Plesiohedron

I'll do my own pandering thank you. With a collection of clear virtue signals, a rigorous purity filter and a crew of fanatical moderators.

If you saved yourself you would save us all.

Google keep. That yellow thing. Take notes constantly. SO useful. And voice to text. Wow

I relate. Dread every day.

My answer was to draw and read scifi all day. Let my grades slide. Ignore everything.

I graduated because... I dunno. I think they just wanted me out of there.

Human society does the same thing.

We're ok when we talk about what we saw.

Less so when we talk about what somebody else saw.

Crazier and crazier when we talk about what somebody said about what somebody said about what somebody saw. Which is arguably the internet.

It could be inherently flawed. We look at a picture or a symbol and pretend it's real. That's insane. I mean, I know that's kinda how it works, but still. Insane.

Or maybe it's imprecise to call it a flaw. Maybe call it a trap, to be careful of. But nobody's careful. (So that's maybe an "out of control" situation)

(I know I'm not. I mean case in point. I'm watching this movie "don't look up" right now and I'm getting all teary-eyed and stuff. It's a fucking movie. An illusion of flickering images and bullshit. I know with great certainty that it's just a fantasy but I'm still having this reaction. So that's insane)

Is it inherently bad? Out of control? Something else?

We could order understanding by quality.

First there is perception. That's the closest. Then there is thought about that. Then there is the secondhand form of that, gotten from a friend. Then gotten from a mere associate. Then a stranger. Thirdhand and fourthhand. And so on.

Close to far. That close kind you don't even have to think or talk about it.

Perceptions like rightness, beauty, gut make a good guide. Art and invention are proof of that. Call it a good source of truth.

Not too good for building objective consensuses tho.

Hypothetically, one could step away from the whole internet/media/information system. Stick with firsthand experience and the testimony of trusted friends.

To what degree would that include "science"?

What would that look like. Amish?

"informed"

Lol

But I kid. Your logic fails to escape the box I propose, I think. I think that only direct observation achieves good reliability. That and maybe conversation with personal friends.

Beyond that, big nope. It's the epistemological equivalent of drinking out of lead cups except the damage is quicker.

Everybody say it all together now..

I'm an intelligent, autonomous, free-thinking individual!

Carpenter coder here. I like saving my code powers for my own beloved projects.