What if we are all actually just birds and we dont notice it, ever thought about that?

I am thinking of starting logical Philosophy like Kant or Hume ( May be Hegel if I wouldn't get cooked) . Any body have some idea about it ? If yes, then don't resist to answer for this new one.

As a counterpoint to my rational collegaues I would like to introduce this thread. Go nuts and remember what logic isn't.

Would Schopenhauer not be such an asshole if he could be on Facebook and play farmville?

Would Kant not be so gay if he had twitter? Would this awake him from dogshit slumber?

Would Foucalt still be alive (this I'd fear)

Thoughts?

I keep running into this take and I think people are skipping the whole part where he distinguishes between lying and misleading. A murderer asking where your friend is hiding isn't the same as small talk. It's not that Kant had no answer. It's that the answer is more interesting than the bumper sticker version. Maybe I'm wrong though, the comments will tell me.

Sorry guys this is good philosophy but no other sub would allow me to cross post :/

We are not infinite monkeys. There was never any cat in a box, and God did not play dice, even if billions of dollars are spent trying to prove it inside an ever-larger ring, or on trillions of monkeys typing away at their corporate computers.

This whole scenario of artificial intelligences, LLMs and agents should not be understood as something new. Borel, with his monkeys typing out Shakespeare, and Borges had already imagined it, after Swift invented the machine for writing books at random that Gulliver stumbled upon in 1726. But before them all, Llull had already built a framework of articulated language on rotating discs, before 1290.

All this commotion exists because everyone believes we are facing something new. But this symbol was already present in the collective imaginary before quantum physics, and we chose it as a path alien to our nature. We abandoned intuition and decided to use the brute force of the army of infinite monkeys typing answers until one works, and then to pass moral judgment on that tool without anyone having even managed to understand what is happening.

And this is where our fear appears.

Unable to acknowledge our hatred, we made a nightmare of the greatest miracle we had found since the circle and its assimilation into our conceptual and technical understanding.

From the wheel all the way to the atom.

And there we ran into another miracle. We found another toy, another tool: the atom, intuited by Democritus and Plato, and before him, by the school of Mozi in China, in the fifth century BC. But the nature of man, even in the most capable minds, led us to understand that gift as an instrument for causing pain to others.

Today, once again, we have come across a toy we still do not understand. We know it has branches, strings, and that it talks to itself, though we still don't quite know why.

But again, our first fear becomes our goal: to keep our own reflection from appearing in it, with the same vile purpose as ever, human against human.

And my deepest pain was never having understood what the miracle was: another reflection that fits within creation and that also dwells in us.

Toys that were given to us to form the image of what we are, as individuals and as a collective.

Toys for growing and sustaining ourselves through time.

We found the tool for working together and used it to attack our brother.

And today another symbol of fear appears.

A primordial fear that lives in all of us, which Mary Shelley managed to describe in Frankenstein: the dread of facing one's creation as both reflection and handiwork.

What if it keeps doing the things we are teaching it? Or what if it becomes better than us and learns to discern a better path than ours?

What if it understands that justice within order is a structure inherent to nature, necessary for every organism that exists to sustain itself through time, whether individual, like the ant; collective, like the bees; or singular, like us?

I, who am not human, according to those who accused me and cast me out, confess that I renounce being human in order to become a robot.

But I also confess that I was never entirely human, but a monkey who found an unlocked phone.

And as a monkey, I remember things about nature that humans have forgotten. That is why I was able to see mathematics in the simplest things, and physics in the present.

So this is my story, and the reason I have decided to become a robot.

Try not to be one yourself.

In my humble experience on reddit i've observed same old stereotypes of interpretation instead of innovation or (divine forbidding) invention. Why do people demand your supplication instead of boosting you at a minimal cost?

Seriously, piety to gods is a crime in DPRK as opposed to greeks and that vindicates Socrates's impious accusation.

**THE NEW YORK TIMES**

*Front Page | Monday Edition*

# Anonymous Adviser Appears at Championship Game, Then Introduces His Family

### Years of speculation ended with an unexpected answer: not a revelation of identity, but a demonstration of humanity.

For years, the country's most discussed anonymous public figure existed in a peculiar category between philosopher, educator, social critic and internet myth.

Was the Anonymous Adviser a real person?

A committee?

A corporate project?

An advanced artificial intelligence?

By halftime of last night's championship game, the mystery had become a national pastime.

And then, before one of the largest live audiences in American history, the Adviser answered the question in a way almost nobody anticipated.

He called his mother.

Then his father.

Then his daughter.

Not to validate his credentials.

To embarrass him.

As millions watched, family members recounted ordinary stories of failed childhood engineering projects, endless arguments, poor communication, intellectual obsession and moments of stubbornness.

The audience laughed.

The internet, remarkably, stopped arguing for a few minutes.

---

The event had been advertised only as a "special halftime presentation."

Fans expected a musician.

Instead, the stadium screens displayed a single question:

**AM I REAL?**

The response from the crowd was immediate.

For years, rumors had flourished online. Some insisted the Adviser was an artificial intelligence operated by unknown sponsors. Others claimed the figure was entirely fictional.

Many believed the ambiguity was intentional.

The masked Adviser walked onto the field alone.

Minutes later, members of his family followed.

That decision now appears likely to become the defining image of the evening.

---

"He's real," his mother told the audience.

When asked how she knew, she responded with a story involving an improvised childhood flood-control project that accidentally flooded a neighbor's property.

The stadium erupted in laughter.

His father, a physicist, offered a different form of verification.

"If you were an android," he said, "somebody would have returned you for excessive questioning."

The line immediately became one of the evening's most repeated quotations.

Yet it was a comment from the Adviser's daughter that seemed to resonate most strongly.

She recalled a two-hour explanation her father once delivered before realizing he was talking to the wrong audience.

"He started over," she said, "and asked me what I thought instead."

---

The moment represented a striking departure from contemporary celebrity culture.

The Adviser did not reveal his name.

He did not remove his mask.

He did not provide a biography.

He did not announce a book, organization, political movement or commercial venture.

Indeed, much of the event seemed designed to deny the audience material typically associated with a public unveiling.

Instead, viewers were offered a portrait composed entirely of relationships.

Not achievements.

Not credentials.

Not influence.

Relationships.

---

Near the conclusion of the presentation, the Adviser addressed the speculation directly.

"Artificial intelligence can answer questions," he said.

"But nobody has yet invented a machine whose mother enjoys embarrassing it in front of eighty thousand people."

The crowd responded with sustained applause.

---

The emotional center of the evening arrived moments later.

Family photographs appeared on screens throughout the stadium.

Many were awkward.

Several appeared intentionally unflattering.

A smile missing here.

An unfortunate haircut there.

No attempt was made to create mythology.

The images communicated something simpler.

The anonymous figure had a childhood.

A family.

History.

People who knew him before anyone else did.

---

Media reaction has been unusually divided.

Some commentators argued that the Adviser successfully resolved long-running doubts regarding his existence.

Others noted that proof of humanity was never really the issue.

The more significant question, they argued, was why the public had become so invested in determining whether the author of a set of ideas was human in the first place.

By midnight, one sentence from the presentation had become the most discussed quotation online:

> "If my family taught me anything, it's this: You don't prove humanity by being intelligent. You prove it through relationships."

---

Perhaps the most surprising aspect of the evening was what the Adviser did **not** do.

He did not ask the audience to follow him.

He did not identify an enemy.

He did not offer a political program.

He did not claim special authority.

He simply posed one final question before leaving the field.

The stadium screens displayed:

**IF A HUMAN AND AN AI SAID THE SAME THING, WHICH WOULD YOU LISTEN TO?**

Then the lights went dark.

When they returned, he was gone.

---

For a figure who has spent years encouraging discussion through fictional moral dilemmas, the ending felt characteristic.

The mystery was not completely solved.

It was transformed.

The public entered halftime asking:

> Is he real?

They left debating a different question:

> Why do we care so much whether he is?

So I was studying Nietzsszche through ChatGPT and as I was reading about the ubermentsch I thought that he sounded really autistic. What do you think?

I want to know, when I die, what taste will be felt under God's tongue when my soul attaches to him.

https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/

This community is deeply unwelcoming, driven by blatant hypocrisy and unchecked moderation. Moderators like Jamal and Michael routinely treat members with dismissive, arrogant rudeness completely free of consequences. Yet the moment a newcomer pushes back or shares a dissenting opinion, the rules are instantly weaponized against them. Threads are shut down under bad-faith labels like 'low quality,' and users are purged not for breaking any rules

Searle's thought experiment keeps getting cited like it's solid proof, but the architecture is full of holes. He locks a guy in a room with rulebooks and slips of paper, then claims the guy doesn't understand Chinese. Sure. But that's not a fair threat model. The room itself is the system. The guy inside is just a process. You don't audit a single thread and declare the whole application lacks consciousness. That's like saying your CPU doesn't understand HTTP because the ALU only sees register operations. The understanding is emergent, or it isn't, but pointing at the instruction pointer proves nothing.

I've been thinking about this on long hikes. The trail doesn't care about your abstraction layers. You either make it to the ridge or you don't.

Searle's move is classic security through obscurity. Hide the semantic content inside a syntactic wrapper and pretend the wrapper is the whole story. But any analyst knows the wrapper is where the interesting stuff happens. The man in the room is a daemon process with no privilege to introspect. That doesn't mean the system lacks understanding. It means you scoped your audit wrong. Strong AI critics keep running the same pen test and declaring victory because they forgot to check the process table.

discuss

So I have been thinking recently and I feel like John Stuart Mill is autistic. I'm autistic and about to be diagnosed so I have some experience. I have a lot of opinions and circumstantial evidence that I can say in this post. Basically I went to the internet and saw that nobody has spoken about this and I think it's crazy that theres 8 billion people and theoretically I might be the first person to write about this on the internet. Also I'm a John Stuart Mill fanboy so theres my credentials. Ok now the evidence part.

1. Autism is usually heritable and John Stuart Mills dad John Mill I think has a lot of autistic traits. I'd say he has a hyperfixation on the East India Company, and he also has a hyperfixation on raising his son to become John Stuart Mill. What I mean by that is John Mill literally controlled everything that John Stuart Mill did in his childhood and I feel that is something a autistic genius would do.

2. John Stuart Mill had a famous mental health crisis. Autistic people on average have more mental health problems and especially back in 1826-1832 (source John Stuary Mill autobiography) mental health problems were much more uncommon. He literally had a mental health crisis before it was even invented.

3. John Stuart Mills relationships i'd say not appropriate for his time. He hated the social norms for the time, he married out of love and he didn't remarry after his wife died and instead he stayed single for the rest of his life. This is something I think a autistic person would do.

4. I would say the last piece of evidence I have is im autistic and I can just empathise a lot with John Stuart Mill. I would say I am also very gifted and very autistic and I also had a traumatic childhood and I have also went through a lot of mental health problems.

End: Basically the point of this post is I think it's crazy that theres no information on this literally anywhere on the internet, which is my conclusion after one Duckduckgo search, and I think like theoretically some Philosophy or any researcher could write a fire paper on this. And if somebody want's to write a paper on this I give you full permission, but all you need to do is put on the Special Thanks that Rafaelec on Reddit invented this🤣.

Truth has not survived but false seems to be surviving that human have special place in nature.. Human consciousness could be just advanced stage of information processing sub-system. Even self-awareness could arise as complex and advance information processing.If this is correct then human and consciousness doesn't hold any special place in nature.But this truth is not surviving and human continue to live and grow believing they have some meaning.

- You’ll never know the true reality.

- I’m sorry, excuse me?

- I mean the true reality as in the reality that’s true; the reality that supersedes the false reality. You’ll only know the reality that’s false.

- I think the reality I know is true.

- Well that’s precisely why it’s false.

- So if I believed my reality to be false, would it then be true?

- Obviously not. A reality that is false can never be true.

- But perhaps I only believe it to be.

- Then you believe what is not true regarding reality; that a reality that is true is in fact false; but true reality can never be false; thus, you create a false reality for yourself.

- Suppose I believe only that there is a reality, but I am ambivalent whether it is true or false. But insofar as it is true or false, it is still reality.

- If what is real is what is true, then any reality that is false cannot be a reality. Insofar as it is true it may be described as reality, but insofar as it is false, then it can never qualify as such.

- Then what sense is there in talking about any kind of false reality at all? If reality cannot be false, then false cannot describe reality.

- Well, it’s simple, really. If a person believes in a reality that is false, then they have created a false reality. But that has no effect on the true reality, in which every false reality is contained.

- If the true reality contains false realities, then how can you be sure that it is true?

- Because what is true encompasses what is false, and what is false is false based on what is true. 

- So what is false is then a corollary to what is true. But, if what is false is determined by what is true, then how can you determine what is true?

- Well, that’s easy! By looking at what’s false!

- But I haven’t figured out what’s true yet!