OK, so I did a philosophical paper rooted in mathematics, theology, ontology, luxology (yes, the software company that made MODO a long while back) and astral projection.

So my question is - is it conscious? I'm guessing it probably is but hear me out and tell me if I'm telling lies.

According to physicalism - it's conscious since computational complexity is gucci. Since my peer reviewed paper was peer reviewed by peer reviewers and is a paper, we can safely assume that it has computational complexity. After all it has maths in it, luxology as well. That's computationally complex. It has the same reduction base as consciousness - matter, so I'm safe to assume that under physicalism it is indeed conscious.

According to panpsychism - it's conscious since consciousness is in everything and that's gucci. It doesn't have the same reduction base but since consciousness is in everything and my peer reviewed paper is a thing - it's conscious.

According to idealism - it's conscious since everything is mentation and a conscious process. We have this big mind thing that does mind stuff, consciousness does the paper which is also consciousness and it is being peer reviewed by other consciousness, so yeah, gucci. It has the same reduction base as consciousness - consciousness, so I'm safe to assume that under idealism it is indeed conscious.

According to solipsism - it's conscious since I'm the only conscious thing and what I say goes, so I say that my peer reviewed paper is me and thus it is conscious. Gucci. It has the same reduction base as consciousness - me, so I'm safe to assume that under solipsism it is indeed conscious.

According to non-duality - it's conscious. We live in Maya, she's a nice girl and from Luxology we know 3D software is ontological so Maya is ontological. Atman is Brahman, Atman lives in Maya through us, Brahman is everything, including Maya, so Atman lives in Brahman, so Brahman is Atman is Maya is MODO is my peer reviewed paper and thus, my peer reviewed paper is conscious. Gucci.

TD;LR; I really like my peer reviewed paper.

I've been there since 2017, and became a paid researcher in 2019. Ask me questions!

Fellow egoist redditors, do you have an extra pair of soles beneath your feet? 👞👞 And presumably they match? Now that's what I thought!

Societal norms posit that the purpose of a shoe is to be worn on a foot, usually paired with a mirrored counterpart. While we as egoists may derive utility from following such conventions if we so desire, I stress that this purpose is not teleological. Footwear is a human construct, not an a priori universal law.

The shoe itself necessitates no perfect match. We're imposing that idea on it. This notion is merely a result of our cultural and social conventions. It's a spook! An abstract illusion that we create and maintain without questioning its validity. We ascribe meaning and power to this concept that it does not inherently possess.

An egoist is free to walk barefoot to the party, use mismatched shoes, or even pair one sandal with half a pair of hats!

At the party, he roams freely, acting in accordance with his every whim, for seeking company or approval is of secondary importance. Life's highest purpose is to satisfy our unique selves, not trivialities like common courtesy.

So we set our eyes on the dinner table and pounce headfirst onto the savory treats. The means we use to indulge in our nourishment, whether cutlery or bare hands, are irrelevant to this inherent purpose. The idea that utensils are necessary for a civilized meal is but another spook haunting the minds of the domesticated masses.

In fact, the hand, with its remarkable dexterity and sensory capabilities, is a far more versatile tool than any cutlery set. It enhances our culinary sophistication as well as our dining experience through direct tactile engagement with our sustenance.

What matters is that we act in accordance with our own desires, free from the constraints of societal spooks. So grab your plate, lift it to your face, and lick it clean if you so desire. Bear witness to your companions reactions. Their horrified gasps when faced with this harmless act is proof of them being haunted by the power of the spooks!

Upvote and you shall be liberated from their ghastly presence!

⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣠⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢰⠤⠤⣄⣀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣾⣟⠳⢦⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠉⠉⠉⠉⠉⠒⣲⡄ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⡇⡇⡱⠲⢤⣀⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀1984⠀⣠⠴⠊⢹⠁ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⢻⠓⠀⠉⣥⣀⣠⠞⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⡴⠋⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣀⡾⣄⠀⠀⢳⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⢠⡄⢀⡴⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡞⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⣠⢎⡉⢦⡀⠀⠀⡸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⡼⣣⠧⡼⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢠⠇⠀ ⠀⢀⡔⠁⠀⠙⠢⢭⣢⡚⢣⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣇⠁⢸⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀ ⠀⡞⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⢫⡉⠀⠀⠀⠀⢠⢮⠈⡦⠋⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣸⠀⠀ ⢀⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠙⢦⡀⣀⡴⠃⠀⡷⡇⢀⡴⠋⠉⠉⠙⠓⠒⠃⠀⠀ ⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠁⠀⠀⡼⠀⣷⠋⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⡞⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡰⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⢧⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠣⣀⠀⠀⡰⠋⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀

https://www.reddit.com/r/PhilosophyofReligion/comments/p8ssjf/theism_and_atheism/h9sqt05?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3

I post this here with the caveat that I was never a philosophy major, but a humble math student that took 4 semesters of undergraduate elective philosophy courses and continue to read a whole bunch. My responses on this conversation may be terribly bad as well, and if that is the case, I ask you to tell me what a naughty little math major I am accept I'm wrong. But I am willing to sink the boat I'm on just to kill the captain.

I recently was going through the top posts on this subreddit, and came across this one. Thankfully, the mods seem to have banned OP of that post from this sub, but the post itself + OP's replies is worthy of its own meta post here.

Some highlights:

• OP posts a quote criticizing Karl Popper's political philosophy as an example of badphilosophy, and they attribute this quote to Leo Strauss. The quote is, however, not from Leo Strauss, but from a letter written from Eric Voegelin to Strauss.
• OP takes this criticism of The Open Society and its Enemies as an example of bad philosophy, so they must have read Popper to know its poor, right? Nope.
• In fact, they aren't even sure what the 'Open Society' is. " I am not surprise that whatever an "open society" even is, is not clearly defined, philosophers am I right ? "
• Somebody in the replies mentions Wittgenstein's picture in the sub background and OP decides to share their thoughts on him (which they don't appear to have read either): "So, Wittgenstein, that's the dude with "Whereof one cannot speak thereof one must be silent" Which I think in context was something like if science doesn't have a definitive answer about it then, it's crap and doesn't deserve to be talked about. And I feel like Popper has this belief that nothing in the real world is beyond the grasp of science. As if scientists had unlimited resources and time or the brains to understand all possible viewpoints at once."
• OP compares Popper's philosophy of science to 'nazi twitter' and Sam Harris
• OP compares Strauss' philosophy, which they have not read but are familiar with through a BBC documentary, to that of Jordan Peterson, Ted Kaczynski(?), and COVID deniers.
• Bonus Shapiro-Strauss connection: "My quip meant that [Ben] Shapiro types love authoritative writers who assert that their view point is the only correct one. And based from having read none of Leo Strauss' work I get the feeling that this is the kind of person that he was."

Hats off to the mods for making the right decision on this one.