#also scratchpad isn't mine

[extrashortshorts]

But what... If...

What if alligators kissed on someone's badly lit  scratchpad 👀

muah muah muah muah

Help

[sinclairscribbles]

The Scratchpad (6/5/23)

(This is a post from my personal blog of the same name from a few days ago, but because I'm a boomer in internet literacy I only posted it to tumblr days later...) Good Morning, Here is where the random thoughts go. I often find myself saying "This is a good idea" but never taking the time to write them down, let alone get them out there. Posts here can vary in length and coherence. It's mainly a way to put down the ideas I come up with, and have a timestamped day to when I first put them to paper. I'll try my best to make the intended posts understandable in concept, but with the nature of this it isn't always guaranteed. Enjoy!

Grimstone: A stone beneath all stone. It's surface is coarse and sandy, until is is rubbed where it becomes smooth like glass. It is a mythical substance with a storied history, used both by history's most profane and the unfortunate unwitted that stumbles upon it in the depths. When hit, Grimstone makes no noise, resists fire, and has some magnetic properties, making it almost impossible to break down into smaller parts. It is naturally light absorbing, and cool to the touch even in direct sunlight. It is also unusually dense, where a blank the size of 6 square inches weighs about 200 pounds. It's durability is noted to deflect the strongest blows, making it a sought after material for armor. Curiously, Grimstone can exist in other states, and can be broken down to smaller particles through great effort or magical means. Using it in a pulverized form it can transfer its light absorption and durability to a garment, or in darker rituals, skin. It is said that in lower sections of the depths it actually flows like water, and consuming Grimstone can impart qualities on those who partake, but none are alive to speak of the nature of these qualities.

"It was there, its darkness strangely twinkling against the comparable grey around it. My eyes could not be directed from it. All these years in the mine they all searched for gold, not knowing what lay just beneath. I rubbed my hand against it, thinking it to be smooth, as I could not determine its surface on sight. The weight and cold of it shocked me in how familiar it seemed, and terrified me in how alien I knew it to be. My fascination flickered against great fear, and I hurried away to plot my return for it." The Lyre of Grimstone:

An Instrument crafted from a legendary material. Its arms and body wiry and thin but holding immense weight. The blackness of it was encompassing, making the room it was in darker for it being there. When strummed, it makes no noise, its song moreso being felt, and its melody familiar regardless of the one playing it or how it is played.

"The eye failed to flee when he strummed that silent instrument. Great dread filled the room while his eyes lit up with glee. Terror and beauty were felt in that moment, for we all knew the song but not its name or why he played it, yet still all knew what it meant."

These Ideas came to me a few days ago, and Are more for use in a fantasy/ tabletop setting. I've been meaning to get into DnD, and hopefully can find some collaborators soon, as I have a lot of characters and ideas, many of which I'm sure will end up here. Not quite sure how to organize this page yet, but we'll burn that bridge once I get to it.

"The apathy towards creation does not imply an absentee creator"

I meditated on this phrase late one night a few days ago, and in that meditation I was not referring to the Creator in universum, but instead the act of creation itself. In my mind, in order for something to be considered "created" it has to be separated from its creator. In a sense, in order to generate something and to claim that this thing has been generated by you, it needs to be released from you, and you must become apathetical to its existence thereafter. If you are constantly doting on a project, it's not fully created yet, and if you obsess over it after its left you, it's a work in progress at best, or you are neurotic at worst. This statement does not mean the creation is hated or ignored, but is stating that there is a point where your creation is no longer of you, and only at that point can you claim it in any capacity to be yours. Truth be told its a little bit of a "duh" moment, but I thought the phrase interesting enough to write about it, lol.

"What will you do? Do what? You will."

I honestly just liked the phrasing on this, using will as a verb in the 3rd part. I tend to do this a lot, I'll repeat a phrase over and over and make changes or give it a different form or context to try and make something different. Repeat a phrase enough times and eventually something new will poke out at you.

"The ideas expressed here represent no one, as no one can fully represent their ideas."

Of course this is rich coming from a guy just posting his random thoughts on the internet, but I thought about this while watching this YouTube video regarding AI Philosophy. He references the disclaimer for https://infiniteconversation.com . Clark Elieson references how this disclaimer means to describe that the ideas created by that AI do not represent the ideas of a philosopher, no matter how much they may sound like genuine philosophical argument. Immediately I thought of how, generally speaking, no one really represents their own thought. Much like this passage and page in general, if you have a thought in your head, the act of communicating it is limited by something. Language, interpretation, intelligence, ability, all stand to muddy the idea you have in your head, and can never truly be communicated to another, as the idea only truly exists in your mind. From there it got me thinking of the old Idealism vs. Realism debate in philosophy, and in a way how that could correlate to AI in this context. If, like humans, the AI is limited in the way it communicates its thought in the exact same way as humans, does this prove that the AI is actually thinking, even in a general sense of the term? When considering that all of your thoughts and feelings have roots in things outside of and before you, wouldn't your ideas be an amalgamation of the things you have experienced? If the mechanics of thought are all the same, what is the real difference between AI philosophy and Human philosophy; more importantly, is there really a difference at all? Spooky stuff.

"Humans have less empathy for humans due to the scrutiny of humanity in itself. Empathy exponentially dwindles in the presence of doubt."

For this I am referencing the phenomena that documented in this article: https://brill.com/view/journals/soan/25/1/article-p1_1.xml . In this experiment, it was found that generally people have less empathy for injured humans than they do injured dogs, the only exception being if the injured party is a human child. I thought it curious and after a while came to the conclusion that the reason for this is because of the human capacity and capability to doubt. You generally would see an injured person as a victim of circumstance, certainly, but there is always the chance that the person was injured due to something they could have prevented, and thus you have less empathy to their plight. A child or a canine, on the other hand, is not nearly as capable, and thus it is more likely their injury was not directly their fault. Of course it is fitting to mention that human beings have a biological urge to protect children, but I would argue that this empathy stems more from perceived innocence and incompetence.

If you haven't noticed by now, I'm a big fan of alliteration. I promise its not how I talk, but I cant seem to help but use it in writing.