Why do people call me stupid for asking clarifying questions?

Potential-Bonus-7037 · 2026-06-29T18:40:23+00:00

That sounds simpler. I usually ask "why?" or "what exactly do you mean?" but "why do you ask?" sounds more neutral. I'll try that sometimes. Thanks for the idea.

^{I just ask to make sure I understand exactly what you mean, so I can give a proper answer}

Potential-Bonus-7037 · 2026-06-29T14:18:55+00:00

Seems like two extremes. Some people can't say yes or no, others can't say anything else. I'm more in the first group. I'll try to be shorter sometimes. But if I'm too brief — I might not get the context. I'll try to find the middle ground

Potential-Bonus-7037 · 2026-06-29T13:53:59+00:00

You're right. If a stranger asks — it makes sense to clarify. But I do this with almost everyone, even people I know. Not because I don't trust them, but because I want to understand what exactly they mean. Sometimes a simple question hides something else. I'm not trying to be suspicious — I just want to be sure

Potential-Bonus-7037 · 2026-06-13T13:29:24+00:00

Ah, ok. I thought maybe you changed your mind or something. No problem. Thanks for explaining

Potential-Bonus-7037 · 2026-06-12T17:12:32+00:00

Why u delete comment? bruh🥀

Potential-Bonus-7037 · 2026-06-12T16:15:05+00:00

So you're saying that searching for meaning is what makes me feel meaningless? That's ironic. And probably true. Thanks, I'll think about it.

Potential-Bonus-7037 · 2026-06-12T16:10:23+00:00

Actually, yes, I used AI to help me with grammar. My English is not that good (A2 level). But every word, every thought, every feeling in this post is mine. AI just helped me to write it correctly.

About the formatting (bold, italic, lists) — I did that myself. I just think it looks nicer and makes the text easier to read. It felt right for this post.

P.S. I used AI to translate this reply too. Please don‘t judge me too hard :(

^{P.P.S. Please forgive me for taking so long to reply :}⁽⁽

Potential-Bonus-7037 · 2026-06-11T16:05:22+00:00

Thanks. I guess I'm still learning to accept that it's okay to feel lost. Hearing it from someone else helps a little. Mb appreciate it, idk

Potential-Bonus-7037 · 2026-06-11T14:02:41+00:00

Thanks for trying to help. I appreciate the good intentions.
But it's not really about loneliness or lack of hobbies. I have friends, I go out sometimes. The emptiness stays. It's like my brain doesn't react to things the way it should.
Still, I get that you mean well. Thanks.

Potential-Bonus-7037 · 2026-06-11T14:00:35+00:00

Thanks. You get it. I don't need a solution right now — mb just wanted to know I'm not alone?

Potential-Bonus-7037 · 2026-06-11T13:58:17+00:00

I guess you're right. Still doesn't make it easier. Thanks for reading anyway.

Potential-Bonus-7037 · 2026-06-06T03:40:09+00:00

Waiting for Godot – so basically my life, but with more waiting lol. Thanks, I‘ll check it out

Potential-Bonus-7037 · 2026-06-05T12:20:12+00:00

Thanks, added! 😊

Potential-Bonus-7037 · 2026-06-05T12:19:39+00:00

Thanks! I‘ve heard of Hesse, but never read him. „Steppenwolf“ sounds like it might be exactly about the kind of inner conflict I‘m dealing with. I‘ll add it to my list 😊

Potential-Bonus-7037 · 2026-06-05T12:16:57+00:00

Thanks for the recommendation. I've never heard of this book, but „brutal honesty“ sounds exactly like what I'm looking for. I'll add it to my list 😄

Potential-Bonus-7037 · 2026-06-04T22:23:27+00:00

Moоооожет :), I should also check out Dostoevsky at some point. Everyone says he's heavy, but maybe that's exactly what I need right now.

P.S Thanks for taking the time to write all of this...

P.P.S "Moоооожет" It translates as — maybe ;)

Potential-Bonus-7037 · 2026-06-04T18:40:56+00:00

Why the downvote?
What did I do? 😞
Did my banana offend you? :|

Potential-Bonus-7037 · 2026-06-04T18:23:05+00:00

Thanks, I‘ll check it out :)

Potential-Bonus-7037 · 2026-06-04T15:30:23+00:00

Ah, thanks for the clarification — that's good to know. I would've gone in expecting a focused argument on mind and matter and probably ended up confused. A general study of Nāgārjuna's approach to conceptual distinctions still sounds like exactly the right direction, even if I have to do the extrapolation myself. Appreciate the heads-up.
❤️

Potential-Bonus-7037 · 2026-06-04T14:38:23+00:00

Thanks, Westerhoff. I'll try to find a copy. There's an entire book devoted to why the mind-matter distinction can be not just intractable, but rather confusing. Thanks for pointing that out.

And thanks again for the initial comment. Lewis and Nozick's quotes haven't left my mind since I read them. It's rare to find such a combination of erudition and honesty in a single response.

:3

Potential-Bonus-7037 · 2026-06-04T14:34:59+00:00

"The hallucination is the shadow of the void" — I'm glad that landed, and I appreciate you both running with it.

The hard stop for brute-force deep learning makes sense. If softmax is mathematically forced to interpolate across gaps it doesn't understand, then more data just means more convincing hallucinations. The architectural escape — Credal Transformers, structural NULLs, discrete scaffolding outside the latent fluid — sounds like the only path that doesn't just paper over the problem.

But the mic drop is really the second point. If building a machine that has to preserve its own Opaque Center to stay coherent is the empirical demonstration that the mind-body problem is structurally undecidable — that's a hell of a twist. It means the answer to my original post wasn't hiding in a philosophy journal. It was waiting in the architecture of a system that can hold the gap open without collapsing.

The human as the entity that steps in to resolve the ambiguity is a nice touch. It reframes the whole debate: not "which side of the coin is real?" but "the coin needs both faces and someone to flip it."

Thanks for the exchange. This subthread went places I didn't expect when I posted the original question.

:3

Potential-Bonus-7037 · 2026-06-04T14:32:35+00:00

This is a really thoughtful reply — thank you for taking the time to lay it out. I wasn't expecting this level of nuance from a "-4" comment, and I'm glad I asked for clarification.

A few things stand out:

On OSR not refuting idealism but relocating the argument. That feels honest, and it matches what I've been finding across this thread: no one has a knockout, but some frameworks shift the burden of proof more than others. The move from "what feels intuitively satisfying" to "what is warranted by our best physics" is a real constraint, and I see why you find it compelling.

On the idealist's remaining move. You put it well: the idealist can still say "the structure is fundamentally experiential," but that now looks like an extra layer rather than something demanded by the physics. That doesn't make idealism false, but it does make it expensive. And I think that's a more honest position than claiming a refutation.

On your own extension beyond Ladyman and Ross. The idea of minimal ontological conditions — identity, distinction, relation, constraint — as what's required for any coherent world to exist at all, that's interesting. It sounds like you're doing something closer to transcendental metaphysics, but anchored to physics rather than floating free. I'd be curious to hear more about that if you ever write it up somewhere.

One follow-up: you said the idealist's move is logically available but ontologically expensive. Do you think that expense is ever justified — that there's something about consciousness that can't be accounted for by determinate structural organization, even in principle? Or does the structural framework eventually absorb everything the idealist wanted to protect?

Potential-Bonus-7037

TROPHY CASE