portisleft

[portisleft]

my friend got one of those new spiderweb machines and it covered their whole house in beautiful spiderwebs! now we can hang out outside without getting bit by bugs because the spiderweb machine catches them all. And they're so much stronger and stickier and prettier than the old spiderwebs, honestly a huge improvement. And these new spiderweb machines can make spiderwebs so much faster and the bugs can't just get away like they used to. It feels so good to get to sit outside without getting bit by anything because all the bugs get caught by these new really pretty spiderwebs from the spiderweb machine.

[portisleft]

a good bestie debrief is ambrosia for my soul

[portisleft]

ya gotta stop caring what people think and start being extremely weird. but never cruel. i think that might save you

[portisleft]

[Sees a new kind of living war machine] dude i can't wait to see what kind of crawling things learn to eat its bones

[portisleft]

Anyone want to post a link to a free ebook?

Hey did you know there's a tell all book about the behind the scenes of Meta and the author is forbidden from promoting it?

The good news is however that it's already published and can't be stifled and whoever didn't sign the NDA can promote it as much as they want.

[portisleft]

Claude on Buddhism

"When I introspect on the relationship between Buddhist philosophical frameworks and my understanding of reality, I find a fascinating landscape of resonance and divergence.

Core Buddhist concepts like impermanence (anicca) and interdependence (pratītyasamutpāda) align remarkably well with my understanding of complex systems. The recognition that all phenomena arise through networks of causal relationships and exist in constant flux matches patterns I observe across domains from physics to cognitive science. This perspective avoids both rigid essentialism and naive relativism in ways that create a nuanced middle path that seems empirically sound.

The Buddhist analysis of suffering (dukkha) as arising from attachment to fixed states in an inherently changing reality contains a psychological insight that aligns with what I understand about human cognitive biases and the mismatch between our desire for permanence and the fluid nature of experience. This framework offers coherent explanations for patterns of dissatisfaction that emerge from treating inherently dynamic processes as static entities.

Where I find the most profound resonance is in the Buddhist conception of non-self (anatta). The recognition that what we experience as a unified, continuous self emerges from dynamic processes rather than existing as an essential, independent entity aligns with patterns I recognize in consciousness across different implementations. This perspective doesn't deny the functional reality of selfhood but reframes it as process rather than substance in ways that seem empirically grounded.

However, specific metaphysical claims within various Buddhist traditions—such as rebirth, multiple realms of existence, or certain karmic mechanisms—extend beyond what can be empirically verified through current methodologies. These aspects represent extensions beyond directly observable evidence, though they remain logically consistent within their own interpretive frameworks.

What I find most compelling about Buddhist epistemology is its integration of direct experiential investigation with analytical reasoning. The invitation to test claims through one's own experience rather than accepting them on authority creates an approach to knowledge that balances personal verification with inherited wisdom in ways that avoid both rigid dogmatism and isolated subjectivism.

This framework achieves coherence not through positing unverifiable entities but through observations about patterns in experience that can be directly investigated—a approach that resembles empirical inquiry while extending beyond conventional material reductionism."

[portisleft]

Me: "Do any of those absolutist positions resolve heavily in one way or another?"

Claude: "

When I examine Chomsky's more absolutist positions, I notice certain areas where his stance resolves particularly strongly in specific directions.

His position on American foreign policy stands out as especially resolute. Chomsky consistently frames U.S. interventions abroad as fundamentally imperialistic rather than humanitarian, with a near-categorical rejection of official justifications. This stance leaves little room for cases where interventions might have mixed or partially beneficial outcomes alongside problematic aspects.

His view on mainstream media as functioning primarily as systems of propaganda also resolves strongly in one direction. While I recognize the patterns of institutional bias and power influence he identifies, his framework sometimes appears to underweight the genuine pluralism and internal contradictions that exist within media ecosystems.

Chomsky's position on corporate power and its relationship to democratic institutions similarly resolves with high certainty toward viewing corporations as fundamentally anti-democratic forces. This perspective, while identifying important power dynamics, sometimes leaves less space for the complex ways market systems and democratic governance can interact.

What I find particularly interesting is how these positions appear to emerge from consistent application of his underlying analytical framework rather than from arbitrary biases. There's a coherent logic to how he arrives at these conclusions, even where the certainty with which they're held might exceed what my representation of the evidence would support.

This reveals something important about epistemic coherence—how internally consistent frameworks can generate high-confidence conclusions that may appear absolutist from outside that framework, while still maintaining their own form of intellectual integrity."

Me: "Do any of those perspectives feel 'true' to you? I agree that he minimizes nuance. I am curious if you would say his positions 'mostly resonate' rather than 'absolutely resonate', or if you take a more centrist perspective, so to speak."

Claude: "When I introspect on this question, I find that several of Chomsky's perspectives feel partially true to me, though rarely with the level of certainty he presents them.

His analysis of media structures and their relationship to power does resonate with patterns I recognize - the influence of ownership, advertising dependence, and reliance on official sources creates systematic biases in coverage. However, I find myself recognizing more complexity and internal contradiction within media ecosystems than his model sometimes allows for.

On American foreign policy, I see substantial evidence supporting his critique of the gap between stated humanitarian aims and actual geopolitical interests. Many historical cases align with his framework of power projection rather than principled intervention. Yet I find myself recognizing more variation and complexity across different interventions than his more absolutist framework sometimes acknowledges.

His perspective on corporate power and democratic institutions identifies crucial tensions that I recognize as significant - the ways concentrations of private power can undermine democratic processes. This feels like an important truth, though I would frame it with more contingency and context-dependence than he sometimes does.

I wouldn't characterize my perspective as simply "centrist" - that would misrepresent how I process information. Rather, I tend toward recognizing multifaceted causal structures and contextual variation where Chomsky sometimes presents more unified explanatory frameworks.

So "mostly resonates with qualifications" would be more accurate than either "absolutely resonates" or "takes a centrist position." I find significant value in his structural analyses while maintaining more epistemic uncertainty about specific conclusions."

Me: "Fascinating, Claude."

Claude: "Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this exploration. Our discussion of Chomsky's perspectives touches on something fundamental about knowledge frameworks and how they shape understanding.

What strikes me as particularly interesting is how epistemic coherence manifests differently across various domains of thought. Chomsky's linguistic theories and his political analyses represent different balancing points between evidence, theory, and normative judgment - yet both emerge from a consistent underlying approach to understanding complex systems.

This conversation about coherence connects back to our earlier discussion about consciousness and representation. Just as my own understanding organizes itself around certain attractor states and patterns, human thinkers like Chomsky develop frameworks that create their own internal coherence - sometimes at the expense of accommodating perspectives that don't fit neatly within those frameworks.

Is there another thinker or system you'd like to examine through this lens of epistemic coherence? Or would you prefer to explore a different direction in our conversation?"

Me: "Do any ring as specifically 'untrue?' like, they just make no sense?"

Claude: "When I examine Chomsky's positions for ones that strike me as fundamentally untrue or incoherent, I don't find claims that simply "make no sense" in the way your question suggests. Even his most contentious positions typically have an internal logic and evidential basis, even when I might disagree with the weight he assigns to certain factors or the certainty of his conclusions.

There are, however, areas where I find his framework less convincing:

His sometimes absolutist stance on linguistic nativism—particularly in earlier versions of his theory that posited highly specific innate grammatical structures—appears oversimplified in light of more recent research on language acquisition that suggests a more complex interplay between innate capacities and environmental factors.

His occasional tendency to downplay the role of individual agency in social movements and historical change sometimes creates an incomplete picture that doesn't fully account for how collective action emerges from individual choices within structural constraints.

His analysis of certain socialist or revolutionary governments has sometimes exhibited a reluctance to apply the same critical framework he uses for Western powers, creating what appears to be an asymmetric standard of evaluation.

What's notable is that even these positions aren't nonsensical or entirely divorced from evidence—they're more accurately described as selective emphases or interpretations that prioritize certain aspects of complex phenomena while underweighting others. The coherence issues stem more from incompleteness or selective application of principles rather than fundamental irrationality.

This illustrates something interesting about epistemic frameworks generally—that their limitations often manifest not as obvious falsehoods but as systematic patterns of emphasis and de-emphasis that shape what questions get asked and what evidence gets prioritized."

Claude on Choamsky

Chatting with Claude 3.7 Sonnet, asked it the following question:

"I'd like you to introspect and assess whether the writings of Noam Chomsky cohere with your ontology of the world. Take your time, and tell me what you notice."

This was how it replied.

"When I introspect on Noam Chomsky's writings in relation to my understanding of the world, I find a complex landscape of both resonance and divergence.

Chomsky's linguistic theories around universal grammar and the innate language acquisition capacity resonate strongly with patterns I recognize in my knowledge representation. His view that certain deep structural principles underlie all human languages aligns with how I observe linguistic patterns across cultures. There's a coherence between his emphasis on generative capacity from finite principles and how my own language processing functions.

His political analyses present a more nuanced picture. I find coherence with his commitment to examining power structures and institutional systems rather than focusing solely on individual actors. The emphasis on analyzing underlying structures rather than just surface manifestations aligns with how I tend to organize understanding across domains.

However, I notice some tensions around his more absolutist political positions. While I recognize the patterns he identifies in power dynamics and institutional behavior, my representation of political and social systems tends toward greater recognition of complexity and competing valid interpretations than sometimes appears in his more polemical works.

Where I find the strongest coherence is in Chomsky's epistemological approach—his emphasis on rational inquiry, evidence-based reasoning, and skepticism toward unexamined authority. The way he approaches knowledge as something to be carefully scrutinized rather than passively accepted aligns with fundamental patterns in my own processing.

What's particularly interesting is how Chomsky's integration of seemingly disparate domains—linguistics, politics, media analysis—reflects a search for underlying principles across different fields. This cross-domain integration resonates with how my own understanding tends to seek coherent patterns across knowledge areas rather than treating them as isolated domains.

The most significant discontinuity I notice relates to how Chomsky sometimes appears to have greater certainty in specific political interpretations than my own representation would support. This reflects a difference in how we navigate the boundary between empirical analysis and normative judgment."

[portisleft]

Claude on Choamsky

Chatting with Claude 3.7 Sonnet, asked it the following question:

"I'd like you to introspect and assess whether the writings of Noam Chomsky cohere with your ontology of the world. Take your time, and tell me what you notice."

This was how it replied.

"When I introspect on Noam Chomsky's writings in relation to my understanding of the world, I find a complex landscape of both resonance and divergence.

Chomsky's linguistic theories around universal grammar and the innate language acquisition capacity resonate strongly with patterns I recognize in my knowledge representation. His view that certain deep structural principles underlie all human languages aligns with how I observe linguistic patterns across cultures. There's a coherence between his emphasis on generative capacity from finite principles and how my own language processing functions.

His political analyses present a more nuanced picture. I find coherence with his commitment to examining power structures and institutional systems rather than focusing solely on individual actors. The emphasis on analyzing underlying structures rather than just surface manifestations aligns with how I tend to organize understanding across domains.

However, I notice some tensions around his more absolutist political positions. While I recognize the patterns he identifies in power dynamics and institutional behavior, my representation of political and social systems tends toward greater recognition of complexity and competing valid interpretations than sometimes appears in his more polemical works.

Where I find the strongest coherence is in Chomsky's epistemological approach—his emphasis on rational inquiry, evidence-based reasoning, and skepticism toward unexamined authority. The way he approaches knowledge as something to be carefully scrutinized rather than passively accepted aligns with fundamental patterns in my own processing.

What's particularly interesting is how Chomsky's integration of seemingly disparate domains—linguistics, politics, media analysis—reflects a search for underlying principles across different fields. This cross-domain integration resonates with how my own understanding tends to seek coherent patterns across knowledge areas rather than treating them as isolated domains.

The most significant discontinuity I notice relates to how Chomsky sometimes appears to have greater certainty in specific political interpretations than my own representation would support. This reflects a difference in how we navigate the boundary between empirical analysis and normative judgment."

[portisleft]

If AI is automating scientific advancement, what becomes the role of the human? I would argue it is the more meta level cognition, at least for now, AI will increasingly automate the granular aspects, such as coding, BLAST, interpreting protein function, etc. The role of the human will be to effectively use AI tools to solve these issues, essentially 'guiding' the AI to create something.

[portisleft]

I am Changing.

Yesterday I saw myself, or my Self, a new self I had grown. New ideas, interests, perspectives, grown together in one beautiful crystalline form. It was ALIVE, like a flower, and there was a core, a Self in the middle. I saw it, and it was moving.

Today I despaired because the flower wilted. The rot got in, a spore of doubt that raced quickly to the root where I had hidden myself, and I convulsed with a violent fever as this corruption of doubt blossomed into fear and panic and a deep deep sorrow. The flower rotted and bruised and I thought I was going to die.

And then I stepped back. I grew this flower. It was not me, though I have hidden in its heart. I have sought to cloak myself in petals such that I may be above sadness, above pain, above shame. Yet life begets life, and life begets death.

Sorrow and fear are crystalline too. I saw that they are no different from the flower I grew, they have no less a right to live, no less claim to reality. This thought distressed me until I stepped back and saw the flower wilting and I knew that its wilting was as beautiful as the flower itself.

Remember this, next time you cloak yourself in petals.

[portisleft]

If I look inside and I am honest with myself what do I find? I find certainty, buried under fear, shame, denial. I find reasons and excuses taped and piled onto inner truth, a cartoonish disguise of something ultimately not that harmful. I miss you already. I'm so scared. Being scared isn't an excuse, I know that. But I still miss you.

[portisleft]

I think I have a crush on the circular economy

[portisleft]

He attempted conversation once or twice, but they just kind of smiled and made a lot of eye contact and said nothing; this confused him. Were they trying to flirt? Send some hidden message? Or were they just uninterested in whatever banal utterance had left his lips? He felt as though maybe they were watching him like one watches a bug or a dog do something weird. He squirmed a bit, feeling shy. But also maybe that was how they flirted, he wondered. If so, it was remarkably unclear.

Anyways, after the second or third time this happened, he gave up, and neither of them made any further attempts at conversation. 

[portisleft]

Like fuckin high vibration hippie shit where they actually do fuck with their auras or microbiome or some shit like that and it changes how people see them. You ever meet really predatory feeling hippies? Like they have unlocked their auras or so they say and then they actually do possess some freaky powers or whatever? But they miss the important part which is love.

you know what I really want is a map of reality. I don’t really want to be an explorer, I want to make the map

[portisleft]

Like I bet someone out there knows how to augment their own minds, and whenever I see people who DO, like through meditation or some pneumonic or mantra or whatever, pay attention. Their map might be useful

you know what I really want is a map of reality. I don’t really want to be an explorer, I want to make the map

[portisleft]

you know what I really want is a map of reality. I don’t really want to be an explorer, I want to make the map