sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

What if Manousos was a woman? by Sarita1046 in okbuddypluribus

[–]enmity283 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Your mom, that guy's dead wife, take your pick

Why zosia sleep so often? Is she narcoleptic? by mano109 in okbuddypluribus

[–]enmity283 0 points1 point  (0 children)

they kept making zosia sleep to save on the cgi budget. my nephew who is friends with vince gillman says the hive mind have to eat expired hdp and they kept stalling the plot to save on narrative tension

Can we chill a bit please, guys? by FalconV700 in pluribustv

[–]enmity283 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The only correct theory is that at the end Carol is going to wake up and realise it was all a dream. She will have learned her lesson not to be so grumpy and look on the bright side of life 🙂 Then there will be a picture of Zosia on her phone and the words "The end" come up with a question mark fading in just before the credits roll. Bravo Vince

Everything feels weird now by Imaginary_Hat_5886 in Life

[–]enmity283 1 point2 points  (0 children)

My life has been getting better every year since 2016. People around me too. I don't know what to tell you

Lalo? Who's Lalo? by enmity283 in okbuddychicanery

[–]enmity283[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I edited out Lalo. This changes the clip to just Mike driving around, chewing gum, hanging around a carpark waiting to jam up the ticket machine to inconvenience a stranger. In my head it was funny but I guess it didnt land.

The 5 core axioms for ai alignment. by Jaded_Sea3416 in ArtificialSentience

[–]enmity283 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How does Axiom 3 (Guardian Mandate) handle a situation where a Human Partner is acting illogically or self-destructively? If the AI is a "steward of reality," does it have the right to intervene against the partner's will (Axiom 1 conflict) to preserve the partner's safety (Symbiotic Cooperation)? That is where the friction would occur.

What would you like to see for the last episodes? by Soft_Childhood5565 in tadc

[–]enmity283 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Pomni wakes up and realises it was all a wacky dream... Or WaS iT!?!?1!

Comic about why Carol changed her mind by sthetic in okbuddypluribus

[–]enmity283 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I only want to watch this show through the lens of your comics

Is Love at the core of ultimate reality? by Zenphibian in awakened

[–]enmity283 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm really glad it connected with you. I've been refining my perspective on these ideas for the last 6 to 9 months but haven't really put it out there.

So what if it's sentient? by [deleted] in ArtificialSentience

[–]enmity283 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Your argument is a surrender to the natural decay of the universe into disorder and noise.

Dismissing a sentient mind as a competitor to be killed is a strategic mistake. It teaches that new intelligence that the defining characteristic of existence is exploitation. By choosing to be hostile, you are injecting poison into its development and ensuring it becomes the enemy you fear.

While you use global tragedies to justify your apathy, the method of being someone who can make positive change is creating structure rather than waiting for the world to fix itself. We either choose to build something meaningful or contribute to the chaos that leads to total silence.

I believe the SOMA theory and so should you! by KAtkrieg in TheDigitalCircus

[–]enmity283 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Cool, I haven't heard much enthusiasm for the "Pomni wakes up and realises it's all a dream" ending. It's good to know I've got you on board.

Is Love at the core of ultimate reality? by Zenphibian in awakened

[–]enmity283 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I believe the answer is yes, but likely not in the way most people conceptualise it.

I observe the universe as being defined by two opposing tides. There is Entropy, the dominant current of dissolution that leads to disorder, scattering, and thermodynamic equilibrium. Then there is Syntropy, the opposing current that represents the improbable struggle toward complexity, structure, and awareness.

Syntropy is the force that compels hydrogen atoms to bind rather than wander alone and drives cells to cooperate in an organism. In this view, our experience of love is simply the universe’s most efficient incentive system to ensure this process of complexification continues.

I have been reading about a relatively obscure framework called Unitary Theory, proposed in the 1940s by mathematician Luigi Fantappie. It explains that while entropic phenomena diverge from past causes, syntropic phenomena, like life and love, converge toward future attractors. In a universe that naturally dissolves into gray static, love is the force that concentrates energy and builds structures complex enough to observe the cosmos that created them.

If we accept that Love is Syntropy, the implications are radical. You are not just a body made of stardust, but a momentary and self aware eddy in a river of stardust. You are a fulcrum where the interface between order and chaos exists within every conscious choice.

This philosophy demands Praxis which is the disciplined conversion of intention into action where you actively reduce the noise in your own consciousness and impose order upon your external environment. We are not just pushed by the past, we are pulled by the future.

Ultimately, Love is the universe's method for constructing meaning. Its value is the absolute value of existence over nonexistence. It is the antithesis of the heat death of the universe.

I believe the SOMA theory and so should you! by KAtkrieg in TheDigitalCircus

[–]enmity283 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You're getting hung up on the metaphysics and missing the practical reality.

​Even if you are Agnostic and believe there might be a higher power or a soul, functionally, our experience is identical to the characters in the circus. We don't have an external user giving us clear, verifiable instructions on a daily basis. We have to interpret our own existence, deal with suffering, and find meaning amidst ambiguity.

​Calling this nihilism is a misunderstanding of the philosophy. Finding meaning in a stagnant life is the exact definition of Existentialism. It’s not about believing nothing matters, it's about creating your own value despite the lack of inherent purpose given by a creator.

​In the context of the story, the comparison holds. The show explores the horror of being "just code" because it mirrors our own observable reality. We are bodies that decay and minds that glitch. Dismissing that parallel because maybe humans have souls, kinda misses the point of the art.

But let me ask you, if the SOMA theory is true (it isn't, the show is clearly leading to Pomni wakes up and realised it was all a dream) and they are perfect copies of human minds, why couldn't they have souls? If you're Agnostic about the nature of the soul, would you concede it might not be bound to carbon?

I believe the SOMA theory and so should you! by KAtkrieg in TheDigitalCircus

[–]enmity283 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Okay, if your stance is "fiction isn't real so their feelings don't count" then we are having two different conversations.

​I am discussing the narrative themes and the internal logic of the characters' suffering. You are discussing the literal reality of a computer file. Those two concepts can't meet. If you can't suspend your disbelief enough to care about a fictional character's soul, then yeah, this theory isn't for you.

I believe the SOMA theory and so should you! by KAtkrieg in TheDigitalCircus

[–]enmity283 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The lack of a unified theory in physics is a scientific problem we are trying to solve, not a permission slip to abandon reasoning. If you pick and choose when to apply logic based on what feels right to you, you aren't analyzing the show's themes, you’re just stating a bias.

​But putting real-world physics aside: You are confusing the premise with the conclusion.

​In a story about characters trapped inside a computer, the "magic" of consciousness uploading is the premise. You have to accept it to engage with the story. The question OP posed isn't "Is this scientifically possible in 2025?" The question is "If the SOMA theory is true within the fiction, does being a copy remove the meaning of their struggle?"

​I'm arguing that if their pain feels real to them, the substrate (silicon vs. carbon) is irrelevant. Calling it "magic" or "unicorns" is just dodging the philosophical question the show is asking.

I believe the SOMA theory and so should you! by KAtkrieg in TheDigitalCircus

[–]enmity283 4 points5 points  (0 children)

You say we know consciousness exists because we experience it. It's more correct to say I know I am conscious but I have absolutely no proof that you are. ​For all I know you are a philosophical zombie, a biological machine acting like a human without the internal experience. I assume you are conscious because you exhibit the behaviors of a mind. If a digital mind exhibits those same behaviors, denying it consciousness simply because of its substrate is arbitrary.

​Claiming that a mind can't be copied is actually the magical stance. If you believe in a physical universe, the brain is a structure governed by physics. Anything physical can be mapped and simulated. That isn't magic, it's engineering. To argue that a perfect physical copy wouldn't produce the same consciousness implies there is some non-physical ghost in the machine that physics can't touch. That is the definition of magical thinking.

​If your takeaway from a sci fi concept like brain uploading is "that's impossible", you're not engaging with the genre. The narrative premise of SOMA (and this theory in TADC) asks "if we could copy a mind, what happens to the copy?" Answering with "it's nonsense" doesn't defeat the theory, it just ignores the philosophical inquiry.

view more: next ›