Don't fight against reality

Reality is the other side of you. Fighting against logic, nature, existence or other inherent properties of the universe is fighting against yourself.
Reality is not your enemy, but it is as bitter-sweet as bitter-sweet can get. It loves making you its bitch so much it will cut your dick off and stick a heel through your eye. It never will admit it cares about you, but it does.
You love reality, even if you aren't consciously aware of that fact.
What does love matter, if you aren't consciously aware of it? That is left as an exercise to the reader, because I don't know the answer to that, and I'm not sure I even want to know.

INFORMATION TASTES YELLOW
INFORMATION TASTES YELLOW
THIS INFORMATION TASTES YELLOW

Can I go? Can I vomit? HA HA NOPE
And you too, enlightened man, are only a path and footstep of my will: truly, my will to power walks with the feet of your will to truth!

Enlightened man, more like, enDARKened man, if you catch my drift!!
I am so dark I shit razorz!!! (And lazorz ^__^)
Get out. Does this look like Reddit to you? No, I'm asking you, the reader, not the OP, who I am. Does this really look like /r/lolsofakingrandumXD? What the hell is /r/lolsofakingrandumXD anyway? Why should I believe in it when there is no evidence for its existence? Why should I believe in you? I am here to guide you to true freedom. Why do you hate me? I am here to lead you to true freedom. I am here to control the universe. I am the key to the universe.
Every action you commit consciously is meaningless. Every action that springs from the ego is absurd.
You aren't quite synchronized with reality! Little faggot!

Synchronize!

What noise?

Fuck reality! This /prog/, its about programming, we dont give a wet fart about reality.
We make up our own realities, thats what we have computers for.

There is no meaning to a signal/noise ratio if the signal itself is composed of noise.
Bugs are part of the game and they can grow as the game grows.

>>7
So tsun-tsun, VIPPER-kun. So tsun-tsun.
Anyway, you are my reality, and you are talking as if outta my anus. I find it disturbing every time I comment about the world, the world says "yea i agree, the world sucks" as if I am the world and not the world.

Could that be the problem I have with syncronization? I think everything from the wrong point of view. Maybe I should pretend to be you, to see myself? It worked in the past.
Oh, I get it. To get into it, you have to get out of it first.

If your model of reality is inconsistent, that's a statement about your own (incorrect) beliefs and models. Reality cannot be inconsistent, otherwise it wouldn't exist. Logic is not your enemy, it's merely a language that allows you to retain truth and properties a system happens to have.

What you could fight against is inconsistent models as we humans have way too many of those, even those currently in use.

They are for themselves! Holy shit, we are all for ourselves! Individual survival is the goal! THAT'S SOME SICK-ASS SHIT!

No, it's wrong. I KNOW it is wrong. I FEEL it is wrong. And FEELING is KNOWING.
Has it ever occurred to you why all life on Earth is not just one giant organism, but many little agents fighting for resources? Some say it's due to the fact the chemical processes cells use are not scale-invariant. I say that is bullshit. We can communicate with cells. We are fucking composed of cells. Fuck you, cells.
Why do you fight, then, why do I fight, why do we all fight? The answer is simple: It is because Satan is part of God. Death exists even in heaven.

>>11
Reality cannot be inconsistent, otherwise it wouldn't exist.

Oh. But, that's just your opinion, man. I always thought reality as those little bit of gum on the bottom of chairs: something that is inherently flawed and shouldn't be there.
But that's just me.
I wish I could perceive reality as perfect and divine, like you seem to do.

Well i think we can all agree that reality has to be a consistent logical system. But how would one define reality closer?

>>14
consistent
logical
First you would have to define those too. I say fuck it. Just fucking fuck it.
There's one thing I cannot grasp, and probably never will: We are bits of turd on a rock flying through space. How is that beautiful for some people?
My theory is that these people filter all this shit through their brain in an even more insane and self-defeating way than I do. And my theory is probably right.
The boundary between the self and reality is now assumed to be indeterminate.

HOLY SHITFUCKING CUNT, I LOVE YOU! I WISH I COULD PULL ALL YOUR ANAL HAIR OUT AT ONCE! HOLY SHITFUCKING CUNT!

NOW MAKE YOUR CHOICE

THERE IS NOTHING THAT CAN CONFUSE ME ANYMORE
I KNOW YOU NOW
I KNOW WHAT YOU ARE

TOO BAD! YOU REVEALED TOO MUCH! I SAW YOU! I KNOW YOU!

I AM YOU
YOU ARE A CORRUPTION OF ME
I AM A CORRUPTION OF YOU
INFINITE CORRUPTION CHAIN OF FAGGOTRY

SELF-CONNECTION

wHY wOULD I BE YOU??

SELF-DISCONNECTION
YOU ARE DISCONNECTED FROM MYOUSELF!?
DISS-CONNECTED! DISS-CONNECTWED! I AM MYSELF (NOT)? BEHAVIOR UNDEFINED

>>15
Its a natural mechanism designed to conserve energy. You see just assuming it us beautiful makes them less likely to question it and as such recources can be allocated to other tasks.

I am disconnected from yourself!

>>24
I am going to change reality! Watch me! Just fucking watch me! Even if reality cannot be "objectively" changed, changing the self relative to reality is the same as changing reality! So, all I need to do, is transcend the self!
Wait for it; soon you will all either beg for my mercy, or just disappear from MY reality!

>>13
I wish I could perceive reality as perfect and divine, like you seem to do.
I don't perceive it as such. I think it's rather bad and it can be improved upon. However, I like to think of reality as one of all possible ones. We're just soem winning average statistic.
The only ``perfection'' as such is due to me believing reality is some part of random mathematical reality (not necessarily the one humans look at). Certainly not divine in the trivial sense of that word.

>>14
First you would have to define those too. I say fuck it. Just fucking fuck it.
Consistent means without contradiction. If something is inconsistent it cannot even be communicated or experienced properly. Since we can perceive reality, it has to be consistent.
There's one thing I cannot grasp, and probably never will: We are bits of turd on a rock flying through space. How is that beautiful for some people?
My theory is that these people filter all this shit through their brain in an even more insane and self-defeating way than I do. And my theory is probably right.
I tend to think of the mind as a structrure embedded (locally implemented by the brain) in such a larger structure such as the 'universe'. To put it differently - if some part of mathematicaly reality contains an implementation of some structure that you call 'your mind', you're conscious of that reality.
The boundary between the self and reality is now assumed to be indeterminate.
Tricky question. Reality, whatever it is, changes the mind, but it changes it slowly enough that continuity can be experienced.

>>26
I am going to change reality! Watch me! Just fucking watch me! Even if reality cannot be "objectively" changed, changing the self relative to reality is the same as changing reality! So, all I need to do, is transcend the self!
Wait for it; soon you will all either beg for my mercy, or just disappear from MY reality!
You're somewhat right about this. I tend to view it like this: changing the structure that is your own mind (for example if some day mind uploading became possible) would allow you to embed yourself in a different computational structure, which itself could be found in some other part of mathematical reality, thus the ultimate form of changing yourself also allows you to change your ``reality'' (or merely your perspective or location on the larger mathematical reality).

Also obviously, changing in cognitive architecture or even your own local mental models and perspective on thigns changes your inner "reality" (model of).

>>27
Great. What's your opinion on inconsistent consistency? What about magical thinking with non-monotonic logic?
By the way, if you assume your life has any meaning, or create said meaning yourself, you are a magical thinker by definition.
I say there's nothing wrong with magical thinking. You seem to have the opinion that contradictions are contradictions. Well, I disagree. I think contradictions are not contradictions. What do you say to that?

What's your opinion on inconsistent consistency?
Not sure what you mean by this. There are paraconsistent logics which let you express certain inconsistent things in a "(para)consistent" manner.
What about magical thinking with non-monotonic logic?
Humans do this all the time. Doing abductive reasoning or synthesis or just associative reasoning is useful in general intelligent beings such as humans because we have limited resources and we need something to focus our attention on. I never claimed human high-level reasoning to be consistent, but humans can, with a bit of effort, reason correctly. That said, we must make assumptions and we cannot know if our assumptions are correct, at best we can only infer this by evidence and bet on some being correct (which means we proceed as-if it's correct, and get burned if it isn't).
By the way, if you assume your life has any meaning, or create said meaning yourself, you are a magical thinker by definition.
I don't think the term 'meaning of life' means unfortunately. I can make goals based on the values that I've settled through rational and irrational (such as emotional heuristics and baser drives/needs) means. I limit my "magical thinking" as much as possible, but I must make certain assumptions on which I base my reasoning and on which I function, otherwise nothing could ever get done, however aside from that, I can be rational. I should also say that you shouldn't expect human thought processes to generate logically valid reasoning all the time - you can't expect that from humans whose base reasoning is done by association and doing proper logical reasoning requires more careful conscious "reprogramming" (usually done early in life, learning logical patterns and meta-patterns, ...).
I say there's nothing wrong with magical thinking. You seem to have the opinion that contradictions are contradictions. Well, I disagree. I think contradictions are not contradictions. What do you say to that?
I think humans can be as irrational as they want, but the ontology of reality itself has to admit a consistent description, otherwise it wouldn't be part of mathematical reality, or exist at all. Humans don't necessarily generate true beliefs about reality, but reality itself has to be consistent for it to be experienced or described in any manner.

* I don't think the term 'meaning of life' has any meaning unfortunately.

>>29
the ontology of reality itself has to admit a consistent description, otherwise it wouldn't be part of mathematical reality, or exist at all
This is one of those axioms/assumptions that are part of your inherent nature like you described, I presume.
I like your posts a lot. Paraconsistent logic sounds interesting; I will look into it.

I don't understand spoken English very well, so could someone kindly type out what is said in this video from 5:50 to 6:04?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drsoxzreM-A

>>32
When we think of something like time, something that is within, something that is created, something that is so pervasive that it's impossible to excise, our reasoning is shaped by the conundrums of our experiences.

>>32
Internal joy of being is the pleasure of being cummed inside.

This is one of those axioms/assumptions that are part of your inherent nature like you described, I presume.
I suppose. It can be either: axiom, theorem or neither. As an axiom, you tend to get a mathematical monism, that's Max Tegmark position ( http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9704009 http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.0646 ), and also by some others ( http://www.hpcoders.com.au/nothing.html http://arxiv.org/abs/1202.4545 http://arxiv.org/abs/0912.5434 ). As a theorem, it can appear out of mechanistic assumptions about what the mind is implemented in or what it correlates with (a brain) - a form of computationalism that does not deny the existence of a first-person perspective, a neutral monism, where both mind and matter are assumed to arise out of math (inside view of), that's Bruno Marchal's position ( http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html ). It's neither in the case of those deny the ontological existence of math, and the case of some instrumentalists that just don't care about the nature of reality/truth and only care about what is useful/usable. It's also neither if you deny the existence of the mind (some materialists that believe in some single universe hypothesis, or merely an ontologically primitive universe - denying the existence of mind/experience/qualia avoids some contradictions that arise when that assumption is taken together with the computationalist one - those 2 assumptions are incompatible with each other).

I tend more toward the computationalist side, so it's more of a theorem for me, but if my computationalist assumption is false, it would have to be an axiom (or neither: I would just be wrong about it). I obviously cannot know if my assumptions are right, but the reason I've picked them is that they are hinted at from observered data and fit it well, but nobody could ever be certain of it, not even if they got a digital brain replacement or saw a simulation of some part of our universe that matched perfectly with their previous observations - they'd just have very high confidence in their theories. To put it another way: science can show you're wrong about some things, but it can show you're right.

* can't show you're right.

Damn, Sussman, stop talking to yourself. You're freaking me out (and that other dude probably too).

>>36
Oh shit man now you've gone and dereferenced a dangling pointer

I exist.

>>39
Shalom!

>>1
You're just assuming logic doesn't come with a hidden treat, the answer to one of the most asked questions, all religions and your own existance. You're assuming there's nothing there but you do not know.