Cȯsꭑọ ∴ ọꭑƨȯƆ @cosmiccitizen@schelling.pt

I should confess that I believe only Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism make the top tier of metaphysical wisdom traditions. Judaism and Buddhism are also strong but are merely "A-tier." Western empiricism is a strong B-tier but could leapfrog the entire A-tier if we truly get some hockey stick graphs.

Emersonian reason: Every time I have felt truly hurt by someone, they were superior to me in some way. My job is to decide what way they were superior to me and to decide how I might grow in response.

Kantian reason: if everyone lashed out in wrath at the first safe opportunity, the world would be much worse. Conversely, if everyone kept their wrath under wraps, the world could be much better.

Augustinian reason: I am not yet really ready to fully become a wrathful person. A wrathful person is consigning himself to permanence, to stasis, to death at the hands of whatever inspired the rage. I am not yet done changing and possibly growing. I may yet get over this.

It's really interesting to read about how much of the point of that MIT Symposium on Information Theory (9/11/56) was to say "fuck you" to behaviorist psych. Most of the presenters were organizing around this idea: that the effectiveness of programmatic rules in computing proved that it was meaningful and useful to discuss human intellection (at least) in minimal conceptual terms. The computer proved that "memory" wasn't just a hobgoblin of the Freudians.

George Miller considered 9/11/56 to be the birthday of cognitive science.

We all remember September 11, and how it changed the world forever.

At the world's first conference on AI in 1956, Allan Newell explained how how Logic Theorist was capable of proving theorems from the Principia Mathematica; immediately after him, Noam Chomsky explained why behaviorist psychology was computationally incompatible with the basic tasks of grammatical language use.

Never forget!

Sending powerful psychic messages back to create an alternate timeline where von Neumann somehow gets surgery for bone cancer in '54 and lives another 40 years.

Do you know what else could have been the cover story that week? Himmler announced the final solution on the radio. El Alamein began. India's Congress voted for independence. Instead, a performance of Shostakovich's Leningrad symphony on NBC radio was THE story.

Can you even imagine a time when a Soviet composer's contributions were important enough to the US that the score was pursued by espionage? and the composer was featured on the cover of Time Magazine?

It feels like Shostakovich mainly uses repetition to suggest something like accessibility.

Maybe a related question is whether there are trainings or courses that you'd recommend to a normie like me to upskill in this area.

I have an account through work that I can use for up to $800/yr worth of "professional development." I think I want to get access to an OpenAI product but I can't really decide which one.

Does anyone have a recommendation?

My use is probably going to be pretty normie-ish. I do a lot of work with text and I've never really generated images except for little stunts.

Some people think one thing and then later think another? They learn from experience, including the experience of unexpected feelings? Couldn't be me, assholes.

If they never come to regard themselves with the same contempt that I'm currently using, then that means that my current contempt has lost its prospective mooring and can only be explained with reference to my current affect or my past experiences. And that would imply that I'm a person who gets changed and altered by my experiences! I do not want this! I want to be a person whose judgments are inviolable and outside of history. Satisfied security in my judgment is important for my self-concept!

Years from now, the people supporting [trend] will recognize that their language is [derogatory term] and they will regard themselves with specifically the same contemptuous feelings that I currently hold for them.

It is important for my sense of shrewd detachment that I believe all of this.

Other reasons not to let fly:
- I am still embarrassed about one dumb way that I reacted to his shitty behavior and that could be used to hurt me even now
- I am big mad and it's still a good general rule not to act on anger
- it's a small world and he has had 10+ years to build up goodwill among the people at his level
- his wife is even worse than he is, so any lesson I manage to import on him will ultimately fail to find long-term uptake

For years I have nursed a hatred of a former who traumatized me, and soon I will be in a position secure enough to freely say some really wrathful things to or about him.
I'm struggling to think of reasons why I shouldn't. I honestly haven't moved on and I can't really see that it's likely that I will.
My main hesitation is that I don't want to hear his response. I know that makes me a bad person but it's the truth.

Gauss was an OG schizo poster

The only way to fail the VK test is to be driven to anxious upset by it.
The only way to pass the VK test is to disengage from it, affectively.

My fan theory about the Voight-Kampf test is that it is a deliberate placebo of Kafkaesque tediosity.
Functional humans have an affective adaptation to absurd bureaucracy, namely dorsal vagal dis-engagement.
But something like a machine -- especially a machine that fears its own unconcealment -- is constantly making predictions about the next steps. It fears the efficacy of the VK test, but it has no way to estimate its own achievement relative to absurd questioning. This anxiety is its tell.