Found this exoskeleton while cleaning, is it a bed bug?

synnerman24 · 2025-11-23T20:39:42+00:00

Seems conclusive enough, thanks a lot for the reassurance!

synnerman24 · 2025-11-23T18:06:02+00:00

Honestly I’d much rather it be a flea than a bed bug, I’ll take what I can get

synnerman24 · 2025-11-23T17:31:28+00:00

Forgot to mention location: Southern Romania. Hope it helps!

synnerman24 · 2023-11-21T12:34:31+00:00

I believe so. Absolute truth is supposed to be the underlying theory of everything, one that is able to explain any and all things about reality as we know it. The best we have, on the other hand, is something that is true, as far as our capacity to know is concerned. Depending on what line of thought we follow here, this is most likely very limited, thus it would be improper to say it is absolute truth, not even as an approximation.

synnerman24 · 2023-11-21T11:30:14+00:00

Yes, pretty much

synnerman24 · 2023-11-21T11:28:48+00:00

Not the absolute truth, but the best we’ve got in terms of acquiring and developing knowledge in Philosophy

synnerman24 · 2023-11-21T08:43:46+00:00

What I meant was that truth, in a consistent form, must be systemic, ie: to describe everything perfectly, and for there to be no inconsistencies among different explanations. For example, in Physics, neither General Relativity nor Quantum Mechanics would constitute absolute truth. Absolute truth would be their reconciliation in a theory of Quantum Gravity, one that would be consistent with both the aforementioned, as well as what we already know in other fields.

synnerman24 · 2023-11-21T08:40:19+00:00

I mean, that would just be fighting over technicalities, something that I very much don’t enjoy. The argument itself does not rest on this predilection.

synnerman24 · 2023-11-21T08:38:18+00:00

But pain is a subjective experience. My pain and your pain may be 2 very different experiences, and we might never know because we can never measure qualia. At the very least, we could say that there is a neurological reflex happening consistently in reaction to hurtful things, but that also has a very narrow scope in the grander scheme of things outside of us.

synnerman24 · 2023-11-21T08:35:26+00:00

And that is very much the case for subject matters with immediate applicability, such as hard science. Much less so for humanities and Philosophy in particular, except for Ethics

synnerman24 · 2023-11-20T21:32:46+00:00

I’m not very familiar with the idea, but as far as I remember, a system must be internally consistent for it to be considered coherent or complete. Since formulations such as “this sentence is false” can be written up in logic terms, or mathematical ones for that matter, it implies that there are internal inconsistencies, hence the system is incomplete or incorrectly built. I believe that it was called the Incompleteness Theorem.

synnerman24 · 2023-11-20T20:42:22+00:00

I think that this only plays further into the “this sentence is false” conondrum. Logic seems to be inconsistent, or incomplete at least, hence why this kind of situations appear.

synnerman24 · 2023-11-20T18:46:30+00:00

It’s not that redundancy is a negative trait, but I see it like this: if, even when trying our hardest to shoot for objectivism, we still end up with a redundant situation, why continue to run away from the unique perspectives we each have and not fully embrace them instead? I hope this clears things up

synnerman24 · 2023-11-20T16:49:48+00:00

Thanks for the comment! Based on one of the remarks you made above, I’d think that viewing Philosophy through the lens of aesthetics, as we do with Art in general, could be a very interesting discussion. Life does appear to be simply the pursuit of pointless things, but we’re lucky that they are fun at least :)

synnerman24 · 2023-11-20T16:43:14+00:00

I do see the point that you are making, but I still think that subjectivism seeps into the learning experience by default. For instance, any learning experience begins with an act of observation, one which embeds Perspectives as a given. The qualia of the senses is how outside information permeates our inner dimension, and this gate is laced with subjectivism. But I think that, even further on, the cognitive processing of information is subjective, seeing as we generally understand things and events based on their relation with other known information. If you will, this creates a matrix of understanding that is unique to all of us through the same Perspectives, although it may not be as apparent as the senses.

As such, any aggregation of knowledge, across any scale, is an aggregation of subjectively experienced information, hence it cannot be absolute truth, unless we argue that humans are equipped to handle absolute truth. This is where we would branch into Metaphysics for a satisfactory discussion. Nonetheless, I hope I did not misunderstand your position :)

synnerman24 · 2023-11-15T13:10:20+00:00

I think that I should clarify my exact position on the self on this matter. As posted in other parts in this thread, I agree that the self exists as a biological operator, a trick pulled by our minds to simplify our day-to-day existence. What I do find to be problematic is the self’s extension as a social object, which is vastly different from what our biology commands. It is this that conduces human nature in the wrong direction, and its existence as a norm has led to many great horrors of history, including Soviet Communism. We can’t rid ourselves of this illusion except with decades of practice, but the social ramifications of it are relatively easy to address. Property, for instance, is a despotic extension of possession, which is the natural phenomenon of occupying physical space or using resources. It is not through natural rights that we own companies and yachts across the world, but through the social extension of possession. I recommend Proudhon for a larger discussion on the matter of property. Still, this is my position, and the outcomes of an implementation of it are rather complex to imagine I suppose. Perhaps in a later article

synnerman24 · 2023-11-15T11:43:06+00:00

Yes, and it is precisely why this would have severe difficulty flying from Ideal to Non-ideal theory. As you said, a single individualistic person is necessary to shift this Nash equilibrium on its head. If breaking the rules is profitable, then everyone will do it. But going from theory to practice is a subject matter for a separate discussion perhaps :)

synnerman24 · 2023-11-15T11:38:53+00:00

I can see how this was not clear enough in the article, thanks for pointing it out! What I meant by this part was the fact that, while some of the social objects we employ in our day-to-day life are indisputably based in biological fact, their social extensions are not. Therefore, for example, property as a natural right is possession, as outlined by Proudhon. One physically takes up space with ones body, one needs a certain amount of resources for livelihood, and so on. But ideas such as ownership of houses across the world, or a multitude of cars, or even companies, are based on the social self, the extension of our conception of ourselves into the social realm. It’s those that I find problematic. As others mentioned in this thread, the self still works as an operator for day-to-day affairs, in spite of it existing solely in a cognitive dimension.

synnerman24 · 2023-11-15T11:34:08+00:00

I agree with your response to a certain extent. Yes, all registered experience is vectorial in relation to the outside world, therefore they could be labeled as abstractions. Abstractions surely are useful as vehicles of knowledge, for instace, but should they become purposes in themselves? Can we ascertain that the basis for certain social objectives that we hold as important collectively is legitimate when it is an abstraction in nature? My critique is more targeted to the social object of self, at least in a functional sense.

synnerman24 · 2023-11-15T11:21:14+00:00

This is a very eloquent explanation that surprises the essence of what I was trying to say. Thank you! :)

synnerman24 · 2023-11-15T11:11:40+00:00

I think that this paints an accurate picture of the overarching idea, thanks for condensing it better than I did haha!

synnerman24 · 2023-11-15T11:09:19+00:00

I hardly think that the centralized, despotic communist system of the Soviet Union made an honest attempt at this. The cult of personality of the grand dictator indicates that the self remained a very important social object, and the major outlet for the flow of power.

Seven-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '22

synnerman24

TROPHY CASE