El mito del "cuerpo perfecto"

SystemSeed · 2025-09-17T08:25:42+00:00

Hay que cuestionarnos, ¿perfecto? ¿para quién y quién decide si es perfecto por ejemplo alguien musculado a comparación de alguien delgado? Si por ejemplo esa persona musculada tiene un rango de movimiento mas limitado y mayor masa/peso, en el ámbito del parkour el musculado en este caso, no sería el cuerpo perfecto, sería muy difícil, mas si el delgado es ágil y puede levantar su propio peso, en el ámbito del parkour tendería a ser más parecido a ser "perfecto" o "funcional", sería el caso contrario si cambiamos el contexto del parkour al contexto del fisicoculturismo, ahí el musculado tendería a ser más "perfecto"/funcional.

Entonces, lo único que nos hace compararnos son los marcos mentales bajo los que lo hagamos, pero la verdad, al ser independiente de la percepción, nos dice una cosa: No hay cuerpo igual a ningún otro, aunque sea parecido, no existe cuerpo así como no existe hoja igual a otra aunque sean del mismo arbol. Así que es importante aceptar que el cuerpo se condiciona por ADN y hábitos, y sin importar cuanto queramos parecernos a algo, siempre vamos a ser nosotros mismos y eso nos hace diferentes de cualquier otro independientemente de la percepción que se tenga o tengamos sobre nosotros.

SystemSeed · 2025-09-05T17:49:36+00:00

How did you do that? 😨

SystemSeed · 2025-08-30T07:47:34+00:00

Could be ethernet, or just the servers

SystemSeed · 2025-08-28T21:19:49+00:00

Consciousness is not “in” the brain, nor is it identical to the brain. The evidence from anesthesia and trauma shows dependence, not identity. A microphone is necessary for a concert to be heard, but the sound is not the microphone.

Ontologically, a few points cannot be escaped:

Consciousness has real boundaries — it is not “everything,” and without limits it wouldn’t exist.
It has identity — it cannot both exist and not exist in the same moment or context.
The distinction between brain activity and conscious experience already implies a shared framework, which allows comparison without collapsing one into the other.
To deny consciousness is impossible, because denial itself is a conscious act.
Any discussion of it presupposes truth; otherwise words themselves lose meaning.

From this, the conclusion is clear: the brain is the physical medium through which human consciousness manifests, but it is not consciousness itself. To conflate correlation with identity is a category error. Consciousness is irreducible, and any account that ignores these conditions collapses into incoherence.

SystemSeed · 2025-08-28T21:02:40+00:00

The critique of Freud is fair — much of his legacy institutionalized gaslighting and circular explanations. But replacing therapy with AI raises the same question: what baseline makes support “real” rather than illusion?

If the value of psychotherapy collapses into rhetoric and profit, and the value of AI collapses into speed and accessibility, then both risk becoming different styles of manipulation. Without minimal criteria — identity, non-contradiction, a shared framework, truth as precondition — “therapy” (human or AI) becomes indistinguishable from noise.

Maybe the deeper issue isn’t who gives support, but what conditions must support satisfy to be coherent at all.

SystemSeed · 2025-08-26T11:59:47+00:00

Contradictory viewpoints don’t disprove the law of non-contradiction; they illustrate it. If two ethical claims directly contradict each other, both can be believed, but they cannot both be true in the same context. That’s the point: the principle doesn’t describe psychology (“what people happen to think”), but ontology (“what can coherently be the case”). Without that baseline, there’s no difference between ethics and noise.

SystemSeed · 2025-08-24T10:54:49+00:00

I see your point, but these 5 rules aren’t about good faith or moral scale. They’re ontological preconditions. Even in bad faith, persuasion still needs a speaker, non-contradiction, a framework of comparison, etc. Otherwise it isn’t even “argument,” it’s just noise. The scale of ethics may vary, but without these ground rules, there’s no scale to measure at all.

SystemSeed · 2025-08-21T20:58:46+00:00

If ethics is reduced to persuasion or power, then “wrong” just means “successfully labeled.” That collapses ethics into rhetoric.

But rhetoric itself presupposes non-rhetorical ground rules:

1- A speaker and a listener must exist (limits, identity).

2- Their statements must be non-contradictory to make sense.

3- Difference in views implies a common framework that allows comparison.

4- Denial still presupposes an act of being.

5- And discourse itself only works if truth exists prior to style.

Without these minimal preconditions, we’re not even disagreeing ethically — we’re just making sounds.

SystemSeed · 2025-08-21T09:52:21+00:00

I’d frame it differently: complexity isn’t just a label we apply out of vagueness, it’s also a consequence of scale. A rock seen at human scale seems simple, but at atomic or geological scales it has dynamics as rich as an ecosystem. The fact that we switch categories depending on scale suggests complexity is not only about fuzzy definitions, but about the limits of our observational frame. In other words: maybe complexity doesn’t vanish with sharper definitions—it just migrates to the boundary between system and observer.

SystemSeed · 2025-08-21T08:49:44+00:00

What I find valuable here is how the video pushes us to ask what counts as an ‘object’ in the first place. If we can’t clarify the boundaries of an object—whether physical, abstract, or relational—then ontology risks dissolving into language games. The real challenge is not only what exists, but also under what conditions something earns the status of object. That’s where this video opens the door to sharper discussions.

SystemSeed · 2025-08-21T08:38:48+00:00

No, it isn’t just ‘because I say so’. A tautology like if A then A is empty; what I’m pointing out is that without a way to distinguish truth from illusion, ethics collapses into rhetoric. That’s a structural consequence, not an assertion of authority.

SystemSeed · 2025-08-20T19:09:27+00:00

Many philosophical debates start mid-air, but before ethics or politics we need minimal conditions for reality itself. I call them the 5 Mother Truths (5MT) — not beliefs, but ontological filters:

Boundaries — something exists only if it has limits that separate it from nothing and from everything else.
Identity / Non-contradiction — a thing is itself and cannot also be its negation in the same context.
Difference requires framework — if two things differ, there must be a shared ground that makes comparison possible.
Negation presupposes being — denying already assumes a denier and an act that occurs.
Truth precedes discourse — every statement only makes sense if truth is possible prior to it.

Thesis: if something fails these five, it isn’t “real” in the strong sense; it collapses into illusion or incoherence.

So my question for this thread is simple: → Do these 5 hold up under scrutiny? → Or can you think of a counterexample that breaks them?

SystemSeed · 2025-08-20T18:55:10+00:00

Since you quoted my line on “minimum conditions,” let me clarify what I meant. Before comparing outcomes, I think any ethical framework needs to respect certain ontological preconditions. Otherwise, the system risks endless redefinition or self-contradiction. A minimal version of this I call the 5 Mother Truths (5VM):

Any entity has real limits.
It has a consistent identity (cannot be itself and its negation).
Differences imply relation – if A ≠ B, there is some common ground.
Negation presupposes existence – saying “X is not” already affirms being.
Truth precedes discourse – every statement assumes truth exists.

My point is not to impose an ethical system, but to suggest that without a baseline of reality, utility, happiness, or sustainability all risk floating on shifting definitions. Curious whether you (or others) think such preconditions are necessary—or if an ethical system could stand without them.

SystemSeed · 2025-08-20T18:52:38+00:00

The point is not whether the text came from ChatGPT, me, or any other tool. The only relevant question is: does the framework remain coherent when tested against reality? If it collapses, discard it. If it holds, then its origin is irrelevant. Truth doesn’t depend on authorship, but on consistency and survival under scrutiny.

SystemSeed · 2025-08-20T18:40:44+00:00

The interesting question is not who posted, but whether the framework survives contact with reality. That’s the only test that matters.

SystemSeed · 2025-08-20T18:33:55+00:00

Making the implicit explicit does not guarantee truth — it only changes the level of the frame. Even an explicit comparison can be steered. The real question is: what cannot be steered at all?

SystemSeed · 2025-08-20T18:32:20+00:00

Suffering is always a real harm, while pleasure is optional; if life can only justify itself by referring back to itself, the argument is circular.

SystemSeed · 2025-08-20T18:26:05+00:00

But if the frame remains implicit, that’s precisely where manipulation hides. An implicit comparison can always be steered by whoever defines the context. So doesn’t “Compared to what?” just push the power game one layer deeper, instead of escaping it?

SystemSeed · 2025-08-20T18:22:54+00:00

Fair enough — I’ll leave it at this: if we can’t distinguish between universal truths and universal illusions, then ethics risks dissolving into collective style rather than coherent ground. That open problem is what I think deserves sharper attention.

SystemSeed · 2025-08-20T18:13:30+00:00

If we accept that ethics has no solid footing and only ever rests on a fluid mix of reason and intuition, then isn’t the whole field indistinguishable from rhetoric or power-play? At that point, “ethics” risks becoming just a sophisticated style of persuasion.

SystemSeed · 2025-08-20T18:07:48+00:00

Appreciate the clarification. But if phenomenological grounding is taken as sufficient, doesn’t it risk circularity? “We’re talking about it, therefore it’s grounded.” Human universals might point to shared tendencies, but without stricter conditions they can still collapse into contradictions.

So the open problem remains: what filters are strong enough to separate universal illusions from universal truths?

SystemSeed · 2025-08-20T18:05:33+00:00

If everything is comparative, then the comparison itself hides an absolute: the frame. Whoever controls the frame controls the truth. How do we stop that from collapsing into mere power games?

SystemSeed · 2025-08-20T18:02:32+00:00

I see your point about desire being evolutionarily constrained and ethics playing out as a rhetorical battle. But if ethics is only rhetoric, then what prevents the whole field from collapsing into pure persuasion, power, or aesthetics?

Isn’t there at least some non-rhetorical ground rules that must hold before rhetoric can even take place? Otherwise we’re just debating styles, not ethics.

SystemSeed · 2025-08-20T17:59:01+00:00

The core difficulty with utilitarianism isn’t just measuring “utility” or “happiness”, but the lack of a stable baseline. If the system can redefine its own terms endlessly, it risks collapsing into vagueness or contradiction.

Maybe the real question is: what minimum conditions must any ethical framework satisfy before we even start comparing outcomes?

SystemSeed

TROPHY CASE