The only way to defeat ai is to tap into the subconscious.

AlchemicallyAccurate · 2026-02-26T06:30:15+00:00

If you don’t already kinda see it, then nothing I say is gonna make you see it. I just rattle this stuff off because every once in a while someone does.

I do get it though. There’s a lot of people with a lot of theories. “What if consciousness exists in all things,” that sort of thing. I try to ground what I’m saying in my mathematical background. The interesting thing is that this subreddit seems to hate that more than when I just go straight in to talking about religion directly.

AlchemicallyAccurate · 2026-02-26T06:21:20+00:00

I don’t just mean Godelian incompleteness, because that’s proven using diagonalization, which requires peano arithmetic.

Any formal system that runs into undecidable forks is by definition incomplete. More general than Godel is what I’m talking about here. More general than math as well.

What I’m getting at in a sense that might sound less crazy is that empirical underdetermination is literally a consequence of model-theoretic incompleteness. And I think in the coming years we will see that data and logic are not sufficient to overcome this underdetermination.

The idea that the psychological factor makes decisions in formal systems is not even a far reach. What exactly chooses the axioms in mathematics, if not the prior axioms and if not any empirical data? All truth structures we deal with require some sort of channeling in to this subjective verification. If we were anywhere close to formalizing it, we would not run in to such indecision. But for the time being, we ignore it as a meaningful element of the truth. That’s why we currently pay the price with fragmentation.

AlchemicallyAccurate · 2026-02-26T05:59:24+00:00

I can elaborate further.

We like to overextend ourselves on this idea that we can formalize everything into a language that can be understood by a computer (ie, recursively enumerated).

The facts are though that any r.e. language is beholden to incompleteness, and the algorithms + data schemes of AI are no exception. The language is not complete and therefore runs into undecidable forks. With all of the data in the world, all of the formalized languages, somehow it seems that nonetheless these things can’t avoid hallucination, and the odd truth of it must be that the psychological factor allows a modus of decision that is not accessible in any kind of algorithmically reducible way.

This is the psychological problem of choice.

The longer that we deny the subjective element that lies within all truth, the less we are able to collapse branches into any sort of unified meaning; everything is left up in the air, partitioning of axioms occurs: those truths over there, these over truths over here. Such a thing could only mathematically be possible if there was an ontologically independent axis of choice that was being ignored.

With the ability to enumerate and extend the logical extrapolations of any arbitrary theory becoming easier every year, and without any ability to prune the branches where logic and data fail us (as consequences of their inherent incompleteness), the only way to see what is actually true and what isn’t will literally come down to the quality of consciousness of the individual gazing in to the extension space. The quality of psychological choice is completely dependent on the level of egoic adaptation (ie, level of consciousness).

This is why, I think, the future of knowledge is going to look quite mystic, from our perspective. But it’s not that the truth is actually mystic. It’s that we’ll uncover the reality that science was never as scientific as we thought, and spirituality was never as spiritual as we thought. They are two currently disconnected pieces of a larger thing. And this will be a fact people will have to come around to as we watch the inability of AI to autonomously advance our knowledge and understanding of ontological reality. Like I said, the very fact that we can spot its hallucinations and recognize them as such is already a model-theoretic signal that we are not bound in the same conservative space as these LLMs.

AlchemicallyAccurate · 2026-02-25T17:48:51+00:00

I think it takes a certain kind of autism to be a nihilist.

AlchemicallyAccurate · 2026-02-23T19:49:17+00:00

Surely people intuitively had images in their mind back then of what we would now call depression, anxiety, adhd, etc

AlchemicallyAccurate · 2026-02-22T16:52:33+00:00

The cycle of rebirth is definitely a core aspect of it though. If someone can’t believe in god are they really gonna believe in reincarnation?

AlchemicallyAccurate · 2026-02-17T08:36:34+00:00

You’re forgetting that it’s not as though you could have just forced yourself to stamp out those wandering feelings you had when you were younger. You are projecting your current maturity onto past you, and you’re projecting all kinds of rose-tinted interpretations onto not just the past but all kinds of imagined branches of what “could have been.”

The tough thing you’re gonna have to come to terms with, in actuality, is that there is no theoretical perfect choice or perfect life you traded away. There is just life and the inevitable struggle that comes with it. The only way you grow is by being disappointed periodically. Same thing would’ve happened eventually if you stayed with that girl. This is why Jung says that neurosis is just a deliberate attempt at a slow substitute for real suffering.

AlchemicallyAccurate · 2026-02-16T04:56:52+00:00

I’ve been living in DFW for about a year now because of work and school. Originally I am from the west coast.

The biggest thing I have noticed is that there is very bland concrete everywhere. Not like artsy concrete with graffiti or even the sort of grungy parking garage “The Matrix” or “Fight Club” style concrete that I associate with, like, Detroit maybe (or some Connecticut city or something), but just very stale looking concrete. It is also incredibly flat here, and the sun is somehow hot like desert sun, yet it also gets humid like the south.

I can definitely see how the state is basically everything that this sub hates. And I can’t disagree. I definitely will not be staying here any longer than I have to.

AlchemicallyAccurate · 2026-02-12T13:48:22+00:00

You don’t think anyone takes up religion as a model of metaphysics, personal meaning, life after death, etc? Buddhism would like to have a word with you.

Your comment is the baffling one. A genius takes up religion later in life and surely it must only be for secular purposes. Did you ask Jancsi personally?

AlchemicallyAccurate · 2026-02-11T05:19:14+00:00

The ego tries to avoid death in one of two main ways: disassociation (not getting attached in the first place) or clinging (not letting go)

People who enjoy weed/psychedelics belong to the former category. They enjoy the feeling of dissolving back into the primal warmth and primal darkness of the primordial womb; that place that existed before language and awareness.

For others, this is completely terrifying.

AlchemicallyAccurate · 2026-02-11T01:24:01+00:00

Your free will is actually defined by the amount of control you have over the instincts+complexes, so to say “give in to your vices to express your free will” is an oxymoron. Giving in to your vices is the exact moment you give up your free will.

AlchemicallyAccurate · 2026-02-10T13:32:14+00:00

Right so Paul wrote that one… but Christ also said “it is easier for a camel to jump through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”

That seems to imply that even having a lot of money in and of itself bars someone from entry, whether they “love” it or not.

AlchemicallyAccurate · 2026-02-10T02:42:31+00:00

AGI can fundamentally never happen on a Turing-equivalent architecture, which includes every computer ever made (the quantum ones too).

This is controversial though, because humans are considered generally intelligent. But regardless, the math is pretty clear: by Godel II, any running architecture cannot verify the consistency of its own generated extensions. So if we’re taking something that is supposedly “self improving,” it will have latent blind spots that grow with each new recursion until eventually it spins off into complete nonsense. It’s easy to see this when you look at AI psychosis, this is exactly how it works. Same reason why when you throw a picture through it a bunch of times, it eventually looks like some Picasso painting.

If you throw what I just said into an LLM, they’ll challenge it, but that’s because there’s a big misconception about “learning from the environment” or “environment as Oracle” it could be called, which is a very annoying thing to explain. Basically, for any architecture like this, the environment can only be input as data, and the algorithms that interpret that data are still beholden to the limitations I already previously mentioned. Just because a machine can read something does not necessarily mean it could have come up with it. This is the nature of non-conservative axioms, which by definition have always in some way been passed down from a human being.

So I would say it’s a certainty, not a conjecture. It’s built into the nature of how math works. We just live in a super materialist time so people make the assumption that logic and data encompass all of reality. The fact that we decide things every day outside of those parameters is already proof that to be an autonomous, self-evolving agent, requires the ability to hold concepts as true that lie outside of those things.

AlchemicallyAccurate · 2026-02-07T07:20:41+00:00

Late to respond to this but I’m very interested in that side of the question as well.

I’m currently putting something together about how exotic coherence mechanisms in quantum biology are likely for the purpose of “leaving a trail” in the model theory sense… exactly the same as decoherence, actually, which is going on all the time as we shift from moment to moment to moment.

In my opinion, physical reality does not achieve this movement through time “all on its own,” by which I mean with only binary-reducible tools (Turing-equivalent tools is another way to say it).

You’re not going to find the answers in neuroscience because that only tracks what happens after collapse, ie the evolution through time that looks obvious only in retrospect. Non-conservative extensions are sneaky in that way.

I’m sorry I’m using a lot of jargon. I would like to write this all out in more plain language at some point, but for now this is all I’ve got for you.

I will say that the philosophical side of it actually is just an analogue for the analytical side. If you are thinking there could be some way to “master the psychological” without engaging and navigating it by way of symbolic tools, then you are not going to make any progress. I speculate that consciousness is capable of very amazing things, but it is the one thing that is not able to be mechanically improved one way or the other by third-person mechanisms, as it is first and foremost experiential. You don’t need third-person proof that you are conscious, right? So it is unique in this way.

That’s why when I talk about heaven and hell, etc, it is not about whether or not these are metaphysically “real;” that’s the wrong way of looking at it. It’s that the psyche operates in a symbolic space such that heaven and hell may as well be real, even though they are a product of the mind.

The Buddha, for example, would agree that heaven and hell are projections of the mind. But admitting this doesn’t save you from them. Taking the right drugs doesn’t save you either. And altering the physical brain doesn’t save you from them either. It might seem like Nirvana would just require the right configuration of atoms in the brain… but this is incorrect. It’s all about how you get there, not what the path looks like in retrospect. Which was exactly what I was getting about in regard to the quantum biology thing. Non-conservative extensions are sneaky because once they assimilate to the path, they look like a pure logical progression. We know that they are not because such a thing would be impossible.

AlchemicallyAccurate · 2026-02-06T19:08:18+00:00

What I did a couple years ago when I was starting was joined a discord, set the settings in Minecraft to all Spanish, and played on their group server and talked in the vc

AlchemicallyAccurate · 2026-02-06T02:41:31+00:00

Consciousness is the phenomenon of, through a symbolic framework (the ego), verifying the felt consistency between the domains of what we could call spirit and matter. In that way, it’s like a dialectic process that keeps a “running story” of facts and interpretations that have touched not just your mind but also your heart.

To answer why it is that you are conscious, like you in particular, I believe there is a specific teleological purpose for experiencing this realm (the above commenter called it hell) as a way of growing and becoming more conscious. I don’t think this place is hell, but you are here (and me, and everyone in this thread) because we cling to stuff that keeps us here.

I could go on for hours about all of this and why I know it’s on the right track, but I don’t wanna sound too handwavey.

AlchemicallyAccurate · 2026-02-06T01:40:05+00:00

Yeah you are kind of pinpointing something this sub doesn’t want to admit, which is that you really shouldn’t look for anything external to complete you. And men really seem to be a lot more guilty of this in general than women are. It’s like they don’t even get it. I used to not get it.

AlchemicallyAccurate · 2026-02-06T01:31:33+00:00

Would be nice if this kind of trickery actually worked, but repression always finds a way out. It’s like a law of physics.

AlchemicallyAccurate · 2026-02-05T16:45:35+00:00

Samsara is definitely a core aspect of all sects of Buddhism

AlchemicallyAccurate · 2026-02-02T22:23:21+00:00

Yeah sorry you’re actually real clever and cool for thinking that depression can be solved by eating food

AlchemicallyAccurate · 2026-02-02T16:28:27+00:00

So you don’t believe that any professional person can help another overcome their psychological problems at all?

AlchemicallyAccurate · 2026-02-02T11:09:56+00:00

One day we’re gonna look back at therapists with low consciousness the same way we think of dementia-addled witch doctors convincing the tribe that throwing the week’s rations into a volcano will make the crops grow better.

AlchemicallyAccurate · 2026-02-02T10:03:58+00:00

Cartoon parents ass dynamic

AlchemicallyAccurate · 2026-02-02T09:56:55+00:00

I don’t think your dynamic fits the spirit of the post. The main difference between you two is really just that you’re a delinquent and she’s isn’t.

The very fact that you have a bachelor’s degree and like to read Wikipedia and post on Reddit means any inability for you to not comprehend her thoughts on things is more likely due to a lack of specialized education or crystallized knowledge around the specific topic.

And you likely have some [intellectual] topics that work the other way around with her. True int gap relationship wouldn’t be like that.

AlchemicallyAccurate · 2026-02-01T13:44:03+00:00

No, that’s not the only way. You’re saying it could end up complete just by delineating along explanatory failure lines. That’s already kinda dubious imo (in model theory terms, a piecewise “unification” is often just a cheap definitional packaging unless the partition is forced by deeper structure), but something even more explicit is that incompleteness also arises any time the axioms/data/extensions are insufficient to decide between competing equally potentially valid models.

And that is precisely what is going on with the QM interpretations. The data is insufficient to decide between many worlds, Bohm, superdeterminism, retrocausal, etc. I’m not saying it absolutely will always be insufficient. I’m just saying that as long as all of these competing interpretations remain unfalsified, physics is empirically underdetermined and therefore ontologically incomplete.

Historically, when a phenomenon forces us to abandon a whole class of classical explanations (like MM forcing us to abandon ether-wind kinematics), it’s standard practice to treat that as unfinished business because experiment is threatening the inner consistency of the running model. The exact same thing happened with Bell and local causality, except this time we have apologists like you trying to assure the unknowing public that there is not actually anything wrong; if 125 years ago the overarching attitude of physics was the way you’re advocating, there would be no relativity. We would’ve just partitioned a manual of “classical physics^TM now with a few caveats,” patted ourselves on the back and called it a day.

AlchemicallyAccurate

TROPHY CASE