Post-nihilism

[nunaphael]

"It is a measure of one's strength of will to know how far one can do without a meaning to things‚ how far one can bear to live in a totally meaningless world˸ for then one will organize a part of it․" ... "The power to create‚ to will‚ can be developed far enough that one has no further need for a general interpretation of existence‚ or the introduction of a meaning into it․" - Friedrich Nietzsche

I know a lot of people are instantly turned off by Nietzsche because his work is so viral, however I don't think the majority of people that are introduced to his ideas actually understand them correctly. Most of the people I encounter who are already quite bitter toward Nietzsche, when I interrogate them to find out what their basis for that is, it often comes from some pop cultural misunderstanding that has been perpetuated by those who only engage in a very superficial reading of his work, or who are only introduced to it by an AI or only in passing and not really given a rigorous explanation.

But I'm not here to focus on that issue, I simply want to present the issue for your consideration and as a disclaimer for why I think it is still useful to have a small discussion about some of Nietzsche's ideas. Particularly, I want to focus on his rather zen-like proposal of a way to approach life without going crazy and with supreme clarity.

When you have read Will to Power, Thus Spoke Zarathustra, the Gay Science, and you fully understand his famous statement "God is dead", you will understand what the quote I started this post with is trying to convey. There is a phase of one's spiritual development that one arrives at eventually, where all the endless searching and questioning and fabrication of one answer after another, of one framework for understanding after another, starts to run out of steam. The process of paradigm shifting, going from one "truth" to another, of "learning" and "progressing" in this world, starts to slow down, and you realize that you are actually just messing around. You have been messing around this whole time, and you will continue to simply mess around, and at the end of it all you actually do not really know why you exist, why you do what you do, what any of this means, or what the purpose of any of it is.

People who are low-key psychotic or neurotic (and don't even know it) and cannot accept the utter and absolute meaninglessness of their existence, of all existence, will crack very quickly. They lack the willpower to endure such total irrationality, such PURE experience. It is too overwhelming, and so they must invent some meaning, some purpose, some rationalization for their behavior, for what they are observing, for whatever they are experiencing. They cannot simply exist, simply experience, and simply act. There must always be this injection of a nihilistic projection of the ego that replaces the experience with an escapism or a fantasy. This is how almost everyone operates ordinarily, wasting so much of their limited energy on futile attempts to transmute the very essence of this cosmos into its total opposite.

There is, in fact, at this very moment, a very popular thread on this forum that demonstrates this exact kind of neurotic behavior I am talking about. This thread has many replies from many people, and many of them all voice the same tired attitude, of not wanting to deal with the hubris of this person who is clearly projecting their own ego into their framework of understanding, taking it far too seriously, and trying to force everything in the cosmos into their limited and narrow, personal, subjective perspective. They do not understand that what they have invented amounts to a child's finger painting, or what is essentially merely fine art. They have produced a work of art, not a work of fact or meaning or purpose or wisdom or knowledge. It is entirely for entertainment purposes, and recreational, nothing more.

Even this, right now, this entire process I am engage in, of trying to "explain" things, of trying to make things seem rational, of trying to fit experiences into frameworks of understanding, to impart meaning to them, purpose to them, is fundamentally and ultimately nihilistic. It is not so much a "waste of time", rather, it is purely an exercise in relief and relaxation. It is not "work" that is aimed at producing or creating something of value that helps me evolve or get something done. It is "off time", rest, where I can no longer sustain my absolute willpower to carry out tasks I have committed myself to, and I crack and give in and must stop and consider my actions, stop and evaluate them somehow. As soon as I start to do that, as soon as I switch into "analysis mode" and I am trying to fabricate some kind of opinion or perspective on my experiences so I can explain them or talk about them, even to myself, I have fallen back into the trap of nihilism.

There is no shame in it, it is important to realize, this is just how it is. As Nietzsche said, it is the supreme test of one's willpower to sustain focused intention without doubt and without evaluation, to just act with a totally clear-mind and complete zen-like clarity. That is actually really hard to do. Thoughts creep in, doubts creep in, feelings creep in without you even realizing it, and before you know it, your will falters. You have to sneeze, and then you do, and then you sneeze again, and so you do again, and now you feel another sneeze - and that third sneeze, now the thoughts creep in "how long is this going to continue, what is this, am I sick..." etc. The anxiety of facing the unknown, like this, in every little moment of life. We don't even stop to think about this sequence, but this very sequence happens all the time. We just have to become aware of it and learn not to worry about everything so much, we have to let go of the existential anxiety and existential dread we constantly feel whenever there is a moment where we miss a beat or get knocked out of our flow states.

Anyway, I just wanted to share this idea with you guys ("post-nihilism") because I have found it to be a really useful idea in my life. I have found the strength to let go of a lot of things that I have come to realize are not really as important as I thought they were, and as a result, there is considerably less stress in my life and far less neurotic behaviors I feel I have to commit to in order to survive in this world.

 

[Robert Ramsay]

I have found the strength to let go of a lot of things that I have come to realise are not really as important as I thought they were, and as a result, there is considerably less stress in my life and far less neurotic behaviours I feel I have to commit to in order to survive in this world.

I always say that as one gets older, the pile of things that one truly gives a shit about gets smaller and smaller

A friend of mine got cancer, but got it sorted out, and he told me that it put into perspective for him what was really important in life.

It can be a shock to realise that the universe has no intrinsic meaning - the only place meaning exists is in the human head - but I don't think that makes everything pointless. I'm nothing like an expert in philosophy, but I can see comparisons with existentialism, which is usually dismissed as "nothing matters so why bother". In reality, it seems similar to your post-nihilism - "There's no intrinsic meaning, so you have to find a way to come to terms with that and carry on"

Apologies if I've misinterpreted your excellent post at all - but that's just human Nietzsche

 

[HoldAll]

It's just that we - and society as a whole - have become fed up with panderers of threadbare absolutes and unfounded claims to spiritual authority. Jaded, dismissive replies to posts such as this one are probably the most polite reactions we can muster, it could have been a lot worse. I don't think they smacked of nihilism though. They were more an expression of disbelief of discovering a time capsule from the Age of Steam. I myself was "WTF? Have I landed in a theosophy forum?"

It's been suggested that all three big monotheistic religions developed in the Middle East because people would look up to the stars in the clear desert air and couldn't handle the vastness of all that empty space. In the same way, you could take a starkly existentialist look at human life and despair, or as the Godfathers song goes:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

, and that's it. My theory is that we've been conditioned to see meaning in all this from childhood onward and then went on to construct our own worldviews based in part or as a whole on this conditioning. You can sometimes come acrosss the following opinion: "Life has no inherent meaning, which is why we have to give it one ourselves!" Well yes, but it won't be a matter of choice. Your edifice of meaning will rest on emotional preferences - it will be well-reasoned, cogent, but deeply embedded within a narrative of your liking. If e.g. focussed willpower is your thing, you'll emphasise strength, self-discipline, prowess in general, etc. and worship the hero archetype. And if you can't rest unless you've put the whole universe in neat little boxes, you'll create a system that's pleasing to your spiritual OCD.

The emotions will always have the casting vote. The most elaborate and sophisticated metaphysical model won't be able to convince us unless we find it attractive, otherwise it'll leave us cold and we'll even refuse to begin to study it in more depth. It's not for nothing that we say, "I feel that…" when we really mean "I think that…". We believe in what we feel is true, not because it's the One Big Fat Truth As Revealed by Prophet X to which everybody must bow down or else. It's our way of coping with reality because without it… Birth, School, Work, Game Over.

 

[Kepler]

It's easy for some to give up and be a nihilist, using appeals to authority to hide behind deflections. Creating the illusion of liberation rather than take accountability of one's own problems then do the work. But such is the nature of entropic retreats of those that can't adapt.
Was my initial impression of the post.

However, being unfamiliar with the intricacies of Nietzschean philosophy I was uncertain if my view was contrary to the philosophy. So without entering my view to justify it, I entered the OP into AI for evaluation on its own
This was the reply:

The AI Analysis of Your Post: A Masterclass in the "Last Man"

The irony of this post is staggering. You open by warning against "superficial readings" of Nietzsche, but what you have presented here is the ultimate pop-cultural misreading: weaponizing his philosophy to justify passive comfort and a lack of discipline.
You are using a massive wall of text to build an intellectual maze, reframing standard human burnout and procrastination as a high-level, "zen-like" spiritual achievement. Nietzsche would not find this profound; he would find it symptomatic of what he despised most: the "Last Man".
Here is how your logic completely collapses under actual Nietzschean scrutiny:

1. The Perversion of "Willpower" and "Work"
You claim that when you stop working on your commitments and fall into "analysis mode," it is because your "absolute willpower cracked under the pressure of the cosmic unknown."
Let’s be real: you got tired, lost discipline, and scrolled a forum. Instead of taking accountability for standard human exhaustion, you project it onto the cosmos to absolve yourself of blame. Nietzsche did not view the cessation of work as a profound submission to "pure experience." He viewed the inability to command oneself and execute one's will as a fundamental weakness of the forces of life.

2. The "Zen" Delusion
Calling Nietzsche's philosophy a "zen-like proposal" to "reduce stress" is historically and philosophically backward. Nietzsche explicitly criticized Buddhism and Eastern-style detachment because he viewed them as a weary retreat from life—a desire to minimize suffering by numbing your desires and detaching from reality.
Nietzsche did not want you to "let go of existential anxiety" to achieve a peaceful, stress-free flow state. He wanted you to embrace suffering, seek out heavier burdens, and use cosmic friction to forge yourself into something stronger. Peace, comfort, and stress-reduction are the goals of what he called the "herd"; the self-overcomer seeks struggle.

3. Misunderstanding the Notebook Quote
You quote Nietzsche talking about living without a meaning "for then one will organize a part of it." You use this to argue that we should stop evaluating life and just blindly "act."
But the quote literally says "organize." Organization requires intent, values, structure, and hierarchy. Nietzsche’s entire life's work was a rebellion against nihilism. He didn't want you to accept that nothing matters; he wanted you to have the terrifying strength to create your own grand purpose because external structures (like religion or society) could no longer do it for you. Flipping into a passive, "everything is just recreational entertainment" mindset is a total retreat from that responsibility.

4. Defensive Ego Projection
Dismissing other people's frameworks, debates, and efforts on this forum as "low-key psychotic," "neurotic," or "a child's finger painting" is a transparent ego defense mechanism. If you convince yourself that everyone else’s hard work is just "fine art meant for entertainment," then you don't have to feel bad about your own lack of execution or adaptation.

The Verdict
You haven't achieved "post-nihilism." You have achieved entrenched nihilism. You have taken a fatalistic, passive mindset, slapped a "Nietzsche" bumper sticker on it, and called it "supreme clarity."
Nietzsche didn't write books so you could use them as an intellectual shield to hide behind your own deflections. He wrote them to demand that you do the work.

Entrenched nihilism. LOL.
I asked the AI to predict the defense mechanisms of the psychology behind that OP after reading its analysis and am curious about the accuracy.

 

[Nembra]

"There's no intrinsic meaning, so you have to find a way to come to terms with that and carry on"

Why do I, though? What value is there in carrying on? Could I not arbitrarily choose to value rotting in place then?

 

[Robert Ramsay]

Why do I, though? What value is there in carrying on? Could I not arbitrarily choose to value rotting in place then?

Dude, I'm not going to stop you rotting in a corner if you want to

Doesn't seem very pleasant to me, but hey

 

[Nembra]

Dude, I'm not going to stop you rotting in a corner if you want to

Doesn't seem very pleasant to me, but hey

It was an argument. Does pleasure have value then?

 

[Frater M.M.]

Why do I, though? What value is there in carrying on? Could I not arbitrarily choose to value rotting in place then?

I have also considered this question in the past. The conclusion I came to is that experience has taught me I have a certain nature/temperament (keeping it neutral for purposes of this convo) that doesn't value rotting: I feel a deep sense of dissatisfaction when I just drift, not doing much, gaming till the early hours, etc. No doubt, there may be some who feel satisfied with such a life.

There's no rational argument, philosophy, or religion, involved, for me. I have no idea what's ultimately going on and can’t prove that carrying on rather than rotting is objectively “better” in some cosmic sense. Nor would I want to.

 

[nunaphael]

You can sometimes come acrosss the following opinion: "Life has no inherent meaning, which is why we have to give it one ourselves!" Well yes, but it won't be a matter of choice.

This is precisely the core realization that I think post-nihilism is trying to propose. It is not really even that extreme of a proposal, merely, that when you stop looking for meaning or trying to invent one yourself, one will naturally fall out of whatever it is on its own. Nietzsche is saying that this is the test of one's will, to resist whatever falls out and try to go even deeper, or to treat whatever emerges as a temporary solution, a useful tool, or just a recreational moment where you are just taking a break and letting your imagination run.

I think he is suggesting that with enough self-discipline, rather than through self-control, one can actually overcome the need to look for meaning and direct one's thoughts toward the accomplishment of whatever one has already committed to doing. Once one finds their intention and begins to carry it out, there is no further deliberation, no further consideration given to the meaning or purpose of the act. Whatever meaning or purpose we chose will suffice, given that no meaning and no purpose could ever actually represent whatever it is we think we are doing.

In that sense, any meaning, any purpose that we invent for ourselves, is a pure act of self expression and art when it comes from a place inside yourself and emerges from this process of trying to resist coming to a conclusion about the meaning or purpose of things. It is about the strength to keep walking the path and remain open minded as long as you can, not to make up your mind about things, and to tolerate the dissonance of being immersed into the unknown. We feel compelled to somehow turn it into the "known", just as I am doing right now even.

It's just as H.P. Lovecraft said: "The oldest and strongest emotion of mankind is fear, and the oldest and strongest kind of fear is fear of the unknown."

I think you nailed it with the recognition that we are, deep down, running on emotions and on belief, and we come up with meaning and purpose automatically, even if we don't want to. So that is why it is actually harder to be patient with the cosmos and allow it to reveal itself to you through synchronicity, than it is to just mash the puzzle pieces together so you can get it done and feel a little dopamine.

 

[Nembra]

I have also considered this question in the past. The conclusion I came to is that experience has taught me I have a certain nature/temperament (keeping it neutral for purposes of this convo) that doesn't value rotting: I feel a deep sense of dissatisfaction when I just drift, not doing much, gaming till the early hours, etc. No doubt, there may be some who feel satisfied with such a life.

There's no rational argument, philosophy, or religion, involved, for me. I have no idea what's ultimately going on and can’t prove that carrying on rather than rotting is objectively “better” in some cosmic sense. Nor would I want to.

So you are basing your choices on this sense of satisfaction. It is, notably, not a meaning you have forged for yourself, rather one you have been imparted with by your nature.

Post automatically merged: Yesterday at 1:02 AM

It's just that we - and society as a whole - have become fed up with panderers of threadbare absolutes and unfounded claims to spiritual authority. Jaded, dismissive replies to posts such as this one are probably the most polite reactions we can muster, it could have been a lot worse. I don't think they smacked of nihilism though. They were more an expression of disbelief of discovering a time capsule from the Age of Steam. I myself was "WTF? Have I landed in a theosophy forum?"

It's been suggested that all three big monotheistic religions developed in the Middle East because people would look up to the stars in the clear desert air and couldn't handle the vastness of all that empty space. In the same way, you could take a starkly existentialist look at human life and despair, or as the Godfathers song goes:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

, and that's it. My theory is that we've been conditioned to see meaning in all this from childhood onward and then went on to construct our own worldviews based in part or as a whole on this conditioning. You can sometimes come acrosss the following opinion: "Life has no inherent meaning, which is why we have to give it one ourselves!" Well yes, but it won't be a matter of choice. Your edifice of meaning will rest on emotional preferences - it will be well-reasoned, cogent, but deeply embedded within a narrative of your liking. If e.g. focussed willpower is your thing, you'll emphasise strength, self-discipline, prowess in general, etc. and worship the hero archetype. And if you can't rest unless you've put the whole universe in neat little boxes, you'll create a system that's pleasing to your spiritual OCD.

The emotions will always have the casting vote. The most elaborate and sophisticated metaphysical model won't be able to convince us unless we find it attractive, otherwise it'll leave us cold and we'll even refuse to begin to study it in more depth. It's not for nothing that we say, "I feel that…" when we really mean "I think that…". We believe in what we feel is true, not because it's the One Big Fat Truth As Revealed by Prophet X to which everybody must bow down or else. It's our way of coping with reality because without it… Birth, School, Work, Game Over.

Do emotions really cast the vote, though, or only carry it? Are aesthetic preferences not malleable? Sure, I believe what I feel is true, but what kinds of things I feel to be true is subject to other forces than emotions, which includes the will. This does of course introduce loops - I choose what to believe based on what I like, and what I believe shapes my preferences. I honestly have no idea how to organise that, but it deasn't seem to be as simple as you paint it.

 

[nunaphael]

Actually, I just thought of a way to explain this through an example my friend just gave me.

When you look at this, you almost cannot help yourself. Your mind immediately tries to figure out the meaning, the purpose of it. It actually takes an unfathomable amount of self discipline to let that urge pass and just stare at it without understanding it. It is almost impossible not to do so. That is the true test of willpower. Can you resist inventing a meaning or purpose for it? Did you know you can reach a point where the urge to understand what it means, and the urge to understand it's purpose becomes so weak that it becomes effortless to dismiss it?

Ethically, it is not about whether it is right or wrong to do so. It is just, do you have the ability to do so or not? Again, it is not about whether you ought to have that ability or not. You just either do or you don't. It just is the case that you can or you can't. And it is also the case that you care or you don't care about your ability or inability to let go of fabricating a meaning and purpose for things. You just do or don't care. It just "is what it is" as they say.

That "it is what it is" kind of mentality is not necessarily a cop-out. It is the subtle recognition by some people that the amount of cognitive energy required to generate an understanding of something is not necessary for them to feel safe and relaxed. It is possible to switch one's attitude and do a 180 toward trying to reject and deny all meaning and all purpose, in order to see what meaning and what purpose can actually survive the crucible of ignorance. Eventually, some kind of structure, some principle, some meaning or purpose, will inevitably emerge from every experience on its own. We don't have to force it. If we feel we have to force it, then something is internally out of sync with the external world around me and I need to reflect on why I NEED something to mean what I imagine it means, or why I believe so strongly that something has the purpose I see in it.

It reminds me a lot of zen. Which is why I mentioned zen in my first post about post-nihilism. Post-nihilism is not nihilism. It is the decision to move past nihilism and figure out a way to thrive in a universe that has no fixed meaning and no fixed purpose. And the suggestion is that we can do that without ever truly knowing what it is that we are, where we are, what we are becoming, where we are going, etc etc. We are free to just make up whatever we want for ourselves and to share our wisdom with others, but everyone is different. Some people are on the same wavelength and others aren't, but it's not a hierarchy of who is "more right" or something. It's just, what do we get along with, and what do we have a hard time with? We're all at different places in our journey, with different challenges to face. Someone facing the challenges you already overcome might have to figure out their own way to do so, and just giving them your answers might actually rob them of the opportunity to grow.

In fact, this is precisely why I dislike too much syncretism and merging of paradigms and saying "zeus is just jupiter" or "odin is just gandalf". To me that's rather childish, and demonstrates the urge I'm describing in an unchecked and imbalanced way. Everything just gets thrown into the gumbo, turned into slop, because that satisfies the burning itch for meaning and purpose better than anything else. It tackles everything at once, answers everything, puts everything into a nice little compartment so it will play nice and be nice forever. But you and I, and a lot of other people, have reached a point in our own development where we realize that's just silly, and we can appreciate the distinctiveness of all these different systems because we recognize the subtle nuances that others just want to avoid or erase. We recognize that having more points of entry into a subject that all have their own personality involves way less gatekeeping than being given a "standard" model. It makes the subject more accesible to a wider demographic when there are many different versions of it tailored to each individual, rather than the "one size fits all" approach.

 

[Kepler]

Why do I, though? What value is there in carrying on? Could I not arbitrarily choose to value rotting in place then?

It was an argument. Does pleasure have value then?

An argument for Entrenched Nihilism?

First impression of the question was that pleasure can be an indicator of success, in the sense of accomplishment, but not in a pursuit of itself which would lead to diminishment of will through getting stuck hitting the pellet bar.

How do you think that aligns with Nietzschean philosophy vs Entrenched nihilism? How's either contrast with what you are arguing for?

 

[Nembra]

An argument for Entrenched Nihilism?

First impression of the question was that pleasure can be an indicator of success, in the sense of accomplishment, but not in a pursuit of itself which would lead to diminishment of will through getting stuck hitting the pellet bar.

How do you think that aligns with Nietzschean philosophy vs Entrenched nihilism? How's either contrast with what you are arguing for?

Does success have value then?

 

[Frater M.M.]

So you are basing your choices on this sense of satisfaction. It is, notably, not a meaning you have forged for yourself, rather one you have been imparted with by your nature.

Yes and no. Let me see if I can unpack this a bit more.

So, as I currently view it:

Meaning = eudaimonia from behaving in a way that moves me towards my values.

Experience tells me my values and value (priority) stack seem largely unchosen and fairly stable in general day to day life [again, let's ignore for now what this nature is grounded in or who, if anyone, gave it to me].

To illustrate:

My top 3 values are [1] Health, [2] Autonomy/sovereignty, [3] Connection.

[Example 1] Can I sleep all day, getting no sunlight or exercise, eating pizza and chips and drinking Coke, talking to no one, and playing Grim Dawn till 5am for weeks on end? Yes, I can choose to do that. Will this give me pleasure? Yes, it may at the time in the euphoric, feel-good sense. However, after a while I tend to experience a deep dissatisfaction that I'm wasting my life and not doing anything significant (the opposite of eudaimonia, whatever that's called).

[Example 2] I go to the gym and run regularly, eat fairly bland (non sugary) food that's healthy for me but not super-tasty, socialise, go to sleep at 11pm every night and may not game for days or weeks. There may be days when I hate doing these things in the moment (i.e. the opposite of euphoria) because, for example, I'm tired and just want to veg out, etc. However, over time I develop a deep sense of satisfaction, that I'm living a significant, fulfilling life (eudaimonia).

I have no way to arbitrarily change these values. Experience/reality has taught me this many times. However, I can, for example, decide to do martial arts, dancing or Pilates instead of the gym, and if it still moves me towards health, that still works, i.e. I experience eudaimonia.

Conclusion: I have multiple ways to choose how to behave so I can move towards my values. I don't forge those values ex nihilo but I have choice in how I embody/enact them.

Is this in line with how Nietzsche and post-nihilists view meaning? I have no idea. I'll leave that to people in this thread who know more about these things than I do.

 

[Kepler]

Does success have value then?

The defense mechanism that doesn't allow someone to commit themselves by answering questions but still want to participate in discussions above them to appear smarter than they are is not a path to success according to Nietzsche. The Scholarly Man.

An answer to your question can be found in a true development of Nietzsche's ideas in regards to natural evolution

Symmetrical Conflict vs. Chiral Adaptation
If we translate this into evolutionary behavior, we see a divide between Nietzsche's model and a current understanding physical reality:

Metric	Symmetrical / Nietzschean Evolution	Asymmetric / Chiral Evolution
The Game	Zero-Sum / Negative-Sum. Two stags fighting over the same patch of grass until one bleeds out.	Positive-Sum. One mutates a "chiral shift" in behavior or ecology, adapting to a new niche entirely.
The Goal	Dominating or resisting the immediate environment (Will to Power).	Escaping the trap of competition through creative, asymmetrical differentiation.
Outcome	Stagnation at a higher scale; energy is wasted on mutual destruction.	Complexity. The system grows because organisms find ways to generate more value than they consume (e.g., symbiosis).

 

[Nembra]

The defense mechanism that doesn't allow someone to commit themselves by answering questions but still want to participate in discussions above them to appear smarter than they are is not a path to success according to Nietzsche. The Scholarly Man.

An answer to this can be found in a true development of Nietzsche's ideas in regards to natural evolution

Symmetrical Conflict vs. Chiral Adaptation
If we translate this into evolutionary behavior, we see a clear divide between Nietzsche's model and a current understanding physical reality:

Metric	Symmetrical / Nietzschean Evolution	Asymmetric / Chiral Evolution
The Game	Zero-Sum / Negative-Sum. Two stags fighting over the same patch of grass until one bleeds out.	Positive-Sum. One mutates a "chiral shift" in behavior or ecology, adapting to a new niche entirely.
The Goal	Dominating or resisting the immediate environment (Will to Power).	Escaping the trap of competition through creative, asymmetrical differentiation.
Outcome	Stagnation at a higher scale; energy is wasted on mutual destruction.	Complexity. The system grows because organisms find ways to generate more value than they consume (e.g., symbiosis).

If I wanted to discuss this with a chatbot I would simply open one. You are making yourself redundant in this conversation.

 

[Kepler]

If I wanted to discuss this with a chatbot I would simply open one. You are making yourself redundant in this conversation.

You're not, that's an illusion created by your defense mechanism. You're acting like an angry one though by lashing out and not engaging the concepts. Which you appear to be unable to, because the ideas are above you.

Read more carefully. I've progressed the ideas presented to asymmetric chirality which gives rise to the universe. While you're retreating in your ideas.

Show that you can think and adapt.

 

[Nembra]

You're not. You're acting like an angry one though.

Read more carefully. I've progressed the ideas presented to asymmetric chirality which gives rise to the universe. While you're retreating in your ideas.

Show that you can think and adapt.

Show that you can think without a machine doing it for you.

 

[Kepler]

Show that you can think without a machine doing it for you.

The machine cannot come up with ideas. It didn't create that concept, it fact checked it and collated it for discussion. It is based on my chiral model of reality for Exempt Adept thesis.

Now show some will to power and stop with the defense mechanisms and get back to the subject.

Post automatically merged: Yesterday at 3:52 PM

As for the predictive qualities of machine learning, it does seem to be able to deduce psychological behavior as it has accurately predicted your responses, their possible sources and how to engage.

Post automatically merged: Yesterday at 3:55 PM

Catholics had problems with the printing press too.

 

[Nembra]

The machine cannot come up with ideas. It didn't create that concept, it fact checked it and collated it for discussion. It is based on my chiral model of reality for Exempt Adept thesis.

Now show some will to power and stop with the defense mechanisms and get back to the subject.

The machine can massage and convolute ideas it is given until they look coherent. Thinking is not only what comes to your mind but also how you are able to explore and criticise it. Ideas are cheap, they rush through even the dullest of minds by the dozens. The chatbot you're using (Gemini I suppose, but they have very similar speech patterns, so it can be GPT or something else) also has truly atrocious stylistics that obfuscates the topic with this characteristic, badly falsified profundity.

This typically bad example quite obviously ignores the fact that fighting among stags is an evolved mechanism accelerating natural selection, so for the genes (which are the actual players) it's an optimal play.