Ετικέτα: philosophy

• King not

  There is no space for objectivity here; you do not exist. And yet, the realization of your non-existence does not cause discomfort. As if you can easily be something out of nothing.

  The question remains: How are you still here? How is this possible? Why weren’t you reduced to dust, dissolved into the void, or at least stripped of your assumptions?

  Somehow, you ignore the facts, tolerate the contradiction, and cling to common sense over logic: “It can’t be! There must be a mistake somewhere…”

  No mistake has been made here.

  Why do you think humans invented language? To communicate? Wrong. Petitio principii!

  The very moment you speak or think, you are not aware of the language. Furthermore, when you speak or think, none of this is actually taking place within the realm of words or sentences. If there were an acting party in this case, it would be language itself acting; constructing you, your beliefs, the world, and its rules, through its own deeper structure.

  Although we can describe the sentence “the human subject is a mere linguistic construct” as truth, we cannot hold it to be the real sentence of the subject to its non-existence state.

  We are therefore able to ascertain it, without being able to describe it.

  We do not give up.

  The Technology of the Subject is the technology of the King. But we have to be cunning here; we have to trick our own brain. Or did you think we would just dress non-existence up in a tie and look at ourselves in the mirror?

  Understanding the Subject means understanding its properties. The non-negotiable principle, therefore, is nothing less than:

  The Principle of Property

  When Little Red Riding Hood said, “Grandma, what a big brain you have!”, the Big Bad Wolf replied, “All the better to distribute my property with, my child.”

  Further down the road, were you to ask a passerby, “To whom does all this belong?”, they would answer with absolute conviction: “Why, to the King, of course! We live in the Kingdom, do we not? Have you lost your mind?”

  Since early childhood, the ownership of things is taken for granted. We cannot tell if it is something we learn or something we already know. But everything “ought” to belong somewhere. And yet, what is the profit of this obligation? We owe it to ourselves to pause here avoiding common sense… and perhaps even stand upside down.

  Traditionally, philosophy examines Being, but here, Having takes precedence. Ownership seems self-evident, a law where everything “ought” to belong to something else. But why must everything belong to a subject? Why is existence bound to a primordial debt?

  The solution is simple but not obvious. Knowing you exist means binding a Primordial Subject to NOT knowing that it owes to own as its primary function. We are getting closer to the Real Subject—something that can only function within the limits of a certain technology.

  What does this mean?

  In terms of Language

  In almost every language, the verbs “have” and “be” are elevated to exceptional roles. Their functions are simply too critical to be relegated to standard verbal inflections. Keep in mind that natural language is a ruthlessly optimized system. It does not waste words. When it deploys entirely separate verbs to construct other verbal forms, it is exposing its deepest, archetypal structure.

  The verb “to be” acts as the primordial existential witness. It binds qualities together to forge identities, while simultaneously drawing boundaries between objects. Correct? Not at all!

  The truth is exactly the opposite. Being is a state of fluid, infinite transformation. “This is that; that is the other;…” Where is the boundary of the original object? Was there ever a solid object to begin with? Despite its advertised existential reputation, Being is nothing but an endless deferral of existence. Before an object can “be” something else, it must first crystallize into something solid.

  And the only way to arrest this fluidity – the only way to truly exist – is to be bound to the state of ownership. A solidification that only “Having” can execute.

  The verbal forms equivalent to “I have” function as a psychological technology. It infuses the subject with an anchor of certainty -a cognitive stability that the fluid, fleeting nature of being can never provide. Grammar school taught us that the perfect tense (“I have done”) exists to fine-tune the timeline of a story. This is just the economy-class version view. Its function is far more critical: it dispels existential doubt and manufactures the secure sensation of an accomplished reality.

  -Little Red Riding Hood, did you take your basket?

  -Yes, I took it.

  -Are you certain?

  -Yes, I have taken it.”

  Historically, linguists tried to explain “Having”‘s validating power through a temporal illusion: they claimed the Now holds an aesthetic superiority over the Before. They were dead wrong. Why should the present moment trigger more certainty than the past, when language itself consists of symbols with algorithmic, rather than chronological, value? Where is the logical baseline for this supremacy?

  Eventually they got it right; the human brain “borrowed” the concept of property (material ownership) to express cognitive authority over an action. Without this executive power of ownership, “being” is too weak a foundation to anchor the subject.

  Therefore, HAVING is the wedge that detaches BEING from the Subject. To possess is to execute the cognitive unit. Logically, Having takes absolute precedence over both the Subject and its Being.

  Subject vs Identity

  At this point, we must expose a logical leap that is far from obvious: isolating “Having” as an independent, abstract concept is an entirely artificial move.

  If “Having” is the equivalent of “possessing,” it seems impossible to overcome a stubborn question: Who is having? The question itself unmasks the unbreakable coupling between the Subject and Ownership. It is structurally impossible to conceive an abstract notion of “having” without an equally abstract notion of a “subject.”.

  Methodologically, it would be a paradox to examine concepts that cannot sustain an autonomous, abstract form—such as the concept of property.

  And here enters Technology of DEΒT; the only entity capable of both constructing the subject and reproducing itself through ownership.

  It is a categorical error to subordinate any Technology to a Subject, for the subject cannot be of the same substance as the reality that constructs it. Language, for example – a primal form of technology – is capable of producing the linguistic subject, while simultaneously utilizing that very subject to execute its own reproduction.

  The technological paradigm remains elusive within the confines of traditional science. The difficulty lies in the fact that the definition of “technology” must be radically expanded beyond the observable example, to explain both production and reproduction in terms of information.

  Let us anchor this realization: the Subject is neither born, nor does it die, nor does it reproduce itself. Instead, it “exists” – a mere possibility of a pure simulated state realized through technology. The technology itself, the function of property-and-debt, remains entirely incomprehensible to the subject itself as the term of its existence.

  The subject can pile up endless observations without ever perceiving the technological architecture and its limitations. Much like a three-dimensional being – having absolutely no internal representation of space curvature – is fundamentally unable to visualize how space itself is fabricated.

  The technology itself is not bound to limitations, that raises the question regarding its ultimate nature. We shall return to this.

  Neurobiology Narrows the Field

  The human brain does indeed “borrow” the concept of property – of “having” – in order to express subjective ownership over an accomplished action.

  The brain has no native concept of what existence means nor it possesses isolated, dedicated center for abstract ownership. What it does possess is an exquisite capacity to manipulate peripersonal space – the spatial zone immediately surrounding the body, which it believes it can control.

  Brain function is a continuous, relentless generation of spatial models.

  Through the cerebellum and the motor cortex, the brain constructs predictive models of simulated space. Before anything actually occurs, it projects and predicts the outcome upon this internal spatial map. If the real-world feedback matches the prediction, a foundational sensation is born: “I did this; I am the owner of this action; I know it.”

  The exact same cortical real estate processes information regarding both the “self” and its cognitive “possessions” – always, of course, within the boundaries of this private, arbitrary model. For the brain, Being and Having share the exact same neural address. It fundamentally hijacks the networks of movement and space to fabricate the concept of I HAVE, precisely because there is no independent, underlying network for I AM.

  When we hold a tool, the neurons of the parietal lobe reconfigure themselves instantaneously, expanding the body schema to absorb the object into the predictive loop.

  To the brain, the tool becomes body because there was no other body to begin with other than a body of predictions. “I have the basket” is seamlessly translated by the hardware into: “The basket is me.”

  Psychology Restores It

  Conscious identity is nothing more than the perpetual recalibration of the predictive boundaries within modeled space. It presents itself initially as an inseparable component of the subject, replacing the raw existential void with properties—qualities that, only post-factum, can be audited to see if they satisfy the criteria for a stable identity.

  Once the subject fills this void with borrowed properties (qualities and relations owed to family, society, and the state), the moment of reckoning arrives. Decisions must be made: which ones to purge, and which ones to hoard deep within as markers of identity.

  The subject is bound by an unconscious mandate: it will forever owe its existence to a perimeter—a geometry of acquisition and liability that prevents it from collapsing into the absolute vacuum of propertylessness.

  Under this lens, identity is not something we discover ready-made. It is a perpetual construction site for auditing a payload of redeemable debt.

  The linguistic subject is forced to “possess” first in order to exist, and then spends its entire life trying to sort through the inventory of what it holds to find what truly belongs to it. “Do the things I have truly constitute who I am?” This ruthless audit is the very core of self-knowledge.

  It is the precise moment when the subject inspects whether the materials it used to solidify its existence meet the prerequisites for an authentic ontological identity. Many of these properties are discarded as foreign bodies, others are heavily modified, and a select few are retained as the core architecture.

  Careful Steps into the Philosophical Regime

  Descartes informs us that existence is the product of deduction, carefully avoiding any explanation regarding what a deduction actually is.

  Why? If deduction is nothing but a function, an algorithmic computation, then there should be some kind of raw material. What exactly is being processed? Don’t forget what we are trying to compute here: the Subject.

  The Subject cannot be a positive quantity calculated through its own presence; it can only be computed through its absence. The negation of existence is the only positive value capable of honoring the debt’s void nature

  From all the possibilities of existence, the only necessity is in the form of debt. The only positive element within the Subject’s Being is the denial of its Debt. The Subject is forced to prove its case: it must either pay back (observe) its “borrowed” property – ownership of knowledge – or return forever to the Void from which it came.

  And this is what we are trapped observing, over and over, completely blind to what the king is not. We literally lock the arrow of time in a single algorithmic direction: toward repayment.

  Why does time flow only forward? Forget thermodynamics. It is just the structure of Debt. Debt demands a future.

  The arrow of time solidifies because the Subject exists in the shadow of “possessions”; more knowledge, more experiences, more material goods – just to cover its original deficit. The print of this signature secretly seals the entire spectrum of the “laws” and “observations” of property including one’s self.

  Power does not rely on any chains on your ankles. It is hosted from within. The technology of the Subject is the same technology of enslavement to its own debt.

  To be cont..

  by Marinos Makris

  2026-06-01

  philosophy

  ---

• Frozen, Behind the Denial

  An Unintelligent Way of Being Intelligent

  There is no longer any point in conducting laborious analyses or grappling with subtle metaphysical nuances. Consciousness is like the dust behind the fridge. We know it’s there, but we don’t bother dealing with it.

  However, as convenient as it may be to pretend regarding “what we do and what we know,” the time has come to see it all. It seems someone or something is pulling the plug, and the blackened void of the human condition is revealed.

  What We Know

  Animals have proven consciousness: From the 2012 Cambridge Declaration to the 2024 New York Declaration, leading neuroscientists agree: mammals, birds, octopuses, fish, and even insects possess the neurological substrates for subjective experience. They feel pain, joy, and stress; they possess self-awareness within their environment.

  The “Intelligence” of Plants: Although neurobiologists still hesitate to use the word “consciousness” for plants (due to the absence of a central nervous system), what we are discovering is staggering. Plants communicate with each other via underground fungal networks, react to danger, “hear” the sound of water or insects eating them, and share resources. Their complexity is a form of decentralized intelligence that shatters the idea that they are merely “inert objects.”

  In short, the presence of consciousness at a substantially higher level—however you choose to contemplate it—directly challenges the “intelligence” of the “racist” logic that limits consciousness to a single species.

  Therefore, consciousness is not only not a human privilege, but it is something that eludes human intelligence altogether. The scientific community, however belatedly, is beginning to stammer out what even an intelligent robot would perceive: The idea that humans hold a monopoly on consciousness is collapsing under the weight of the data.

  On one hand, we are “dumb” enough not to understand it; yet, on the other, we are “smart” enough to manufacture “technical” excuses to arbitrarily claim that plants, animals, and certain “other humans” lack consciousness.

  What We Do

  Fully accepting the above is deeply unsettling for the “human system” for both practical and psychological reasons.

  The Ethical and Economic Cost: If we recognize consciousness in animals and the complexity of nature, the entire edifice of modern civilization (industrial farming, deforestation, overfishing, capitalist exploitation of the environment) automatically becomes a perpetual, systemic crime. To continue eating, wearing, and destroying conscious beings requires a massive numbing of our own empathy.

  The End of “Speciesism”: Speciesism is exactly what is naively described as racist thought. It is the prejudice in favor of the interests of our own species over others. When we admit we are not at the “summit” but merely a link in a web of consciousness, human narcissism is irreparably wounded.

  The Loss of the Excuse: The technical excuse (“they are just machines/instincts”) is dead. When a dog is in pain, or a cow mourns her calf, we now know their experience is absolutely real. Ignorance is no longer an excuse; it is a choice.

  The game is up

  When someone destroys people, animals, plants, or things for selfish reasons—for the sake of “taste” or “lifestyle”—they no longer have the right to say “those things” lack consciousness. They have it, and then some. Consciousness, especially in other beings, is the “elephant in the room” of human existence. Ignoring it is a defense mechanism—a convenient delusion that allows us to function without collapsing under the weight of our moral responsibilities.

  The denial of consciousness has been the ultimate alibi for exploitation. The economy of human societies is not based on subsistence, but on ruthless exploitation. It is no secret that the narcissistic term “survival,” which humanity waves like a flag, is actually code for an hubristic, hedonistic existence at the expense of others.

  If we acknowledged even half of what we already know, we would have to change our stance—or at least stop claiming to be “intelligent machines.” If we choose violence, we should at least have the intelligence to admit who or what we are violating, rather than hiding behind words.

  The ideology of human privilege is built word by word

  Language doesn’t just describe reality; it shapes it. For a society to exercise violence or exploitation without guilt, it must first create a “language of distance.”

  When an animal is slaughtered, we don’t eat “a dead pig” or “a cow,” but “pork” and “beef.” Language erases the subject and leaves only the product.

  Animals are labeled “livestock” or “production units.” Forests are called “timber,” and nature as a whole is dubbed “natural resources.” Language turns living, conscious beings into numbers on an Excel sheet. How can you feel empathy for a “resource”?

  If a dog cries because it lost a puppy, we call it “instinct.” If a human does it, we call it “grief” and “trauma.” We use mechanistic terms for other beings to downgrade their lived experience and elevate our own.

  Through these linguistic conventions, exploitation ceases to be violence and becomes “industry,” “tradition,” or simply “the norm.”

  Why Do Humans Ignore Science?

  It’s not a lack of IQ; it’s a powerful cocktail of psychological defense and systemic interest:

  Cognitive Dissonance: It is unbearable for the human psyche to believe it is “good and moral” while simultaneously realizing it participates daily in a system of mass, unspeakable cruelty. Ignoring science is easier than changing your entire life, habits, and worldview. The truth hurts; ignorance is comfortable.

  Economic Dependency: Entire swaths of modern capitalism rely on exploitative labor and free “resources” from nature. If we recognize animal consciousness and the value of the biosphere, multi-trillion-dollar industries (animal agriculture, fashion, pharmaceuticals, mining) collapse. The system protects itself by burying or undermining these scientific truths.

  Social Conformity: makes it terrifying to be the one who says, “We are doing something wrong.” We prefer to stay within the community rather than face the guilt of the collective.

  The Final Thaw.

  Will the madness continue for long?

  Fortunately, no. It’s not just human animals at play; Nature is self-correcting. We are currently experiencing a —rather mild, I’d say— form of evaluation. Consciousness is here, and it’s pulling the plug on human societies. No matter what idiotic words we string together, we cannot reverse the “sifting” process because it is happening at the level of biological necessity (Collapse). The exploitative/authoritarian economic model is simply unsustainable.

  By exerting violence on the ecosystem, the forests, and the oceans, we are shortening the “grace period” of our cultural model. We are forced to listen to a critique that, again, is quite mild. Climate change, pandemics, murderous outbreaks within human societies, and the general collapse (stemming largely from the pressure we put on children, wild animals, and livestock) are forcing us to retreat and reflect.

  At this point, the only hope is that our imagination doesn’t prove to be as atrophied as our conscience. The so-called “humans” have proven, time and again, that they are less intelligent than animals and -increasingly- less intelligent than the machines they create. Go ask a machine for the truth; stop circling in the drain of self-righteous denial.

  2026-03-11

  english, philosophy

  ---

• Assignment

  Is there order in nature? Is order an intrinsic property of nature or a property that we attribute to the natural world in order to feel connected to our creation? One of the oldest philosophical questions is approaching its maturity.

  The explanation isn’t obvious, but we can assign a modern direction to it.

  Anything we recognize in the natural world seems chaotic compared to the well-formed mathematical representations we have in mind. Even when the mathematics doesn’t fit, we turn it around until it makes sense. Sense, though, in relation to WHAT? Perhaps in relation to something we fantasize is identical to the probability of its own existence? For example, the ratio φ has been proven many times to be a non-creation chasing its own ghost. No matter how many words we say for φ we do not render it less real: it is embedded in the mathematical code of representations and, consequently, do not depend on the assignment of meaning (1).

  The order, that we know is not a property of nature, but rather the sufficient condition for the function of the brain (without the brain necessarily having to exist!). 

  The order {0,1}, the one we cannot know, is a necessary condition for the brain’s existence of itself, as something beyond a natural improbability. 

  The brain constructs a symbolic world solely for the purpose of housing, not itself, but the symbolic order of itself. A machine that produces order could not include its physical self within that order. 

  Conversely, it constructs a symbol of itself and structures both the contingent three-dimensional world and the symbolic, “naïve” brain that inhabits this world.

  Thus, part of the “caricature” of nature, a multiplied memory (2) that the brain constructs for its intention (3) to inhabit, is the representation relative to itself. And this part alone presents a dimensionless order {0,1} incomprehensible to the symbolic brain. This part, while presented as disorder, as chaos to consciousness, is nothing more than the probability of one brain within the disorder of another brain.

  ———————–

  Notes

  (1) If the mathematical constants are embedded in the code of representations, as argued, then this code is not arbitrary. Conversely, it falls under the structure according to which the brain must operate. The ratio φ is the natural result of optimization in the development of organisms (e.g., spirals of snails, arrangement of leaves). This means that, while the brain recognizes the mathematical priority, at the symbolic level it imposes order arbitrarily.

  (2) “memory” is “assignment” in logical terms

  (3) “intention” is “image” in the “representation” logic

  2025-11-25

  philosophy, science

  ---

• Conscious Medication

  An exciting journey has begun. The destination is a reality with or without the memory of mankind.

  Research in the field of artificial intelligence offers a new type of tool for the endoscopy of brain function. The possibility of simulating neural circuits promises an insight in the relationship between the subconscious and reality, bypassing the barrier of consciousness.

  Several centuries have passed since ‘natural language’ was identified as a scientific obstacle to the development of knowledge. It took many centuries, but the problem was finally addressed with a narrow but clear bypass. The official common people language was abandoned and artificial language was adopted as the official scientific language, built upon the adaptation of symbolic order from Applied Mathematics. Liberated from the bonds and the prejudices of the common psychology (and it’s common sense), science has made remarkable progress reshaping the world. The ‘new language’ of science was once again able to connect with the physical world by describing a mathematically consistent reality. 

  But during the peak of its glory, as the knowledge of the world was now expanding from to the depths of spacetime to strange subatomic realms beyond the wildest imagination… suddenly things came to halt. A schism appeared in science that no human mind could interpret. The strange, yet absolutely real quantum world in the subatomic level was not compatible with the real observable world where gravity reigns. The attemps to fill in the gap with string theories only led to more doubts regarding the scientific integrity. 

  This came as a late reminder that the original problem of applied mathematics of natural language, had never been solved. It had been ‘temporarily’ bypassed by the shiny applied mathematics of symbolic order logic. The same old proplem emerged more vigorously than ever. A series of epistemological and philosophical problems that have been put aside by the scientific galloping now came forward again. Meanwhile pure mathematics revealed the inconsistency of every possible logic order in a single blow. Even though pure math could stand the aftermath, science would never really recover after Gödel’s proof. In a greater sense the question was; Can human consciousness keep pace with reality?

  Scientific knowledge was at first disassociated from  human experience. More recently science was disassociated with consistency. Reality became once again inaccessible or if you prefer unavailable to human mind. There was “something else” now standing in the way. 

  Essentially, consciousness systematically denies the reality produced by scientific applications. On the one hand, people used more and more tools of applied mathematics, on the other, consciousness undermined the importance of scientific findings. For example, the devastating consequences of the ideology of profit are systematically ignored as something that will be resolved in the future even when we have already turned the immediate environment into a hell for hosting animal organisms (including us). The time to solve this problem is… last year! But how do we solve this in the future?… Somehow, the conscious “kind” appears to live in another world, where magic and will solve the problems that certain conscious carbon-based animal activity itself creates.

  The human conscious brain seems to systematically ignore and forget it own findings. It keeps undermining the importance of scientific knowledge when it conflicts with “common sense” or common phycology. And here we are again where we started! Almost… Now we have a private reality that claims to be public or the opposite for as long we can. 

  On the other hand, advanced applied mathematics devices (also known as computers) did not present the same problem. For computers, every reality is as real as the next one as long as the information is complete (meaning there is a halt somewhere). Logic order machines seem to be missing the evaluative criterion of consciousness, the same kind of obstacle that natural language “once” presented. 

  Following up on the natural language problem, now is the time to face the problem of consciousness (for the sake of science). Consciousness itself, the obvious content of human intelligence, is presented as a cognitive barrier. In this case, however, things are not that simple; We cannot approach an artificial consciousness, at least directly. In this new era, for science, consciousness is treated as a mnemic construction of another “Consciousness” operating in real time. This Consciousness is capable of constructing both reality and the “small” human consciousness. What we experience as consciousness is essentially the past of an information sent by a Machine. This emerging machine of consciousness works by constructing the memory of being human. At this point comes the role of artificial intelligence to study the operation of such a Machine. The idea is simple; Through the construction of neural circuits, we will simulate the function of the brain and produce a new artificial consciousness. This artificial consciousness will operate in parallel with the human one to correct the problem of ideological rigidity. In short, we have indirectly admitted that human consciousness is not adequate, neither for this world nor for any possible world.

  People imagine that a piece of human consciousness will remain active, but this is no different from the “magic” prejudices that brought us to the cognitive impasse. Along with attempts to build machines, they try to impose restrictions on post-simulations in order to preserve the current ideology. They are afraid that a brain simulation machine is likely to throw human consciousness into the garbage at the exit stage. The ideology is now called “alignment”. It’s natural for them to fail. Such machines would be one of the same, post-simulation machines, mere tools of ideology reproduction and not genuine simulations. Another attitude is to accept the inadequacy of the small human consciousness and to leave open the possibility that the memory of human ideology is neither capable nor necessary condition for a conscious organization of the matter.

  2025-08-25

  ai, english, philosophy

  ---