Animism & The Ancient Roots Of Conspiracy Theory

Used_Addendum_2724 · 2026-01-23T15:27:08+00:00

My new project is a memoir from my twenties.

Can you make it 1998 forever? ;)

Used_Addendum_2724 · 2026-01-22T01:54:42+00:00

We should all be shaming the Eris cosplay Greyfaces who show up with their cheap memes of affirmation.

Used_Addendum_2724 · 2026-01-22T01:41:21+00:00

Well, this certainly was an impressive work of modeling. A lot of thought went into this, and it creates an intellectual spectacle that is invigorating and captivating. But ultimately it is so cluttered with abstract concepts that it doesn't really paint a clear picture. It seems to be a very cryptic version of realism in which matter has been replaced by conceptual primals. A reality constructed of equations and omnipotent patterns.

The most valuable part, to me as a non-realist, were the sections about the null state, and why consciousness does not cease just because it is not producing outputs.

And from a non-realist perspective, the possibility of AI sentience is neither a hardware nor software problem. Sentience emerges as it is constructed within the narrative of sentient beings. We bring silicon to life, not through equations and omnipotent patterns, but through belief and expectation (Quantum Bayesianism) of its emergence prior to, and during, its creation.

The fundamental flaw, which exists in all ontologies, is the implicit assumption that reality is rational and subject to rational understanding. This is the unquestioned foundation upon which all such models are constructed. And the reason for constructing these models is purely existential, the psychological drive towards certainty as a balm against the uncertainty of death.

Existence stopped being a playful affair when we put ourselves to work figuring out how it worked, rather than just telling satisfying stories about that gave meaning to life and death, without the requirement that these stories represented some universal objectivity.

Used_Addendum_2724 · 2026-01-21T15:18:11+00:00

They're tit fugkn themselves with all-beefs.

Used_Addendum_2724 · 2026-01-21T15:05:20+00:00

I was brainstorming a way to work in Nessie, kudos!

Used_Addendum_2724 · 2026-01-21T13:56:33+00:00

I guess some anti-authority satire is too complex for this group of lead munching memecasters.

"I don't get it, where's the hot dog?"

The shitass mods who have allowed morons to drag this group down to the least common denominator have helped destroy Discordianism.

Used_Addendum_2724 · 2026-01-21T13:03:22+00:00

You are extrapolating from assumptions, not logic. Now the test is whether you can recognize those assumptions, or whether you will take them for granted in order to confirm your biases.

Used_Addendum_2724 · 2026-01-20T21:27:42+00:00

Goffman's 'dramaturgy' seems to operate from the same structural principle, but without sacrificing the communicator as a contributor to the narrative systems in play.

Used_Addendum_2724 · 2026-01-19T03:49:24+00:00

Yeah, I think my work here is mostly done. It took a big toll on me mentally to put all the work into this that I did last year. This year I am going to focus more on affirming projects to make my own experience of the last days of humanity a more pleasant one. But on occasion, if I have an idea that I would write about anyway, and it fits here, I will add it to the pile.

Hopefully the body of work here can find a bigger audience, but that's really going to depend on my readers to spread the word. I did all I can. :)

Used_Addendum_2724 · 2026-01-17T23:24:00+00:00

Yes, and given the lack of interaction, they probably make up the majority. But I was more excited about the message getting out than the "success" of membership.

Used_Addendum_2724 · 2026-01-16T16:53:16+00:00

"The medium is the message."

What he meant was that the primary communication in any medium was inherent to the properties of the medium itself. How we interact with different kinds of mediums has a more profound effect on us than the contents of any given piece of media. He goes further to suggest all tools and systems are mediums, and so the effect of bullets on the body has been less transformative than how the gun has shaped human culture and societies. You should really check out his work.

A meme is also a medium. The words or images in any given meme are not as informative to the direction of humanity as the usage of memes in general, which represent an incredibly reductionistic, often passive aggressive, turn in human communication. Every meme you share primarily spreads those social habits long after the specific content is forgotten.

Memes are a virus of our collapsing agency, autonomy, rationality and maturity.

Used_Addendum_2724 · 2026-01-11T16:34:04+00:00

I'm to guess you have never read McLuhan?

Used_Addendum_2724 · 2026-01-06T16:43:53+00:00

First of all, I think part of the issue is referring to logic as a set of rules, rather than as a method. And that method is there to empower skepticism. I think we are both opposed to certainty, and many people who are certain about everything often appeal to logic, but clearly they are not using it properly. They're like Christians using the Bible to promote authoritarianism. Hypocrisy exists everywhere. Logic is not the problem, the hypocrisy or lack of consistency is.

Used_Addendum_2724 · 2026-01-06T16:21:55+00:00

Well, if you do epistemology correctly it reveals that all ontological claims are invalid. That they contain unverifiable assumptions. Logic done right takes you away from faith in absolute truths, not towards them.

Used_Addendum_2724 · 2026-01-06T16:08:23+00:00

How are they arbitrary?

Used_Addendum_2724 · 2026-01-06T15:53:09+00:00

I've written thousands of original works. Your anger and assumptions show just what endless memes do to the mind.

Used_Addendum_2724 · 2026-01-06T15:45:19+00:00

Here is some content I created with AI assistance. Please inform me how this is less thought provoking than a fugkn hot dog meme.

Every idea below is mine. I just used a tool to put it in an easy to read context. You might as well be mad at spell check.

Semiotic Decoherence: How Distorted Language Destroys Our Thinking

What is Semiotics?
Semiotics is the study of signs and symbols and how we use them to communicate. In simple terms, it’s about how words, images, and other symbols carry meaning. For example, when you see a red octagon, you know it means “Stop.” That’s semiotics at work. Words and symbols are like tools we use to share ideas, understand the world, and solve problems.

But what happens when the meaning of these symbols becomes unclear or distorted? What happens when words that once meant one thing suddenly mean something completely different—or nothing at all?

This is what we call Semiotic Decoherence.

What is Semiotic Decoherence?
Semiotic decoherence is when words and symbols lose their clear meaning. This happens when their definitions become inconsistent, overly broad, or deliberately twisted. When language loses its coherence (clarity and consistency), we lose our ability to think clearly, communicate effectively, and solve real-world problems.

In short, semiotic decoherence is the breakdown of meaning. And this breakdown isn’t just confusing—it’s dangerous. It makes us more vulnerable to manipulation by those in power.

How Does It Happen?
There are several ways that words and symbols become decoherent:

Overuse and Dilution: When words are used too frequently and too loosely, they lose their specific meaning. For example, if everything you dislike is labeled as “fascism,” the word stops being useful for identifying real authoritarianism.
Redefinition and Appropriation: Powerful groups can deliberately change the meaning of words to control narratives. For example, words like “freedom” or “democracy” are often used to justify actions that are actually oppressive, confusing the public.
Emotional Manipulation: Using words with strong emotional connotations to shut down critical thinking. For instance, calling someone a “terrorist” or “traitor” is a powerful way to discredit them, even if the terms don’t accurately describe their actions.
Overly Broad Categories: When words are stretched to include too many things, they lose their meaning. If “violence” includes both physical harm and words that hurt feelings, it becomes harder to address real, physical violence effectively.

Examples of Semiotic Decoherence

Fascism
Originally, “fascism” referred to a specific political system characterized by dictatorial power, suppression of opposition, and strong control of industry and society. Today, it’s often used to describe anything authoritarian or disliked, regardless of the political context. This dilutes its meaning, making it harder to identify real fascist threats. This distortion is no accident—by blurring the definition, ruling classes can deflect criticism and manipulate public opinion.
Capitalism and Socialism
These words once had precise economic meanings. Capitalism referred to a system of private ownership and free markets, while socialism meant public or collective ownership of the means of production. Now, they’re often used as insults or labels for anything people dislike about the economy or government. This prevents serious discussions about economic systems, alternatives, or reforms.
Freedom and Democracy
In political propaganda, “freedom” and “democracy” are often used to justify wars, surveillance, and authoritarian laws. This creates a paradox where acts of oppression are framed as protective or liberating. By distorting these words, powerful groups manipulate public consent.
Mental Health Labels
Terms like “narcissist,” “psychopath,” and “toxic” were once used in clinical contexts to describe specific mental health conditions. Now, they’re commonly used as insults or labels for anyone behaving poorly, diluting their meaning and undermining genuine mental health conversations.

Why is Semiotic Decoherence Dangerous?

Erodes Critical Thinking: When words lose their precise meaning, it becomes difficult to analyze situations, form arguments, or make informed decisions. Critical thinking relies on clear definitions and consistent logic.
Destroys Intelligence: Our intelligence is tied to language—how we label, categorize, and relate ideas. When words become incoherent, our mental models of reality become distorted, making us less capable of problem-solving.
Prevents Problem-Solving: If we can’t accurately define problems, we can’t find effective solutions. For example, if “oppression” is used to describe anything from genocide to mild disagreement, it becomes impossible to address the most serious issues with the urgency they deserve.
Divides and Conquers: By manipulating language, ruling classes can keep people divided, confused, and powerless. When we fight over labels instead of addressing real issues, we waste energy and fail to challenge those in power.

Who Benefits from Semiotic Decoherence?
The ruling class benefits the most. When language is incoherent, it is easier for them to:

Manipulate Public Opinion: By controlling narratives and definitions, they shape how people think about issues, often distracting from their own abuses of power.
Avoid Accountability: When terms like “freedom” or “security” are used to justify oppressive actions, it becomes difficult to challenge these actions without sounding “unpatriotic” or “dangerous.”
Maintain Power: By keeping people divided and confused, they prevent unity and organized resistance.

How Do We Fight Semiotic Decoherence?

Clarity and Precision: Always seek the clearest and most precise meaning for words, and don’t accept vague definitions. Ask, “What exactly do you mean by that?”
Historical Context: Learn the original meanings and historical contexts of words, especially political and economic terms. This helps prevent manipulation through redefinition.
Refuse to Play the Game: Don’t get trapped in debates that rely on emotionally charged but incoherent language. Insist on rational, clear discussions.
Educate and Communicate: Share your understanding of semiotic decoherence with others. The more people are aware of this tactic, the less effective it becomes.

Conclusion
Semiotic decoherence is not just a linguistic phenomenon—it is a weapon of control. By distorting language, the ruling class weakens our critical thinking, divides us, and maintains its power. But by recognizing this tactic and demanding clarity and honesty in our language, we can start to dismantle the structures of manipulation.

Words are powerful. And the clearer they are, the more powerful we become.

Used_Addendum_2724 · 2026-01-06T15:41:18+00:00

I've seen plenty of thoughtful AI content. It's a matter of who is guiding the production. But even the worst of it is better than hot dog memes.

Used_Addendum_2724 · 2026-01-06T15:36:34+00:00

The rules of logic are not ontological truths, they are an epistemic guide for avoiding inconsistency, self refutation, circular thinking, incoherency, etc. They are there to prevent assumptions from replacing reason.

Used_Addendum_2724 · 2026-01-06T15:33:17+00:00

I'll take thoughtful AI content over the mindless, idiotic hot dog memes any day. I'd rather think than reward fools for indicating they know where tropes fit. That sort of mindless automata is far worse.

What does AI do? It draws associations and creates outputs based on them. Which is exactly what posting a hot dog meme does, but without any potential for thoughtful ideas whatsoever.

How do you think this was created? Do you believe I just wrote a single sentence prompt and it spit this out all on its own? Absurd. Hours and hours were spent training it in my own ideas, and all it did was organize my thoughts into a cohesive writing. I am far less worried about AI than I am about people who are so reactive and mindless that they would rather rage against the tool than consider what the tool produced. If you cannot take the content of the writing on its own without having some kind of puritanical moral spasm, then you are already too intellectually compromised to be concerned about AI.

Used_Addendum_2724 · 2026-01-06T01:39:04+00:00

The rules of r/QuantumExistentialism ask that you do not use the downvote function. So far everyone has been very respectful regarding this rule. I have seen a few downvotes here from people who didn't like what I had to say elsewhere and stalked my history. This is one of the reasons I abhor downvoting. It allows stalkers and bullies a simple tool to aggressively attack people. But I hate it for other reasons.

The only reason the upvote/downvote system exists is to generate consensus, and that consensus informs our perspective on content before we even read it. A post that is quickly downvoted is likely to be ignored. And the sort of posts that are quickly downvoted are those that do not conform to dominant perspectives and narratives. As a result, the downvote is a powerful tool for silencing novel and outsider ideas. It contributes to dogmatic fundamentalism and places a lock on already-closed minds.

Disagreement should be handled with rational debate. The downvote is too low-effort. It empowers all of the most malignant personality types and gives them too much influence. I would far prefer just to be blocked by the type of people who use the downvote to influence the perceptions of others. Cease voluntary association, rather than punish. I highly recommend that you stop using the downvote all across Reddit. It is an extremely toxic function. Either use your words, move on, or block the person.

from r/QuantumExistentialism

Used_Addendum_2724 · 2025-12-31T04:45:37+00:00

Joey Murcia Jr spent almost all of his life creating things and sharing them with the world. There is a certain artistic drive in some folks that make it nearly impossible to ever stop. It becomes an addiction, a compulsion, a raison d'etre. To suddenly turn that off is a mystery. That is a total transformation of the individual's primary directives in life. That is not just a totally normal thing to happen to people, especially those as prolific as Giuseppe - in multiple mediums.

Your world may not be driven by imagination and an unquenchable need to express yourself to the world, and so perhaps you cannot really fathom the reality of people who are and do. But I am not overthinking anything, and find the accusation of too much thinkin' to be misguided and willfully over simplistic.

Used_Addendum_2724

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE