring at prehistoric prototypes today.

hollowpilot9: That whole "necessary evil" concept is really just the price of evolution, driven largely by human stupidity. As evolution moves "upward," that stupidity fades, and with it, both the "necessary evil" and the tendency to blame people for being foolish. Just because someone is practically *forced* to act stupidly doesn't mean they get a pass on the consequences.
In my book, if an inventor doesn't follow what you're suggesting, they're essentially immoral.
Walter Foster87 says: Specifically, those who abuse the invention.

hollowpilot9: If there’s no invention, there’s nothing to abuse. Therefore, the perpetrator is as innocent as a toddler sticking a nail into a wall outlet. Who’s really at fault there? Is it the kid, or the person who designed an outlet that allows a child to stick a nail in it? Would it have taken decades to find an engineer smart enough to invent a socket that’s child-proof? In the meantime, hundreds of innocent kids would be killed by electricity! Personally, I can't stand those kinds of inventors—and I say that as an inventor myself. To me, an invention should be triple-secure so it isn't dangerous to humans. Anything else is just a collection of more or less hazardous gadgets. You've probably heard about that Amazonian parrot that eats certain toxic berries and then immediately flies off to eat specific clay to neutralize the poison. Now *that* parrot is a true inventor in my eyes!!?
Walter Foster87 says: Don't focus on that aspect; look at the relationship to the INVENTION itself. How much can one person anticipate its development, discover all its practical uses, and foresee its direct and indirect consequences?
hollowpilot9: Why shouldn't I look at it that way? I once read how dynamite was discovered. Nobel’s clumsy assistant spilled nitroglycerin all over the floor, which gave Nobel the idea to mix it with "dirt"—and boom, dynamite. He got rich because he MANUFACTURED AND SOLD dynamite, not necessarily because he was some ultra-brilliant scientist-discoverer as the history books claim. There are endless "accidental" discoveries like that, which are then rebranded as "genius inventions from genius minds," when in reality, they're just flukes that could happen to anyone with half a brain. Inventing is a massive business, and in 99% of cases, the inventor does it for LOVE, not for the good of humanity.
Walter Foster87 says: But poisons serve other purposes too, besides killing—they're used for medicine, for instance.

hollowpilot9: And that is exactly the CATCH. People only show the GOOD side of an invention while sweeping the BAD side under the rug. It's what stays hidden under the rug that poisons and kills people, and that's how you earn fame and fortune. I find that completely amoral and beneath the standards of a WISE man—which is exactly what you claim to support.

hollowpilot9 said:Everything seems fine so far—but there’s still this massive, heavy question hanging over us: Is existence actually continuous, or is it all just one big series of breaks? I mean, is there *anything* at all that stays continuous? From what I can tell—and I’ve got plenty of documentation and evidence to back this up, I guess—there really isn't anything continuous. Not a single thing! Nothing linear, either. That's why I tend to look at every single determinant from the exact opposite perspective.

Biologically speaking, a human being lives one continuous stretch—from birth all the way to death. Some people like to argue that it spans from conception to biological death, and either way, there’s this undeniable physical continuity at play. You could technically try to break life down into different developmental stages—you know, claiming there's some kind of disconnect between being an infant, then a child, then an adult in their prime, and eventually an elderly person—but honestly? I guess it's all a bit of a stretch. From a purely biological standpoint, a human life is one unbroken thread from the moment of conception through to biological death!

The mental or "invisible" world out there—it feels much more sensitive and prone to sudden breaks, I guess. If we really want to nitpick about what a "discontinuity" actually is—and maybe I’m overthinking this—it basically happens whenever someone knows exactly what they shouldn't be doing to another person, yet they go ahead and commit a crime anyway. It’s that moment where the law isn't even up for debate; it’s not some messy clash between two equal rights, but rather just a straight-up denial of someone else's rights altogether. The most extreme examples—the ones that really hit home—would be things like premeditated murder, robbery, terrorism, organized banditry, or the horrific abuse of children under ten or eleven.

Look, I know we aren't perfect—far from it! But honestly, it’s kind of a bummer that we're so far off from even being "barely functional" in the exact area where our true kingdom actually lies. I mean, it's that core essence, right? Without it, none of the stuff that truly makes us human—our culture, our civilization, all of it—would even be possible. It's pretty wild to think about, I guess!
Actually, I think continuous existence is totally possible in that world too—it’s just a matter of perspective! If you look at it as happening through an inversion, or maybe even a total revolution of those core ownership dynamics—well, that doesn't contradict anything, really. In fact, I guess that might be The Only One way to truly prove the continuity of human existence!
On the flip side of Tom—if we’re looking at the linear nature of private property rights—it’s actually that very concept that causes this massive sense of human discontinuity... I guess it’s just trying too hard to maintain the continuity of those private ownership rights, if you know what I mean?

hollowpilot9 said:I think we might be talking about two different things here! My point is about extrapolating the human brain into this kind of GLOBAL SUPERBRAIN—which, I guess, is already starting to function—on one hand, and then on the other, looking at a 3D-configured MACHINE BRAIN that operates exactly like our own. So, if you look at a cyborg, they’re basically this "monster" that possesses a brain like that—meaning they can do everything a human can, and maybe even a little bit more. For instance, they wouldn't actually need to kill off another cyborg, or even a human, just to tap into existential energy—since they'd be able to produce that energy themselves!

Well, you’ve gone and made me feel like a total newbie in my very first computer science class—haha! But hey, at least we have some keyboard warriors around here who don't actually have to resort to violence!
Does a human being really have to kill another human being so often!? I mean, if we're looking at individual issues—like psychosis or whatever—as the cause for murders, those cases feel like they're miles behind things like corporate greed and economic interests. Do you guys remember that time back during the Terror government of the Communists when 164 people were killed because of olive oil imports from Spain? It’s just wild. Or even those instances where they’d kill their own freezing, starving compatriots over something as trivial as a head of cabbage out in the Midwest... it's just senseless. Then, somehow, we see these victims being forced upon us too—everything from rigged political trials to that whole controversial idea of the state having a right to harvest organs from a "deceased body"... it’s all so heavy. And finally, I guess there's the root cause behind all this killing, even the mass stuff—people eventually reach a breaking point where they feel they have to kill someone else because they've turned one of their own faces into The Only One.
That basically means cyborgs—assuming they actually manage to keep their human brains and current social structures intact—are going to be forced into a cycle of mutual destruction. I mean, that's just where this leads! Their only real alternatives are either everyone tearing down everything they’ve ever built, or maybe—if we're lucky—everyone getting together for one massive "Great festival" to smash it all down at once so we can start rebuilding without the casualties. But then again, if that was the case, why did they even become cyborgs in the first place? It seems like it would have been much smarter to just slow down the development of production forces, ban cyborgs altogether, and give humanity a little more breathing room to tackle the most fundamental challenge of all—figuring out how to maintain continuity in our social relationships.

hollowpilot9 said:I guess that whole "necessary evil" thing is really just the price we pay for evolution—driven, as always, by human stupidity. As evolution pushes us toward a "higher level," I suppose that stupidity eventually fades away, taking those accidents and all that "necessary evil" along with it. That’s why we end up blaming people for being foolish—for things they did back then and things they're doing now. But honestly? Just because they *have* to act stupidly doesn't mean they get a free pass from the consequences!

Of course, I mean from a purely moral standpoint—but when you look at how reality actually works, the power to grant a full amnesty lies strictly with the President.

hollowpilot9 said:I mean, if the invention doesn't exist, there’s nothing to abuse in the first place—right? So, I guess you could say the perpetrator is just as innocent as some kid who accidentally shoves a nail into a wall outlet. Honestly, who's really at fault here? Is it the person who designed the socket, or the one who made the outlet easy enough for a toddler to stick a nail into? It probably took decades of trial and error to finally engineer a child-proof outlet that actually works! But in the meantime—and this is the tragic part—the electricity has already claimed hundreds of innocent lives.

Aren't all big shots basically just "big kids" at heart? I guess they get so swept up in the excitement of a new invention that they jump straight to it—kind of like how a kid reacts to a shiny new toy! They just grab onto the very first solution that pops into their heads without really thinking it through, treating it as if it’s some kind of "irrefutable" truth right off the bat. Maybe that's just how they work!
I’ve been right there with you—honestly, I used to lose sleep worrying about my kid reaching for an outlet or something similar. Because of that, I actually wanted to mount everything at about 5 feet high! But—between the local handymen and the actual engineers—everyone was adamant that it would look terrible, be totally impractical, and just... well, wouldn't make any sense. So, I definitely get where you're coming from—but hey, humans are pretty resourceful, I guess—even if we end up installing the electrical system with a massive mess of wires!

hollowpilot9 said:...
You’ve probably heard that story about the Amazon parrot—you know, the one where it gorges itself on those toxic berries and then immediately flies off to find some specific type of clay to eat as an antidote? Honestly, if you ask me, that bird is a total genius! I mean, seriously—it's like a little feathered inventor working its own survival hacks. Maybe it's just instinct, but I guess it's pretty incredible!

It’s probably just a happy accident that ended up making things better—sort of. An invention—as far as I can tell—just doesn't really work without those social (human, or maybe intellectual?) connections to give it meaning. I mean, stuff like piles of leaves or stones that you just toss aside after a quick use? Those aren't actually inventions—they're just tools. Sure, you could argue that intelligence—or some kind of individual cleverness—shows up when someone realizes they can link two EXISTING external objects together (like a walnut and a stone, or water and a pile of leaves...). But even then, all those "smart" animals still rely entirely on whatever nature decides to provide for them. Human intelligence is The Only One that actually shifted the priority—basically stepping in to take over by producing things ourselves!

hollowpilot9 said:Why wouldn't I look at things from that perspective? I mean, I remember reading somewhere about how dynamite was actually discovered—it wasn't some grand epiphany in a lab. Apparently, a Nobel assistant accidentally spilled nitroglycerin all over the ground, and that gave Nobel the idea to mix the stuff with "earth" to stabilize it. That’s how dynamite was born! The thing is, he made his fortune because he manufactured and sold the product, not necessarily because he was this incredibly brilliant scientist or "inventor" like everyone makes him out to be. Honestly, those kinds of "accidental" discoveries happen all the time—you can find them everywhere—and then they get rebranded as these "genius inventions from brilliant minds." In reality, they're often just flukes that could happen to anyone with even a semi-decent brain. Let's face it: inventing things is a massive business, and in like 99% of cases, an inventor does it for the love of the money, not exactly out of the goodness of their heart for humanity!

It’s great when drive and motivation align. But honestly, if you look at our patent laws—just take a second to ask yourself why an EMPLOYER gets priority over something as dignified as a pure invention! It’s true that plenty of breakthroughs happen by accident—you know, just a lucky coincidence of circumstances—kind of like Archimedes in his bathtub. But even then, none of that changes the CORE of our nature or the CORE of our "stuff."

hollowpilot9 said:... That’s really where the "catch" lies. People only ever show off the GOOD side of an invention, while the BAD side gets swept under the rug—and what's hidden under there is often poisoning or killing people, all just to chase fame and money. Personally, I find that totally immoral and beneath any decent, thinking human being—the kind you're rooting for.

I don't think it's strictly about hiding the "bad news," though. By its very nature—even without any immorality, fame, or greed involved—an inventor can be so blinded by hope that they either don't see the downside, or they view it as something distant or just incredibly minor.
By the way—money is just a tool, right? It's the general medium, the lifeblood that keeps "legal entities" breathing. That's why I probably value it more than any bullet, rifle, bomb, cannon, tank, platoon, or army... or any of those other tools we'd need (if we didn't have cash) just to smoothly exchange matter with nature.

Walter Foster87 says: Nah, continuous existence is still possible in that kind of world—even if it unfolds through an inversion or a revolution of fundamental ownership structures. That doesn't contradict anything, because that is THE ONLY WAY to confirm the CONTINUITY OF HUMAN EXISTENCE.
hollowpilot9: In a world of oscillations, nothing is actually continuous; everything is discontinuous! We don't perceive continuity, we perceive discontinuity—one moment we see it, the next we don't. We don't live continuously because we’re awake one second, asleep the next, living one moment, and dead the next...........
We don't walk continuously either; we walk discontinuously, because our legs OSCILLATE when we move.
So, until philosophy moves toward an oscillating, polar-complementary world, there will be no renewal of philosophy (and I'm not talking about, nor am I interested in, specific niche philosophies).

Walter Foster87 says: Well, you've made me feel like a total novice in my first hour of computer science class. But, look, there are cyborgs out there who DON'T HAVE TO KILL EACH OTHER!
Does a human-like creature truly have to kill another human!? Individual issues—psychosis and whatnot—as causes for murder? Those are miles behind, say, economic interests (do you remember those 164 people killed by being tied up with olive oil from Spain during the Terror government of the so-called Communists!? The very same ones who killed their own freezing, starving subordinates over some triviality, like a head of cabbage in Sinj Field). Then, somehow, victims of justice are imposed (from political trials to—well, the supposed state right to harvest organs from "dead bodies"...) And finally, at the core of all that killing—even the most massive instances—is this: sooner or later, humans have to kill one another because they have turned one of their own "faces" into The Only One.
It follows then that cyborgs (if they retain a human brain and existing social structures) WILL HAVE TO KILL EACH OTHER. Their alternative is to either destroy what they themselves created, or for everyone to collectively stage a "Great festival" in a single day so the destruction happens without casualties and renewal can begin. But why did they become cyborgs in the first place? Wouldn't it have been smarter to slow down the development of productive forces, ban cyborgs, and thus give humanity more time to solve that fundamental task—how to achieve continuity in SOCIAL RELATIONS?

hollowpilot9: I just read that some British doctor implanted the first silicon chip integrated with his nervous bio-system. Personally, I wouldn't go that far, because you surely noticed that I hold the view that a human, from an evolutionary standpoint, MUST BUILD A BETTER AND HIGHER-QUALITY BEING THAN THEMSELVES. I know many people can't quite "swallow" that, but I am convinced of this evolutionary trend, just as I am convinced that all life moves toward its LOGOS ORIGIN, rather than FROM THE LOGOS ORIGIN toward an unknown and uncertain future.

Walter Foster87 says: Aren't great thinkers also just "big kids," getting so excited about an invention that they mindlessly accept the first solution that pops into their heads as "irrefutable"?
I remember struggling myself with the fear of my kid touching a power outlet or something. That's why I wanted to install them all at 140 cm height. But—from the "masters" down to the engineers—everyone loudly insisted that wasn't aesthetically pleasing, wasn't practical, or wasn't "normal." So I get what you mean, but—despite that—man is an inventor, even when he installs electricity using a complete mess of wires.

hollowpilot9: We are all "big kids," especially inventors, though don't forget there are always at least TWO types: those who rejoice at an invention like a child with candy, and those who calculatedly create an invention just to make a buck! Morality in the case of the latter is usually QUESTIONABLE.

Walter Foster87 says: That was probably a coincidental discovery that simply improved the species. An invention—as it turns out—has this quality where it cannot be perfected without social (human, or mental) relations. Things like piles of leaves or stones that are discarded after brief use aren't inventions; they're just tools. Sure, intelligence or some kind of individual cleverness can be seen in the abstract representation and the conclusion reached by connecting two EXISTING external objects (a walnut and a stone, water and a pile of leaves...). But all these "smart" animals still rely on the supplies provided by nature, whereas human intellect is the only thing that PUSHED NATURE, REPLACING IT WITH HUMAN PRODUCTION.
hollowpilot9: A parrot doesn't just stumble upon things by accident—just like a fawn doesn't accidentally find its mother's milk. Some immature idiots actually mocked me once when I suggested that kids often end up eating chalk because their bodies are screaming for calcium. Earth itself acts as an "anti-toxin," and clay works like a natural antibiotic. Before humans started meddling, nature was in total equilibrium. But then man comes along and polarizes everything, creating this whole "new nature"—and, predictably, it’s costing us dearly.

Walter Foster87 says: It's fine that instinct provides motivation. But take a look at our labor laws and ask yourself why an EMPLOYER gets priority over something as dignified as an invention. Sure, plenty of breakthroughs happen by pure chance—like some external circumstances aligning, or even Archimedes catching a vibe in his bathtub—but none of that changes the CORE of our human nature or the CORE of our "stuff."

hollowpilot9: I'm not so sure about that? Honestly, would you ever see an employer just seize MY INVENTION without cutting me a check? That seems impossible to me, as long as we have intellectual property institutions—though, if you ask me, those are basically just outdated relics of traditional intellect.

hollowpilot9 said:In this world of constant oscillations—honestly, everything just keeps shifting—nothing is actually continuous! It’s all discontinuous, I guess... maybe that's just how it works!

In a world full of constant oscillations—you know, all that back-and-forth noise—I guess you really only start to see the continuity once you step back and grab the "big picture."

hollowpilot9 said:...
We don't really live in one continuous stream, do we? I mean—we’re constantly switching gears between being wide awake, drifting off to sleep, feeling totally alive, and then just... sort of dead to the world for a bit. It's all a bit fragmented, I guess!

Even with all the ups and downs—you know, those constant fluctuations in how we grow and change—I guess, as biological beings, we actually live CONTINUOUSLY!
Death might seem like it just cuts that whole continuity short at first glance—but honestly, I don't think so! After all, we aren't exactly the first living species to find ways to keep that CONTINUITY going through our OFFSPRING, right?
Honestly, I think the real issue—if you want to call it that—is that we as humans (or rather, rational beings, I guess) just don't have any actual continuity in our existence. It feels like we are essentially born anew at every single "fresh start"—which we can all sense intuitively, if we're being honest—and through that very process, we’re just setting the stage for the next big disconnect in our lives. It's kind of wild when you think about it! And the kicker? We actually know deep down—through both logic and gut feeling—that there is a way out... but we just choose to ignore it! Maybe we're just wired that way, who knows?
Even if the continuous existence—you know, actual LIFE—of a sentient being included all sorts of little sub-oscillations, I don't think that would take away from its value one bit! In fact, maybe the fact that we don't exist in one steady, unbroken stream—but rather jump from one mistake to the next—kind of undermines our whole generic nature, I guess.

hollowpilot9 said:...

I mean, I guess if you really think about it—and I do!—we aren't actually walking in one continuous motion. It’s more like we're moving discontinuously, since our legs are constantly oscillating while we walk. It's kind of wild when you stop to consider it!

So, I guess those oscillations are really just parts of a much larger whole—a continuous flow from one point to the next... and honestly, no real evil is going to happen if we just take a breather or find some way to embrace a little "discontinuity" in our movement—which is a huge deal, since that’s worlds apart from any kind of actual breaking of the natural bonds we share with other intelligent beings!
I guess I don't really have much to add there—maybe just a small thought! —but honestly, it seems like we've covered all the bases already. Everything feels pretty settled, doesn't it? Anyway, I'll just sit back and see how things unfold!

hollowpilot9 said:So, I just finished reading this crazy bit about some British doctor who supposedly implanted the very first silicone chip... I mean, can you believe that? It sounds like something straight out of a sci-fi flick! I guess it’s wild to think about how far we've come since then—it really makes you wonder where things are headed next, doesn't it? Maybe we're all heading toward a cyborg future sooner than we think!

If you look at how everything in the living world develops—just observing the way species evolve and grow over time—it seems like there's this underlying tendency toward becoming higher quality. I guess you could say it’s just an inherent part of how life unfolds!
It’s really about the distinction—the huge difference—between someone who is actually self-aware and lives their life without pushing others around, avoiding pointless wars or dealing with unnecessary, tyrannical authority... and then there's the so-called "human" who just has silicon chips shoved in their brain.
One of those two just won't be going—I guess it's just one of those things!
Look, I guess it really boils down to this—either silicon chips stay strictly as tools meant to assist us, or we’ll end up being ruled by those "cyborgs" you're always talking about!

hollowpilot9 said:I guess we’re all just "big kids" at heart—especially inventors! But you can't forget that there are always at least two totally different breeds out there—and I mean really distinct types. First, you've got the dreamers, those folks who get just as excited about a new invention as a kid with a bag of candy. Then, on the flip side, you have the ones who are purely calculating every move just to line their pockets! Honestly, when it comes to that second group, I'd say their moral compass is... well, let's just say it's pretty questionable most of the time, right?

To me, morality boils down to just one thing—preserving everything we’ve already built, while paving the way for new intellectual breakthroughs. It’s about creating those material conditions that let us explore what is possible (and honestly, there’s always more possible!) to improve what we currently have. Plus, I guess you could say it includes all those "pure" goods we tend to call inventions!
I honestly think all those other moral codes exist just to protect what we've already built—they're really just tools to set the stage for the next big breakthrough. To me, exploring the "unwise"—you know, the stuff labeled as immoral or simply "what shouldn't be done"—is actually where true invention begins.
Money, profit, chasing a paycheck... it's all just candy for kids, really. It's all serving the Purpose.

hollowpilot9 said:A parrot doesn't just stumble upon something by accident, any more than a fawn accidentally finds its mother's milk...

Of course not! But I guess instincts and drives exist within the realm of Reason too. It's kind of like how an animal's highest power can almost automatically—well, almost perfectly—shape its own reactions and behavior. It might even bake those learned changes right into its core instinctive responses.

Walter Foster87: In a world defined by oscillations, you can only really see continuity once you step back and grasp the "bigger picture."
hollowpilot9: There is no such thing as continuity in an oscillating world—there is only DISCONTINUITY because everything is constantly flipping between poles. If we look at humans, that discontinuity is found in our male-female polarity; continuity is simply the existence of Humanity, encompassing both. Now, whether that’s actually "real" or just an abstract concept is the big philosophical question! If a person is real, then "Humanity" is imaginary; if "Humanity" is real, then the individual person is imaginary. It’s this bizarre inversion—this fantastic polarity—that prevents any single, isolated point in space-time from truly defining space-time.

Walter Foster87: Despite all those momentary oscillations and shifts in development, we live our lives—as biological, living organisms—as CONTINUOUS beings.
Death seems, at first glance, to break that continuity. But hey, we aren't the first species to maintain CONTINUITY through our OFFSPRING.
The catch is that AS HUMANS (rational beings), we lack the CONTINUITY OF EXISTENCE. In fact, we are a priori—from the very start of every "new" beginning—consciously aware, or at least intuitively feeling, that we are merely setting the stage for a new "discontinuity" through our own lives. We also know, through that same awareness and intuition, that an exit exists—YET WE REJECT IT!
Even if a rational being's continuous existence (LIFE) included various sub-oscillations, it wouldn't diminish its value in the slightest. On the contrary, the fact that a rational being doesn't exist continuously, but rather jumps from one transgression to the next—in a way, it actually undermines our entire generic nature.
hollowpilot9: You go ahead and stay convinced that we live continuously, and I’ll stick to my belief that we live discontinuously. Maybe we're both telling the truth, or maybe we're both lying? You can't have one person telling the truth while the other lies, since truth and falsehood are polar, complementary relations. One of our famous academics used to say, "Isn't it true that truth and lies are so intimately intertwined that we don't even know where to draw the line?"
Continuity is a concept born out of a Euclidean-Cartesian perception of the world, but such a world doesn't actually exist outside of being an illusion—a pragmatic, distorted association of reality. Think about it: no matter how large or small a sphere is, there isn't a single flat plane or straight line on it. Yet, Euclidean geometry is built entirely on lines, flat planes, and three-dimensional volumes. In scientific-philosophical reality, those concepts don't exist. They only exist because we have a pragmatic need for a "flat" surface instead of a curved table to eat at, right? Rationality fails here because it is UNABLE to perceive what lies "The opposite on the other side," which happens to be the title of an article by F. Capre where he notes:
"One of the fundamental polarities in life is the one existing between the masculine and feminine sides of human nature. Much like the polarity of good and evil, or life and death, we feel uncomfortable with this internal male/female polarity, and so we overemphasize one side or the other. Instead of understanding that the personality (individuality) of every man and woman is the result of these masculine and feminine elements intertwining, Western thought established a static (rather than dynamic) order between the poles. By overemphasizing masculine aspects—like competition, aggression, or purely rational, quantitative thinking—Western consciousness has made itself confused and contradictory. Today, we face the challenge of a NEW REALITY that requires the rational human to achieve the UNIFICATION of concepts that previously seemed opposed and irreconcilable."
I've said it a few times before: it’s easy to think in terms of positive or negative, but it is incredibly difficult to think with a unified negative and positive. That kind of thinking belongs to philosophy, and philosophy is still quite far from UNIFIED THINKING. That is the "background" of all my messages, and it's why I feel incapable of thinking about the world the way my professors and their followers taught me.

Walter Foster87: So, those oscillations are just parts of a larger whole (a gait) that remains CONTINUOUS from one point to the next... and no EVIL will occur if we simply rest or spend our "discontinuity" in other ways—unlike any form of breaking the natural bonds we share with other rational beings...

hollowpilot9: Walking from point A to point B is NOTHING BUT THE ILLUSION of straight, continuous motion. On a circle or a sphere, the relationship between A and B is simultaneously B and A—if A moves toward B, B is essentially moving toward A at the exact same time. My neighbor, who just started studying surveying, was telling me how his math professor spent four whole hours trying to convince the class that they needed to completely forget everything they learned about geometry back in high school. That’s the gist of it, Walter Foster87—which, I'll admit, is pretty tough to wrap your head around since we're talking about philosophy and science here, not just basic geometry?

Walter Foster87: That higher-quality being—it’s a tendency you can basically assume just by looking at the development of all living things and their various species.
Look—there's a massive difference between a human being who (finally aware of themselves) lives life without pushing others around, without senseless wars, and without unnecessary, tyrannical rule—versus a "human" with silicon chips shoved into their brain.
One of those two isn't going to make it.
Because, either those silicon chips remain HUMANITY'S TOOLS, or those "cyborgs" of yours end up running the show.
hollowpilot9: I've said it a few times now: my opinion is based on an evolutionary leap to a higher level of reality, and with that leap, MAN SIMPLY MUST BUILD A BETTER, HIGHER-QUALITY, MORE ADVANCED VERSION OF HIMSELF. That’s the heart of my message—it’s not some "game" of man versus cyborg, or a question of "who's gonna win"?

Walter Foster87: Morality boils down to this: preserving what we've achieved, creating the material conditions for new mental leaps, researching what can (and ALWAYS CAN) be improved within the existing framework, and pursuing those "pure" goods we call inventions.
Every other version of morality exists solely to serve that purpose—to preserve what we have so we can create the material conditions for new innovations—and investigating the "unintelligent," or what we call immoral, or simply WHAT SHOULD NOT BE, is actually the starting point of the path toward INVENTION.
Money, profit—that's just candy for toddlers—it's all there to serve the Purpose.

hollowpilot9: I've done a fair amount of thinking and had plenty of debates regarding morality. One group was absolutely floored when I told them that morality doesn't evolve; it's either a constant, or it's nothing at all! All my research points to the fact that something is MORAL only if it does not oppose a being created out of love. Any action that goes against that, that makes it impossible, or that diminishes it, is amoral.

hollowpilot9 said:Walter Foster87: I honestly, in a world full of constant oscillations—you know, all that back and forth—I guess you only really start to see the continuity once you step back and grab the "big picture" of how things actually work.
hollowpilot9: In this world of oscillations—if you can even call it that—there isn't really any continuity to be found. It’s actually JUST DISCONTINUITY because the poles are constantly flipping back and forth! I guess it's all just one big cycle of shifts, maybe?

"... wait, so you're telling me it's ALREADY just a discontinuity because it keeps flipping between poles constantly...!?"
Is it because things are constantly shifting at the poles?! I mean—they’re constantly shifting!!! They're just... constantly shifting!?!?

hollowpilot9 said:When you look at what makes a human being, I guess you could say there's this fundamental discontinuity—it’s that polar distinction between male and female. But then, you have continuity—which is really just the whole existence of Humanity, both male and female, existing together!

When you look at a person through the lens of discontinuity, it’s basically just the shape of their private self—and, if you follow that logic, I guess it’s also the shape of their functional self, too. It's like—well, this continuity is what allows them to switch between those two modes without anyone ever noticing!
The whole idea of "men's stuff" versus "women's stuff"—well, I guess at the end of the day, it all just boils down to basic biology—maybe? It’s really just about our physical nature, isn't it?

hollowpilot9 said:Look, you can go ahead and stay convinced that we’re living in one continuous stream—and that’s fine! I’ll just stick to my belief that life is actually a series of discontinuous jumps. Maybe we’re both telling the truth, or maybe we’re both just spinning yarns? I mean, it's hard to say. It doesn't really make sense for one of us to be speaking the absolute truth while the other is lying, because—if you think about it—truth and lies are basically polar opposite relations. They kind of balance each other out, right?

It’s pretty simple, really—there’s no such thing as a lie if there isn't any actual intent behind it. I guess you could say one person is standing in the truth while the other is just lost in a delusion!
Wait, I think what you were actually trying to get at was that you don't believe humans can ever truly guarantee a continuous existence—is that right? Because, honestly, I’m not doubting for a second that throughout history, there's been this constant, perpetual DISCONTINUITY in the existence of every single sentient being out there. But—and here’s my take—I also know that continuous existence *is* possible! I really do believe it's just a matter of time before people and their communities reach a point where they simply won't be able to live in their current way anymore—maybe because they'll have to adapt to life in a completely different way.

hollowpilot9 said:...
I guess one of our famous American academics always used to say, "Truth and lies are so intimately intertwined that I honestly don't know where to draw the line"—it’s such a profound thought, isn't it? Maybe it's just me, but I find that idea so fascinating!
Continuity is really just this concept we’ve inherited from our Euclidean-Cartesian way of looking at the world—you know, that whole structured, mathematical perspective—but I feel like human intelligence actually struggles when it comes to this. It’s like our minds hit a wall because we just aren't capable of truly grasping what lies "The opposite on the other side." It’s a tough one, I guess!

What kind of sophistry is that?! Honestly—if we aren't calling those things wise, then the whole thing is pretty straightforward. I mean, if you look at The opposite on the other side, you find the starting point—which is exactly what its opposite is!

hollowpilot9 said:It’s honestly so easy to just pick a side—you know, go strictly positive or strictly negative—but man, trying to hold both those perspectives at once? That is a whole different beast. It’s incredibly tough to think in that kind of unified way. I guess that type of mindset really belongs to the realm of philosophy, and even then, philosophy still feels pretty far off from reaching this kind of UNIFIED THOUGHT. Anyway, that’s basically the "background" for all my posts—it’s why I sometimes feel like I’m failing at thinking the way my professors and their followers taught me to!

Everything has a starting point—I guess you could say someone just has to step up and make it happen!

hollowpilot9 said:... Walking from point A to point B is JUST AN ILLUSION of straight-line, continuous motion. On a circle or a sphere, the relationship between A and B is simultaneously B to A—so if A moves toward B, B is basically moving toward A at the same time. My neighbor, who just started studying surveying, mentioned how his math professor spent four whole hours convincing them all that they absolutely had to forget everything they learned about geometry back in high school. That’s the gist of it, Walter Foster87, which—I'll admit—is pretty tough to wrap your head around because it touches on philosophy and science, not just basic geometry? ...

No, what I mean is—could you maybe be thinking too "straight-lined" here? For actual walking, those relationships of approaching and receding don't really matter. I mean, look at pantomime or a military drill—we have "marching in place," right? For movement, the only things that truly matter are either the moment of stillness (just standing there) or the moment you accelerate into a run.

hollowpilot9 said:... I've pointed out a few times that my perspective is based on an evolutionary leap to a higher level of reality, and with that leap, HUMANITY SIMPLY MUST BUILD A BETTER, HIGHER-QUALITY, MORE ADVANCED VERSION OF ITSELF. That isn't about playing a game of "man vs. cyborg"—it's not a "who wins?" kind of thing...

I'd actually stick to this part: "...I've pointed out a few times that my perspective is based on an evolutionary leap to a higher level of reality, and with that leap, HUMANITY SIMPLY MUST BUILD A BETTER, HIGHER-QUALITY, MORE ADVANCED VERSION OF ITSELF."
Though, of course, there's one little tweak. It wouldn't be "humanity" exactly, but rather a semi-human, or a temporary human, or—well, something human-like.
And, OF COURSE—this strange, half-self-created entity needs to build the foundations that will finally allow it to become truly HUMAN.

hollowpilot9 said:... I've thought quite a bit about morality and engaged in plenty of debates on it. One group was totally floored when I told them that morality doesn't evolve—it's either a constant, or it's nothing at all! All my research suggests that MORAL is simply anything that doesn't oppose a being created through love. Any action that works against that, or makes it impossible, is amoral.

Morality isn't just one single thing; there are at least two different kinds from the very start. For instance, looking at the relationship between the Creator and the remnants of the "world," we see how what is moral for the Mind isn't necessarily moral for Reason. Similarly, things that Reason deems moral—which the Mind might have supported once upon a time—are torn down by the Mind the moment it progresses, labeling them immoral or "outdated," or "something that deserves to die"...

Walter Foster87 says:
"... so it’s ALREADY just a discontinuity because it keeps flipping between poles constantly... "!?
Is it because the poles are constantly shifting? I mean—constantly shifting! It’s just happening over and over again—constantly shifting!?!?!?

hollowpilot9:
Exactly—that’s the whole point! It’s because of that constant, polar flipping... it just keeps shifting. Always shifting. You’ve got the Northern pole turning into the Southern one, while the Southern becomes South North, then the Southern pole flips back to being Northern, and suddenly we're dealing with South North again. It’s a cycle—it just oscillates, oscillates, and oscillates. That’s just how I see things—my perception of the world, reality, the cosmos, and everything else out there in the universe. If I'm wrong, well, then I'm mistaken—but if I am, isn't that mistake shared by everyone else too? Is modern science actually just my partner in this massive delusion?
I’m going to say this again—and I mean this—because the oscillation of being is the core essence of every single thought and expression I have...
Oscillation is just this incredible, all-encompassing, divine-meets-human phenomenon that defines the entire universe—so please, for the love of everything, just respect my obsession with OSCILLATION!

Walter Foster87 says:
When you look at a person through the lens of discontinuity, you’re essentially looking at the shape of their private self—and, if it makes any sense, it's also how their functional self takes form. It’s that continuity, I suppose, that allows them to switch between the two without missing a beat. Or maybe they just get really good at pretending? Either way, it's all part of the seamless transition.
Man/woman dynamics—or whatever "principles" people like to claim exist—are really just basic biological impulses at the end of the day. It’s all just physical nature, isn't it?
hollowpilot9: You’re talking about one thing—I’m talking about another. Nothing unusual there, really. Your take is probably spot-on from a PRAGME standpoint, while mine likely holds water if you're looking at it through the lens of phenomenology. For me, the shift between day and night—and the DAY itself, which encompasses morning, afternoon, evening, and night—is a quadripolar symbol. It’s the fundamental state of things for everything, including the male-female relationship, or anything else that carries a polar nature. So, my philosophical project—call it a calling, or whatever you want to call it—is to bridge the gap between the philosophy of "day" as a collective unconsciousness and the historical experience of "DAY" as a lived reality. Basically, we’re clearly talking about two different things!
Walter Foster87 says:
There’s no such thing as a lie if there isn't any intention behind it—it just becomes a mistake. At the end of the day, you either have one person standing in the truth or someone else lost in a delusion. It’s that simple, isn't it?
No, wait—first off, I think you’re probably trying to say that you don't believe it's actually possible to guarantee the continuous existence of humanity. Because, look, I don't doubt for a second—if we look at history—that there is an eternal DISCONTINUITY in the existence of every single sentient being. But, at the exact same time, I know that continuous existence *is* possible. Honestly? I just think it’s a matter of time before people and their societies—just in a different way—simply won't be able to live the way they currently do anymore.

Look, you see what I mean? I’m not even talking about a lie as some subjective little phenomenon that misleads—that's not my point. I’m talking about a Lie as an actual entity of Truth that actively erodes what is true. If Truth and Lies are inherently tangled up so tightly that you can't even tell where to draw the line... well, a physicist once noted that these concepts mirror the relationship between waves and particles, or a particle and its antiparticle, or mass and energy, or even just black and white. It seems to me we’re going to approach the ideas of continuity and discontinuity in two completely different ways here. To me, discontinuity is like watching a movie in a theater. The audience gets this impression that they are watching a continuous flow for, say, two hours straight, when in reality, they are experiencing it discontinuously—frame by frame. They see the image, then they don't, then they do. Truth is what is actually happening right here on the screen, not whatever impression or feeling the viewer walks away with. You seem to be focusing on the audience's perceptions and opinions, whereas I’m talking about the actual phenomenon based on hard facts.

Walter Foster87:
What kind of sophistry are we even dealing with here? Honestly, if they aren't actually wiser than they claim—well, then the whole thing is pretty straightforward. You have a starting point on The opposite on the other side, and by definition, that point is simply the opposite of whatever it’s facing. Simple enough, right?

Look, these aren't sophisms—which is exactly what I laid out in my last comment. I broke it down using an A to B logic, but honestly, I could probably explain the whole thing using a peg and a hole if that makes it any clearer. Think about it: you—or anyone else, myself included—can never actually *prove* whether the peg fits the hole or the hole fits the peg, yet we all just collectively believe, assume, and act as if the peg goes into the hole, right? It’s just how it is. It’s the same deal with directions. You can't prove that right is right or left is left, because at any given moment, right is simultaneously left and left is simultaneously right. So, what are we looking at here? Is it a sophism, a raw fact, or some deeper level of perception? What you're labeling as a "sophism" is really just the failure of traditional philosophy to grasp how two paradoxical, contradictory, and inverse concepts or processes can exist at the exact same time. That’s the massive distinction between linear and non-linear thinking. Simple as that.

Walter Foster87 says:

Everything has a starting point—someone just has to step up and actually pull the trigger on it.

Absolutely! My whole argument is that this isn't just some solo act—it’s being driven by MORE THAN ONE ENTITY working to build up humanity during our entire existence on Earth and out in the cosmos... You know? So, while you're over there using vague terms like "someone," I’m actually getting specific about exactly who that "someone" is.

Walter Foster87 says.
Wait, what now—is it actually possible that you’re thinking too "linearly" here? Look, when we're talking about walking, those little nuances of moving closer or drifting away are basically irrelevant. I mean, just look at mime or a military drill—they have "marching in place," don't they? For the actual act of walking, the only things that really matter are the moment you stop—you know, that pause or standstill—or the exact second you decide to kick it into high gear and sprint.

hollowpilot9: I think there’s actually that one great film by Galte where—get this—during a water polo match, the ball just stays perfectly still in mid-air? It’s wild. Anyway, looking at the whole A to B thing... I was saying something similar before regarding how people watch movies. I'm talking about those linear delusions—the idea that we’re all just cruising through life in a car from point A to point B. Not that they're exactly "wrong," per se—not if you're looking at it from a philosophical standpoint, of course. But still.

Walter Foster87 says:

I’d probably just stick with this version: "...I've pointed out a few times now that my whole perspective is based on this evolutionary leap toward a higher plane of reality—and once you make that jump, a HUMAN BEING SIMPLY HAS TO BUILD A BETTER, HIGHER-QUALITY, MORE ADVANCED VERSION OF THEMSELVES."
Of course, there’s one little tweak to consider. We aren't talking about a man—not really. It’s more like a semi-human, or maybe just a temporary human... or perhaps just something vaguely human-shaped.
It’s obvious, isn't it? That strange pole—that thing of its own making—is just trying to build up the necessary assumptions to finally, at long last, become human.
If things actually work the way you’re claiming, then evolution is simultaneously devolution, retardation, reduction—basically a one-way ticket back to the Stone Age. But, based on what I've gathered, evolution is something else entirely. I’ve already pointed out the paradox of evolution, which is essentially the same paradox we see in technological progress: how a lower, less sophisticated level somehow builds—constructs—a higher, more quality-driven level. You don't seem to notice that—whether you're doing it consciously or just ignoring it—but for me, it's a vital observation. So, in an evolutionary context, the actual task of Man is to build something better, more capable, and more refined than himself. If he doesn't, then Man is simply the dead end of evolution in the universe. It's an elementary concept that should be understood—not because I say so, but because it's proven by the entire history of life, including our own history here on Earth. If humans weren't constantly improving themselves, we would still be living in caves. The way I see it, on both this earthly path and the cosmic evolutionary journey, Man acts as a station through which a macro-cosmic being—HOMOTERAS—is being built. That is my core hypothesis, my fundamental thesis, and quite frankly, I am not backing down from it. I consider it my intellectual discovery, the foundation upon which I hold my moral right of precedence. It’s a mental pearl that I offer up to the world... how someone chooses to receive it is their business, not mine. Ignoring it, disputing it, or trying to belittle it? None of that interests me. That says everything about the person doing it, whereas my thing is this mental pearl that I admire simply because it is universal—applicable to humans, pigs, horses, fish, plants, and so on.

Walter Foster87 says:
Morality isn't some single, monolithic thing—there are at least two versions of it from the very start. If you look at the friction between pure Intuition and what’s left of the "old world," you see how what feels moral to Intuition might be totally immoral to Reason. It’s a mess. And then you have those things that Reason considers moral—things that Intuition actually used to get behind—only for Intuition to suddenly tear them down once it moves forward. It decides they’re "immoral" or just "obsolete"... basically, stuff that deserves to die. Is that just how progress works? Just constant, rolling demolition?

I think I made my definition of what constitutes "MORAL" pretty clear. Beyond that, I’m honestly not equipped to engage in any further debate regarding morality... I mean, if we’re acknowledging that there could be at least two distinct moralities, then the only way that works is if we split it down gender lines—men's morality versus women's—or perhaps something akin to the differing moralities of polar penguins? In principle, I view intelligence as this complex, layered phenomenon that shouldn't really be compared to reason—since reason is fundamentally amoral, given that it belongs, among other things, to the PREDATOR. Here is how I see it: our parasympathetic system (that unconscious "self") is MORAL, which is exactly why it was granted the RIGHT OF CONTROL over our vital organs. Meanwhile, our sympathetic system (the conscious "self") is AMORAL; its nature is proven by our actions and the very thing that constitutes the conscious "self." Of course, following my own logic, morality is always defined by the relationship between the moral and the amoral, where the moral holds dominance. Conversely, amorality is the relationship between the amoral and the moral, where the amoral takes the lead. So, my entire intellectual world doesn't actually belong to one side or the other—it exists within the RELATIONSHIP between the two, leaning toward that MEZZO, that middle ground... that center point which is what truly makes us a unified whole.
One half is always joined to the other half to create the WHOLE! The remaining two halves represent a polar division—the kind of "tectonic tension" you see in concepts, opinions, or practical reality, much like Earth's tectonic plates... which, as we know, leads to earthquakes and tragedies. I’m intimately familiar with these tensions, and frankly, because I recognize them, I don't belong to them. But let's be real: those polarizing forces are always lurking in the background. I've mentioned this before: the PHILOSOPHY I follow belongs to the polarly unified, not the polarly divided, whereas most traditional philosophies lean heavily toward the divided side. That’s likely why there's such constant misunderstanding... my observational standpoint is the Logos origin of what we call reality and reality itself, while traditional philosophy only observes reality, much like
" the reality of watching a movie continuously in a cinema."

hollowpilot9 said:That’s exactly it—you nailed it! It's all because of that constant polar shifting, right? It just keeps switching back and forth—constantly, constantly, constantly! I mean, think about it... the Northern pole becomes the Southern pole, while the Southern pole turns into the South North—it's like this endless loop where the Northern pole shifts to become Southern, then the Southern pole flips to become Northern, and then suddenly we're looking at the South North again. It just repeats over and over! Those poles—they’re always oscillating, just oscillating, oscillating, oscillating!

Because it’s all about that shape—that sense of continuity! Change isn't just something that happens—it’s actually the very way everything exists!
Actually, I think we’re approaching this from a completely different angle—one centered on the CONTINUOUS EXISTENCE OF HUMANITY. From what history shows us, change usually just looks like a temporary cycle of "short-lived" half-humans and killers. But if we want to actually affirm the CONTINUITY OF HUMAN EXISTENCE, that also relies on change—just a different kind! It would be based on a shift between two specific ways that a person (and their actual humanity) can exist—I guess you could say it's about how we choose to live.

hollowpilot9 said:It looks like we’re talking about two totally different things—nothing unusual there! I guess your take is probably spot on if you're looking at it from a PRAGME perspective, whereas my view is likely more accurate if you're coming at it through phenomenology. For me, the transition between day and night—and the idea of a DAY that actually encompasses morning, afternoon, evening, and night—is this massive four-pole symbol. It represents the very state of all things, including everything else that's polar, like the relationship between male and female. So, my whole philosophical mission—or my calling, or whatever you want to call it—is to bridge that gap between the philosophy of "day" as a collective unconsciousness and the lived, historical experience of DAY itself. Basically, it's pretty obvious we're operating on completely different wavelengths!

Pragma is probably the last group to actually care about changing someone's character—they’d much rather just shove everything into "phenomenology," I guess. But what you’re doing is different; you’re breaking things down, which makes it seem like you're looking for "discontinuity" between the individual parts. My take? Well, since every part is inherently part of the whole, focusing too much on those gaps makes it feel like there's a disconnect everywhere. It kind of misses the point of the internal continuity within each part—and, more importantly, that dynamic connection between pieces that's actually what keeps the whole thing together!

hollowpilot9 said:See, what I’m getting at isn't really about lying as some subjective thing—you know, like someone just choosing to be dishonest—but rather looking at a Lie as its own entity that actively erodes the Truth. It’s almost like they're fundamentally intertwined, making it nearly impossible to tell where one ends and the other begins! A physicist actually once pointed this out—I think it relates back to that whole wave-particle duality concept, or maybe how we look at particles versus anti-particles, mass versus energy, or even just simple black and white contrasts. It's all connected, I guess!

Why go with that when we have a much more fitting term—delusion? I mean, a lie always implies someone is intentionally leading ANOTHER person astray just to score some kind of advantage—I guess you could say it's all about the motive!
That’s why a lie isn't actually the direct opposite of truth—it’s more like the opposite of wisdom. I guess that's why we really ought to keep using their proper names, don't you think? It just makes more sense!

hollowpilot9 said:It’s funny how we see things, isn't it? Most viewers walk away feeling like they just sat through two hours of continuous, seamless cinema—but if you actually look at the mechanics, they aren't really watching a flow at all. It's more like they're seeing a series of disconnected snapshots, frame by frame—sort of like a strobe light effect where the image flickers in and out of existence. I guess what's written here is the actual truth of the matter, regardless of how the audience perceives it. You seem to be focusing on the vibes and the subjective experience of the viewer, whereas I'm trying to talk about the actual phenomenon based on hard facts!

It seems more like you’re focusing on breaking things down and then trying to synthesize them back together. When we talk about a movie, WELL, IT'S A SINGLE ENTITY—nobody is really arguing against its individual parts. But, for the exact same reasons, there's that dynamic connection that weaves everything into a whole, which is essentially just a two-hour continuous stream of footage. I mean, we don't really expect a movie to be anything other than a rapid succession of frames, right? If it were anything else, we'd probably be talking about holograms or some kind of 3D projection. So, a movie AS A MOVIE definitely has its own undeniable continuity.

hollowpilot9 said:.... You (or anyone else, myself included!) can never actually PROVE whether the plug goes into the socket, or the socket goes into the plug, yet we all BELIEVE, THINK, and ARE CONVINCED that THE PLUG GOES INTO THE SOCKET??? It's the same deal with direction—you can't prove right is right or left is left, because right is simultaneously left and left is simultaneously right.

When you look at things from different angles, you're going to get totally different results—that's just how it works, I guess. But what you're really attacking here isn't "belief," it's actually convention. It's either a sort of agreement (like left vs. right) that we inherit from those who came before us, or it's a standpoint we adopt based on an active relationship—you know, movement. See, the plugs are that other part of the story; they are ALWAYS moving by sheer circumstance, so they earn the title of being the ACTIVE participant. Then there's the moment of penetration. If you swap the verb "go" for "enter"—well, then the hole certainly can't go into the plug, but the plug can definitely go into the hole.
Actually, if we look at something like "hanging coats, jackets, or hats on a wall hook," we see how those relationships are also defined by a MOVING BODY. So, nobody is going to take away your right to view things from a different perspective! In fact, I think that's the only way opinions actually progress. But, I don't think you can really spin that into a whole new "worldview." That feels more like a matter of methodology, maybe.

hollowpilot9 said:.... If what you're saying is true, then evolution is simultaneously devolution, regression, reduction, or even a "return to the Stone Age"... But from what I understand, evolution is something else entirely. I've already pointed out the paradox of evolution, which is basically the same as the paradox of technological evolution: where a LOWER, LESS QUALITATIVE LEVEL CREATES a HIGHER, MORE QUALITATIVE LEVEL. It seems like you aren't noticing this—maybe you're ignoring it consciously or unconsciously—but for me, it's a huge observation! So, in an evolutionary context, MAN'S TASK IS TO BUILD A BETTER, MORE QUALITATIVE, AND MORE CAPABLE BEING THAN HIMSELF. Otherwise, Man is simply the end of evolution in the universe.

The emergence of a continuous (whole) human being can't be devolution or regression, and it definitely isn't a "return to the Stone Age." That would be the kind of progress—that leap in KIND—that really should have happened long ago, but never quite did.

As for the other ideas—like searching for the construction of some evolved, higher being distinct from humans, or seeing Man as the final stop for evolution in the cosmos—those views are actually limited by HUMANITY AND THE HUMAN CONDITION. Of course, we have to see the ultimate result of cosmic evolution within our own species; otherwise, everything would feel unnatural. And, honestly, trying to build an evolutionarily advanced being (rather than just a "better" human) feels a bit arrogant to me. I mean, we can't truly know anything we can't perceive with our own senses—so we can't even begin to assume what kind of traits this new species should have. Still, I suppose humans can fantasize about it, since our minds give us this limitless capacity for imagination.

hollowpilot9 said:So... basically, when I look at humanity through an evolutionary lens—both here on Earth and throughout the entire cosmic evolutionary journey—it’s clear that we, as a species, are actually building and constructing a macro-cosmic being: HOMOTERAS. That is my core hypothesis, my foundational thesis, and—of course—it's something I am absolutely NOT backing down from! I truly view this as my own mental breakthrough, which is why I feel I have the moral right to claim it as my own. It’s like this little intellectual gem that I’m just out here sharing with everyone... and hey, how someone chooses to receive it is entirely up to them, not me! Honestly, whether people ignore it, argue against it, or try to dismiss it doesn't really bother me at all—that says more about them than it does about the idea. My focus is just on this intellectual gem, which I find so fascinating because it’s universal—it applies to humans, sure, but also to pigs, horses, fish, plants, and everything else under the sun!

Now we’re getting to the interesting part! It honestly feels like you’re showing all the classic hallmarks of someone who's been "captured" by an idea—you know, that state where we become totally blind to anything that doesn't fit our narrative, while somehow having eyes in the back of our heads to spot everything that actually supports OUR specific hypothesis. I guess it just happens sometimes!
Could you maybe open up a new thread with the title "HOMOTERAS" and lay out all the basic outlines and expectations there? Or—I don't know—do you already have something like that written down somewhere else?

hollowpilot9 said:I basically think that art is just a rearranged phenomenon—something designed to be measured against reason, which, let's face it, is mostly amoral since it belongs to the PREDATOR... Of course, based on my own logic, the relationship between the moral and the amoral always favors the moral—that’s how you define morality—whereas the amoral is just what happens when the amoral outweighs the moral. I guess my whole perspective is centered on the Logos origin of what we call reality and existence itself; traditional philosophy, though, seems to only focus on reality as a standalone thing—kind of like...
The reality of just sitting there—watching one movie after another in a theater without any breaks—is actually kind of wild! I mean, imagine that constant stream of cinema... it’s a trip, I guess!

I’ve always felt that morality is really just this constant tug-of-war between how things actually ARE and how they *ought* to be—you know, what we want to make real. Even when there’s only a tiny bit of something immoral happening, it can feel like way too much sometimes! So, I guess we end up expecting those things to just... vanish, or be completely rooted out, because they simply shouldn't exist in the first place.
But wait—what would that even look like? I mean, I guess reason works with a single standard because it actually points toward and pushes for a greater good that already exists. But Um? It’s different—it basically mocks and tears everything down by offering an even "greater good" than the one reason has already turned into a sacred standard!

Walter Foster87 says: BECAUSE THAT’S JUST THE SHAPE OF IT—CONTINUITY. Change isn't some glitch in the system; it's just how Everything exists.
No, we’re approaching this from a completely different angle—one centered on the CONTINUOUS EXISTENCE OF MAN. What history actually records as "change" is just the temporary, fleeting oscillation between a semi-human state and that of a killer. If we want to talk about what would actually affirm the CONTINUITY OF HUMAN EXISTENCE, we have to look at change through a different lens—specifically, a change based on the two distinct ways a human being (and their inherent humanity) can exist.
Does vision actually feel like one continuous stream to us? I mean, what’s the deal with a blink? Is it just a momentary lapse in sight—a split second where the eye simply *isn't* seeing anything at all? That specific break in perception—that little gap—is exactly what creates a discontinuity in how we view the world. Because if you're trying to argue that vision and blinking together somehow form a single, seamless loop of continuity... well, I have to admit, I haven't exactly encountered a version of "continuity" like that in my life.
Here’s another little deep dive into why oscillation—that constant, rhythmic vibration—is basically the absolute baseline of the entire universe. It’s more than just physics, really; it’s the ultimate intersection where science and philosophy finally shake hands. Or maybe they’re just dancing to the same beat? Either way, it's all there.
So, if you look at everything out there—every single galaxy, star, sun, planet floating in the void—they all seem to be caught up in these apparent circular motions. But here's the kicker: a projection of a circular motion is just a sine wave. And a sine wave? That’s just an oscillation. A wave. It makes you wonder, doesn't it? Is it all just one big, rhythmic pulse?
Every single atom and molecule on this planet has its own specific frequency—they’re all vibrating, oscillating, just constantly humming away at their own little rates. It makes you wonder, doesn't it? If everything is essentially just a series of rhythmic jitters, where does that leave the idea of "solid" matter? Just a bunch of tiny, restless waves masquerading as stuff.
Every single biological movement in the animal kingdom follows an oscillatory pattern—it’s just how things work. And because of that constant back-and-forth, there’s always going to be a DEAD POINT. It’s that momentary state of total stillness where everything just... pauses, before inertia kicks back in to get things moving again. Makes you wonder if anything actually stays truly "active" for more than a split second, doesn't it?
Every single artificial movement—if you really stop to look at it—is basically just an oscillation. It’s all cyclical, isn't it? Just back and forth, over and over again.
Every single biological function out there is oscillatory—they’re nonlinear, not linear! It's all cycles and feedback loops, really. If you think life moves in a straight line, you're missing the entire point, aren't you?
The oscillation of the Logos is essentially the absolute Logos of the entire universe—it’s the core of everything. That’s why harmony pulls us in, while cacophony just... isn't it. It pushes us away.
The insights you pull from an oscillatory, discontinuous world are fundamentally different from anything you’d gather from a linear, continuous one—it's not even a fair comparison. You see, those first kinds of insights? They’re objective—they actually hold truth. But the latter ones? They're purely subjective—just a bunch of illusions. Or maybe just noise masquerading as reality? It's hard to tell sometimes.

Walter Foster87 says that Pragma is really the last one left who actually gives a damn about character shifts—she’d much rather just shove everything under the umbrella of "phenomenology." You, on the other hand, seem obsessed with dissecting things—you're looking for that "discontinuity" between the individual pieces. But here's the thing: what keeps the whole structure together is the fact that each part *is* the whole. When you focus solely on those gaps, you end up missing the internal continuity within the parts themselves—and more importantly, you miss the dynamic way those parts link up to ensure the entire thing stays seamless.
To me, pragmatism is purely existential—it’s that fundamental necessity required just to function in this life—whereas phenomenology is... well, something else entirely. Everything I think, everything I actually do—at least from my own subjective standpoint—seems to point toward synthesis rather than dissection. It’s like, isn't the very idea of discontinuity just another feature of synthesis? A characteristic of waves and oscillatory movement, really. Quanta don't show up in a smooth, continuous stream of time; they appear in intervals.
The whole idea of a "continuous whole" is a total myth—it just doesn't exist. I mean, think about it. The individual elements that make up any given whole are constantly shifting, flickering, oscillating... everything is in flux. It’s all just constant movement under the surface.
Take DAY, for instance—it’s a complete unit, right? And its core elements are day and night. They just cycle back and forth endlessly as the building blocks of that larger entity we call DAY. At least, that’s how I see it, and honestly, it’s pretty hard to talk me out of that perspective—unless, of course, you argue that day and night are actually fixed constants. You know, like two complementary poles forming a single, unchanging whole called DAY, which is itself a constant. If we go down that road, I could get on board with the idea of the CONTINUITY OF THE WHOLE... but then we’re basically standing at the very beginning, at the Logos origin—which, let's be real, is already drifting into a different version of "my" philosophy. So, look—if you’re talking about the wholeness and continuity of the Logos origin, then yeah, you’re absolutely spot on. But if you're referring to what actually emerges *from* that origin? Then you've missed the mark. It’s like saying a human being is a totality and a continuity... but then claiming they aren't. Or vice versa. It’s a bit of a paradox, isn't it? At least, that’s how the world looks from where I'm sitting... maybe?
Why go with that, when we have a much more fitting term right at our fingertips—delusion? I mean, a lie always implies a deliberate attempt to lead SOMEONE ELSE astray just to score a little something for yourself, doesn't it?
That’s why a lie isn't really the direct opposite of truth—it's actually the opposite of wisdom. Which is why we should probably just let them keep their fancy titles, don't you think?
To me, truth and lies are just two different ways to trigger an illusion—whereas wisdom is what allows you to spot the actual Truth hidden within that illusion. Think of it this way: Wisdom and Truth act as constructive correlates, while truth and lies? They’re destructive correlates. An illusion is, essentially, a DECEPTION. Take the old school of thought, for example—back when people were absolutely convinced the Sun revolved around the Earth simply because that’s what their eyes told them. They weren't necessarily lying; they were just trapped in an illusion... their own visual perception was pulling a fast one on them. The moment someone realizes that flipping that logic actually brings them closer to reality, they become wise—even if the sensory deception is still technically happening right in front of them. So, yeah—wisdom and Truth are complementary partners, whereas truth and lies are mutually exclusive forces that basically annihilate one another. If we actually followed that logic, maybe we’d finally pinpoint the exact coordinates where life and death actually reside... wouldn't we?
Walter Foster87 says: It feels more like you’re focusing on the analysis of parts and their synthesis. When we talk about a movie, IT IS A WHOLE—nobody is disputing the individual frames. But, for the same reasons, nobody disputes that dynamic connection that creates a whole, which is clearly a two-hour continuity (a continuous display) of the film. After all, we don't expect a movie to be anything other than a rapid succession of images. Otherwise, we’d be talking about holograms or some kind of 3D projections. So, a film AS A FILM possesses its own undeniable continuity.

hollowpilot9: We’re getting close to something regarding the tuning of "wavelength and frequency." A film is definitely a whole made up of an n-number of still images that either sit still or move. We see them when they are stationary, not when they are moving, yet the impression is one of constant motion. So, everything is the exact opposite of our perception...
Walter Foster87: When you look at things from different angles, you get wildly different results. But what you’re attacking here isn't BELIEF, it's convention. Sometimes it's just a sort of agreement (between left and right) that we inherit from our ancestors; other times, it's a stance adopted through active engagement—basically, movement. You see, the plugs are the other part of the story, which by sheer circumstance ALWAYS MOVE, and thus earn the title of ACTIVE members. Then there's the moment of penetration. If you swap the verb "to go" with the verb "to enter"—well, then a hole can't possibly go into a plug, but a plug can certainly go into a hole.

hollowpilot9: I completely agree, but philosophy isn't built on conventions—it's built on Truth! I hope you agree with that, because if so, when you suggested DELUSION instead of a lie, you were actually talking about the delusions of convention... Just imagine how many people have suffered because they were convinced there was an enemy standing "on the left side," simply because the left side is a convention rather than the Truth!?
Walter Foster87: The emergence of a continuous (whole) human being cannot be devolution or retardation, and it certainly isn't a return to the Stone Age. That would be the actual progress—that improvement IN KIND—which should have happened long ago, but never did.

The other parts—specifically, the quest to build some different (evolutionarily) higher being from man, and seeing man as the endpoint of evolution in the universe—are actually limited BY MAN AND HUMANITY. Of course, within our own kind, we have to see the ultimate result of evolution in the cosmos. ANYTHING ELSE WOULD BE UNNATURAL. And, attempting to construct an evolutionarily advanced being (rather than just a "better" human)—well, that seems somewhat arrogant. Not just because we can't perceive anything we don't have our own senses for (meaning we can't even guess what this new species might look or feel like), but because a human can still fantasize about it, since the mind granted us limitless imagination.

hollowpilot9: Based on what you're saying, every evolutionary stage is LIMITED BY THE BEING THAT MAKES UP THAT STAGE, because you claim evolution is limited BY MAN AND HUMANITY. If evolution doesn't build a being more advanced than the one constituting a given evolutionary stage, then evolution STOPS, the being becomes retarded, and it vanishes... So, I am talking about an evolutionary principle, a LAW of the renewal of existence that must cover the entire range—including the cosmic level of existence. In such an evolutionary context, I am saying that Man and Humanity evolve further toward the macrocosmic being that created them... I'm not saying anything other than what is a notorious fact in biology, and if that's considered arrogant, then any creation of a new human via sexual (or laboratory) processes is also arrogant. This isn't about fantasy, obviously; it's about facts that fantasists fail to see simply because they are too busy fantasizing. It’s well known in the evolution of intellect that visionaries were often dismissed as mere fantasists, yet time always shows that those "fantasists" were actually the ones telling everyone else that they were just fantasizing. That’s essentially my case!? I don't think the evolutionary human is the most perfect being in the universe, which is why I happily fantasize about Homoteras (humanity). Honestly, I find it baffling why people insist on "preventing the caterpillar from becoming a butterfly."
Walter Foster87 says: Now we're getting somewhere interesting. Because you're displaying all the hallmarks of a "prisoner." (That's why we're so blind to what doesn't suit us, yet we have eyes like hawks for anything that supports OUR hypothesis).
Could you pull up the thread titled "HOMOTERAS" and lay out the core concepts and expectations there... or do you already have some of that documented somewhere else?

hollowpilot9: A few different things are intersecting here. First off, there’s my own sense of being "trapped" by this idea—and also completely enamored by it—simply because it surfaced out of thin air as the perfect answer to every major philosophical question I’ve ever grappled with. For years, I actually dodged these ideas—I was honestly a bit terrified of them—because they kept popping up in a way that made me feel like I might be the "first genius in the world" to stumble upon them. That changed when I realized this concept is actually as old as time itself—stretching from the very beginning of existence right up to today. The decision to finally step into the light happened during a period of true wartime desperation, when I decided to put everything down in a book. Then, predictably, what had to happen did happen: people in high places started talking about the exact same thing, just using different terminology. For instance, Bill Gates doesn't use the term Homoteras; he talks about a "NEW BIOLOGICAL ORGANISM." It’s really just an eighteen-year gap in our timelines. Gates was basically just a kid while I was busy writing about Homoteras.

CONTINUED

On page 313 of *Logos origin Philosophy*, there is a chapter titled HOMOTERAS. It says this:
When discussing planetary life, you can no longer ignore the concept of Humanity. In Jewish tradition, there’s this idea of the "GOLEM." (A lengthy quote from Mr. Scholema follows). In any case, those early researchers of life—using methods known only to them—essentially anticipated the relativity of space-time, which science wouldn't actually uncover until much later. Their vision of condensing a "mega-human"—a golem at the scale of an earthly human—is actually a reduction we see in every biological entity, scaling down from a human to the very first cell. The fact that identity remains constant between an adult human and those roughly 60 trillion individual cells is a scientific reality today; logically, the reverse holds true too—from the first cell to the adult. Therefore, the term HOMOTERAS is nothing more than an extrapolation of what we observe from the first cell to the adult, based on the Logos origin. In short, Homoteras is the macro-organism of man, what we call Humanity today. Between a human, humanity, and Homoteras, there is an equals sign; the differences are merely evolutionary stages. The gap between current humanity and Homoteras is simply that Homoteras is an autonomous cosmic macro-organism capable of self-renewal within existence—meaning it is polarly mature. While there have been past ideas—like the golem or that famous Walasov concept—suggesting "a time will come when man will build a new empire among the stars," this points directly toward the idea of Homoteras. However, here Homoteras is clearly defined as a cosmic being with specific characteristics, because those characteristics belong to humanity. So, this isn't some vague metaphysical space entity or a "gaseous vertebrate"; it is a concrete, real Being in the likeness of Humanity. The Logos origin understands that the evolution of both man and humanity moves toward Homoteras. Homoteras is a genuine philosophical concept and substance—an idea above ideas—making it the intellectual frontier for future philosophy. Homoteras is a concrete, actual subject for philosophy, just as the biological Human is the actual subject for science. By philosophizing about Homoteras, one philosophizes about Man and Humanity from the distance of their polar evolution from the Origin to the Origin. By introducing Homoteras into philosophical study, the age-old questions regarding the meaning and purpose of human existence, our history, and our political and technological development finally receive answers and a sense of meaning previously unknown to the human intellect. Man learns what he truly is, where he is headed, his ultimate goal, and where he came from.
I hope this excerpt is enough to show that Homoteras has been living and pulsing for a long time—it has its own organelles, metabolism, circulatory system, nervous system, brain, and, of course, the MIND, which I've already written about.
By the way, if you head over to Evolution.com, you'll find my 10 ESSAYS DISCUSSING THIS, which our dear little evolutionary scientists decisively and smugly DISMISSED, because apparently, the evolution of a worm is far more important than the evolution of man!
Walter Foster87 says: Morality is always found in the relationship between the state of WHAT IS and what SHOULD BE (what ought to be made real, to exist). Even when there is a small amount of immorality—which often feels like too much to us—we EXPECT that it too will vanish, be uprooted, or simply SHOULD NOT BE.
But, in that "WHAT SHOULD BE," the intellect possesses a single metric, because it POINTS TO AND ENFORCES the greater good that exists. Meanwhile, the Mind—sooner or later—mocks and dismantles that by offering an EVEN GREATER GOOD, including the very thing the intellect had established as "sacred" (the standard).
hollowpilot9: I can only repeat what I've already said: To me, everything is moral if it encompasses the creation, development, and maintenance of NATURAL LIFE. Everything is amoral if it opposes natural life, and it is especially immoral to violently disable or terminate life. In that sense, "devouring" is simultaneously moral and amoral, so it really comes down to the relationship, doesn't it? For instance, the world of flora is more moral than the world of fauna. A plant doesn't kill another plant just to eat, whereas animals—and the animal within man (as you put it)—do exactly that. From this, what logically follows as moral versus amoral??

hollowpilot9 said:Does vision actually feel like one continuous stream to us? I mean, think about blinking—is that a literal break in our sight? A moment where the eye just... stops seeing? That tiny gap seems like the exact definition of visual discontinuity. If someone were to argue that vision and blinking actually form a single, seamless loop of continuity, I’d have to admit—I guess I’ve just never experienced anything like that!

Does anyone actually expect watching something to be this static? I mean, unless you’re a robot, watching involves blinking and shifting your gaze around every now and then—it’s just how it works! I guess what’s happening here is a distinction between seeing something as a mere object versus viewing it as a continuous stream of visual input. It’s a subtle difference, maybe, but it really changes the whole perspective on how we perceive things.
When you’re observing something, it naturally includes these little atypical bits that aren't really part of its core essence—so, by the same logic, you don't lose the flow just because of a blink or—well, maybe a slightly longer—sporadic shift in focus. Even if you're watching something over several days or months, I guess we wouldn't count sleep or downtime as a break in that continuity. But—and this is the important part—we definitely shouldn't include a change in perspective (like shifting how you perceive things or altering your observational style) in that same continuous stream!

It’s pretty much the same deal when you’re looking at things from that super narrow perspective—I mean, we aren't going to blame the eye for being tricked by a frame rate of 24 images per second, right? But honestly, that fact doesn't just mess with the whole idea of watching a movie continuously... it actually calls into question our entire sensory perception of reality! I guess if an eye isn't even capable of noticing changes happening at that speed, then it definitely isn't capable of perceiving an ACTUAL event occurring at that velocity. So—if you think about it—the subject isn't really seeing anything CONTINUOUSLY... even with their eyes wide open!

Everything is clearly relative—so I guess we really need to have some equally relative criteria in place. Otherwise, we could just keep developing them—all the way until things get totally absurd!

hollowpilot9 said:All biological movement within the animal kingdom is essentially oscillatory—it’s all waves and cycles! Because of how this works, there’s always going to be a DEAD POINT—a moment of total stillness that basically overcomes inertia. I guess you could say the Logos of oscillation is the absolute Logos of the entire universe... which would make it the ultimate Logos of philosophy, too!

Everything always seems to have some kind of built-in reference that’s either implied or explicitly included—it’s just how it works, I guess! When you start talking about oscillation, you're inherently bringing that point of "stillness" into the mix too. If you try to break down an oscillation to really get a grip on it, you end up splitting it into pieces, and then you inevitably stumble upon what you've already mapped out—basically, that discontinuity between the individual components. But—here’s the thing—as we observe any kind of oscillation, we won't actually be talking about a discontinuity in the oscillation itself until we notice a shift in intensity (the amplitude) or speed (the wavelength). And, well, as long as the motion doesn't actually lose its oscillatory shape, we can't really say there's a discontinuity in the shape of the motion either... maybe? It's all a bit interconnected!

So, I guess everything in this world is relative—but maybe not quite as much as that old Greek guy thought! You know, the one who stood right in front of a speeding carriage because he believed relativity was so extreme that the coach would just... well, pass right through him without causing any real harm. Definitely wouldn't recommend trying that one at home!

hollowpilot9 said:I’ve been thinking about this lately—and I guess it's a bit deep—but there’s such a massive difference between insights gained from an oscillatory, discontinuous world versus those coming from a linear, continuous one. It’s kind of wild when you think about it! To me, it feels like those first kinds of insights are actually objective—you know, truly truthful—whereas the second type? They seem much more subjective—almost deceptive, if that makes sense. Maybe I'm overthinking it, but it feels like a pretty huge distinction!

Alright, fine. Let's just say it's all true—if that's how we're playing it!
So, should we just accept this totally disharmonious discontinuity in human nature—simply because we're living in an era of total discontinuity? I mean, does it even matter if the oscillatory movement continues in that same rhythmic pattern in the opposite direction, or if it shifts into something like broken linear paths, or maybe even something completely irregular and unpredictable? It’s a tough one, I guess!
Or maybe I should just frame the question like this—what would actually happen if only a specific portion of those FUNDAMENTAL movements in nature suddenly took on an ATYPICAL shape? You know, if that discontinuity you claim "isn't there" actually showed up—the one that, for me, is just so incredibly vital?

hollowpilot9 said:For me, pragmatism is really that existential stuff—you know, the things that are just absolutely necessary to actually get through life—whereas phenomenology feels like something else entirely... I guess!

No, just look at how beautifully that aligns with being a killer. I mean, a person—in some way or another—has to actually live, right? And we’re constantly getting caught up in that cycle again and again, almost like a drunkard stumbling over a plank. So, if that's how we live, I guess we have to constantly strive to refine and upgrade that existence. Of course, none of this happens without massive sacrifices, huge losses, and real effort. But then—and this is the kicker—once someone finally builds up these much larger assumptions (or wealth, if you will) that allow them to prove they're a real human being... well, out of those same old primal desires, they'd probably rather metamorphose back into a killer or a butcher. They'd do it just so they can tear everything down, cause total devastation, and then start the whole grueling process all over again!
Phenomenology isn't really about a person experiencing war—that’s just pure pragmatism. It’s more like a path of least resistance, you know? A way of dealing with a known evil. I guess it’s a bit like how early humans would have had this concept of stockpiling food—they probably still enjoyed those periods of plenty, but then they’d turn into cannibals whenever scarcity hit. Of course, that only changed once a more developed consciousness, along with memory and the trauma left behind by those horrors, forced them to accept and actually materialize—most likely—the very first human invention in history!
So, when we look at phenomenology—this whole concept of non-humanity—it feels like humans just aren't naturally wired for it. I guess the only thing we really have going for us, from the very beginning of our species, is this one specific limitation: we haven't quite figured out how to exist as anything other than just private individuals. We just can't seem to break out of that bubble and constitute ourselves as something more than our own separate selves—maybe that's just how we're built!

hollowpilot9 said:...
So, take the concept of a DAY, for instance—it’s this one big, complete whole. But if you look closer at what actually makes up a day, you've got day and night acting as its core elements. They just keep cycling back and forth, right? It's like they're these constant, alternating pieces that build up the entire DAY—the whole unit!

So, let’s look at it this way—a person is really just a whole package, right? And within that package, you've got two main elements: the peaceful human side and the warring beast side. It’s just the natural order of things, I guess! We probably need to stop entertaining the idea that human nature is somehow richer, more humane, or more magnificent than that—as much as we might want it to be.

So, what exactly is it that stops you, me, and everyone else here from just grabbing some guns, dropping logs across the roads, or—you know—just straight-up looting, killing, and burning whatever happens to come our way?
It’s even more important because we know a period like this will roll around again—it’s inevitable, really. But next time, I guess someone else might be way more organized and actually ready for that "devilish pirate" chaos than we are. So, why would we just sit back and let others dictate the where, when, and how of the next Great festival? We can't just leave the timing of that big pragmatic celebration up to them!
I mean—what are we even waiting for at this point? Are we really just sitting around until they declare the end of this "pathetic peace" again? Or maybe they’ll start lecturing us about politics like it's some kind of "art of the possible"... honestly, I don't know!

hollowpilot9 said:...
That’s just how I see things—and honestly, it’s pretty tough to talk me out of it! Unless, of course, you're arguing that day and night are these unchanging constants—you know, like two complementary poles that together form the totality of the DAY, which is itself a constant. If we look at it that way, I could totally get on board with the idea of CONTINUITY OF THE WHOLE... but then we’d basically be right back at the beginning, at the Logos origin—which, I guess, would be a different kind of philosophy altogether! So, if you’re talking about the wholeness and continuity of the Logos origin, then you are absolutely spot on... but if you mean the stuff that actually *comes from* the origin, then maybe you're off base? It’s a bit tricky—you’re right if you say a Human is wholeness and continuity, but you’re wrong if you say a human is wholeness and continuity... well, you know what I mean! At least, that’s how the world looks to me, anyway!

So, I don't think there’s really such a thing as a "short circuit" here—unless you look at it this one way: does a person actually have the potential to become a true Human being, or do they just not? If they don't, well, then they aren't really to blame or responsible for it. But if they *do*—then things are looking pretty bleak and miserable for us all, I guess.

CONTINUATION

hollowpilot9 said:I totally agree—philosophy isn't built on mere social conventions, it’s rooted in Truth! I really hope you're on the same page there—so, when you suggested using the word "delusion" instead of just calling something a lie, I think you were actually pointing toward the delusions created by convention... Just imagine how many people have suffered simply because they were convinced that someone standing on their "left side" was the enemy? After all, being on the left is just a matter of convention, not the Truth!

Unfortunately, philosophy can't really exist in a vacuum—it needs some kind of anchor in reality to hold onto. I guess that’s just the job description for every new philosopher, right? They have to step in and start questioning and testing everything that came before them. It's especially tricky because every philosophical system seems to carry this sort of terrifying necessity within it. On one hand, they try to present themselves as this seamless, logical evolution of ideas—where every single piece fits together perfectly to create a complete whole. But on the other hand, they inevitably hit these messy, problematic, or even totally unsolvable moments. When faced with that tug-of-war between staying convincing and dealing with those unresolved gaps, philosophers tend to reach for ways to "hide their weak spots." Maybe that’s actually pretty smart—if a teaching isn't convincing, people might just toss it aside without a second thought. So, in a weird way, a theory only really gets a chance if it produces some NEGATIVE effects, forcing future generations to actually start thinking for themselves and carry on the work. But then again—that brings us back to your territory—the sheer inhumanity of the most brilliant minds!
So, I guess we could say that diving into philosophy really ought to start by questioning the "solidity" of the core foundations someone's learning is built upon—kind of like checking if the ground beneath your feet is actually stable before you start building!

hollowpilot9 said:So, based on what you’re saying—if I'm following your logic correctly—every single evolutionary stage is essentially boxed in by the beings that actually make up that level. It’s like you're arguing that evolution is fundamentally limited by humanity and our own human nature. If evolution doesn't manage to build something more advanced than the creatures currently occupying a specific stage, then the whole process just stalls out—the being becomes stagnant and eventually fades away. That's why I'm really leaning toward this idea of an evolutionary principle—a literal Law of Renewal—that has to encompass everything, from our local existence all the way up to the cosmic scale!

Moving on from that... I mean, making an assumption like that isn't really about what the assembly decides—it’s not about how we set up our immunity institutes, or even things like dual citizenship or building cyborgs. It just doesn't quite work that way, I guess!
So, I guess the whole idea here is that a person’s sense of fulfillment really boils down to how much they achieve in their professional life—at least, that's the assumption!
So, what comes next? Honestly, that’s already drifting into the territory of even more abstract speculation—I guess you could say we're moving into pure theory now!
Honestly, why even bother stressing over it? I mean, we still have that one big mission we were actually born to tackle! I guess all those doubts, wild hypotheses, and endless speculations are probably better left to the experts—you know, once they actually start happening in the Real World.
So, in this somewhat meager existence of ours—and let’s be honest, we all try our best to stay human—it feels pretty phenomenal (well, if we're actually capable of it!) to dive into this whole debate. It’s that big question of whether we’ll see a split in the human form itself—you know, maybe some branch of our species evolves into entirely new intellectual beings with, I don't know, bigger heads and smaller bodies? Or perhaps humanity just splits into these hyper-efficient "worker bee" types while the traditional human race slowly fades away... Or—and this is where it gets really wild—instead of waiting on biological evolution to catch up, we might trigger an evolutionary revolution through pure tech. We could end up creating a brand-new bio-technical species from scratch—living things that can actually be born, grow, reproduce, and die just like us!
Well, I guess our assignments are just way more "down-to-earth"—they feel much more certain, closer to home, and honestly, pretty unmistakable!

hollowpilot9 said:It was during that intense period of "wartime despair"—if you can call it that—that I finally decided to push my book out into the world. It felt like the right moment for a definitive leap forward! In my book, *Philosophy of the Origin*, there’s actually a specific chapter on page 313 dedicated to HOMOTERAS. Basically, the only real difference between humanity today and the Homoteras is that Homoteras exists as an autonomous macro-being within the universe—it has this unique ability to constantly renew itself through its own existence, which makes it, well, polar-mature. I guess you could say it's a step beyond us! We've seen similar concepts floating around before—like those old myths about giants, or even that famous idea from Wallace about how humans will eventually build a new empire among the stars. To me, that really points right toward the core concept of Homoteras.
By the way, I actually have 10 of my own ESSAYS over at Evolution.com that dive deep into this—though our local "expert" evolutionists have been pretty quick to tear them apart, apparently thinking worm evolution is somehow way more critical than human evolution!

You can find them myself right here at http://www.evolucija.com
Is that it? Is that the whole story?

hollowpilot9 said:... I can only restate what I’ve already said: To me, anything that involves the creation, development, and sustenance of NATURAL LIFE is moral, whereas anything that goes against natural life is amoral—and specifically, it's immoral to forcibly prevent or cut life short. ... .

And, well, there's the rub. Is it really NATURAL for humans to kill one another, to pointlessly destroy what's been created, or to engage in mass delusions and attempts to create inhuman (insane) individuals and societies...? Or is it more in our nature to create goodness based on the patterns we find in the Mind and—from there—engage in relationships with the REST OF NATURE that aren't quite "natural," just so we can boast about some "knowledge" while living like wild animals without any laws at all?

hollowpilot9 said:...
So, "devouring" is simultaneously moral and amoral, which means we might be talking about a matter of perspective!? For instance, maybe the plant world is more "moral" than the animal kingdom. A plant doesn't kill another plant just to eat, whereas animals—and the "animal" within humans (as you put it)—certainly do. Based on that, what logically follows regarding what is moral versus what is amoral?? ...

"Devouring" is perfectly fine for a human-like creature once everyone else has severed those INTERPERSONAL BONDS, essentially relegating him to the status of just another human-like animal.
In those circumstances, everything is permitted within the hierarchy of strength, provided it ensures survival.
Nature itself doesn't leave much room for some higher morality where plants rule over animals, because every single species HAS TO WORK at its own preservation and growth (basically, bringing the species into that harmonious relationship with the environment that we're all willing to call "perfect").
Human nature is unique because it vastly extends the time from a species' origin to reaching its full potential—especially since that journey involves the constant reinvention of endless low-level inventions, developing their production and reproduction, and trying to harmonize all that "wild" nature into a whole. That perfection isn't found in the finality of the Mind, but rather in a way of existing—in the completion (the fullness) of interpersonal relationships.