A place for a

30.11.2015

People are just machines

Once my mother panically threw a beautiful skull I owned out of the window. Ironically, I suggest; what was she running away from, exactly? What scared her about it and in fact, what scares me about it?

Psychedelics seem to have a different effect on everybody. Me they make see things as they are. For me, beautiful faces and smiles are like a distraction from the truth underneath.

On my last trip, I began to curiously study the features of the female clerk at the shop. And the thing that came to my mind was: Humans are fascinatingly rigid. The skull is just an immutable hard shell covered – or beautified – by that leathery thing called skin. The only thing that makes out all the personality and variety are a few muscles and tendons attached to the front of the skull. And underneath, vor the voice.

In fact, these few muscles and tendons are the source of so many pressures in our life that it seems almost ridiculous. But they are also the source of trust and comfort.

Is someone dangerous? Fearsome? Confident? Confused? Ashamed? These muscles and tendons tell.

Scary world

I have an abstract sense of fear around people that I do not quite understand. Egalitarianism may have let me forget the obvious truth: People are dangerous machines. In my untrained state, even girls can seriously harm me.

So what gives a sense of security? A kind face. A beautiful body. Breasts. Surface decorations. A cover-up of a dangerous machine.

What are women really like? Well, take away the face and the breasts. Relish the scary vision. Will their harmless gestures still seem so harmless? Or will you suddenly be bewildered by the way they manipulated you before? Will you still want to be their savior or rather fight and use them?

And when I thus forget the distracting faces and displayed harmlessness, I can watch the quite mechanical underpinnings of real life. The inherent dangerousness, the forces that some may not even be aware of having.

I see myself surrounded by skeletons, muscles, blood. A scary world, a world of dangers. A world in which I am – ultimately – alone.

The calming power of faces

It is sensational what faces can do. It is wondrous how many things they communicate and how they instill a sense of calmness and familiarity in us.

Just Google people without face.

If everybody looked like that, how would you feel? Apart from the ugliness, you would suddenly be clueless about the emotions that other people feel towards you. Is someone angry at you or happy to see you? You would not know. It would be a terrifying existence among monsters.

But there is another angle to it.

On one trip, a friend asked me: What about the soul?

Back then, it seemed irrelevant. Inconsequential. I was simply fascinated with seeing the body as a machine.

But now that I think of it, I realize that whatever I usually liked about people in the past had to do with the pleasure of seeing their faces.

Take away that distraction and I think I get a glimpse of what some people mean with love.

Not the kind of love where you indulge in the pleasure a person gives you. But one where you take a second to appreciate that there may be a consciousness just like yours in that body.

Now, naturally that does not mean that you would want to do no harm ever to that person, but it is still an interesting step away from solipsism.

The great thing about that interpretation of love is that it is not, how would you say, strenuous. It is not like a drug, where you need more and more. It has more to do with understanding.

I believe that to truly love something in that way, you have to understand it. Like I learned to appreciate a car when I learned about its engine, looking under the surface and demystifying people makes me love them more. Because it makes them more predictable and familiar.

A jungle

But the other aspect that is inevitably a part of my personality is something of a dark side.

Take away the faces, aesthetics and sympathetic features and suddenly you find yourself in an uncanny jungle of bodies where the strongest survives. Where you want to dominate and others to submit. Where flesh and blood and force rule. Where the only security you can have is power.

That seems very right to me, very honest.

The more I think of it, the more I believe that faces are a distraction, a red herring. Something to deceive you. Just like words, promises.

But look at the mechanics of movement. Look what people actually do. And you see reality.

This also demystifies women. They may act submissively, but in the practical sense – even if more limitedly than men – they are potentially dangerous machines. All it takes for them to attack and hurt you is their decision to do so.

Self-knowledge

Therefore my message is one that sounds like quite a cliche, but gets an interesting twist when you take it literally: Look past the surfaceSee who people are underneath.

And what you find there, you may interpret in your own way.

For me, it is a scary, mechanical and adventurous jungle of the survival of the fittest. A lonely place indeed, and I dare say that my sense of companionship may as well have only been one of a habitualized and unquestioned pleasure of human interaction and the indulgence in empathy and faces.

For you, what you see may be where you find people’s souls.

And we both may or may not agree that one can find confidence in this world devoid of distractions, devoid of deceiving beauty. A world where you no longer care for approval of others, because it no longer looks that beautiful. Because it no longer seems like a necessary drug – nor one you should trust. And you may or may not agree and recognize that that mechanical world is yours as much as anybody else’s. That nobody but you is there to decide how to deal with your fear, with the inherent dangers of that world.

Maybe many of today’s vapid slogans once originated from a deeper truth when the words were still interpreted in a more literal way. Maybe metaphors are, to a certain degree, only what we call the things we no longer understand in a literal sense.

Be it as it may, it is interesting how blood and flesh shocks us these days. Yet we carry so much of it with us, are so intrinsically equal to that which we eat. And all it takes is a little slice, a little peak underneath.

I say, do not stop at the stupid psychology and soul when you want to know who you are. Look at the mechanics of life. Look at the machine that you inhabit. Look past the pleasures of human existence that distract you from these truths, past the lies that shield you from them and paint them as satanic or evil. Tell me, if God made humans, and if God did not want us to see blood and bones and the scary aspects of life, why did he not design life in a different way? In a way where underneath the skin, there is just more skin? If god did not want us to have a dark side, why did he create us with one?

0 votes

One Pingback/Trackback

  • Pingback: People are just machines | Manosphere.com()

  • thordaddy

    “People are just machines” is a memetic mechanism of mind control used by high IQ individuals to direct the “actions” of the average to low IQ masses.

    • Yeah, there is some truth to it. I wrote this article about two months ago.

    • Monad

      I’m confused, I thought it was religion that was used to direct the actions of the masses. If there is no soul and if there is no heaven, a machine is all they are, would mean no moralistic reason to abide by rules. Free for base instincts to dominate and therefore no cohesion. Maybe my IQ is not that high either, but I’d appreciate some elaboration…

      • The reason to abide by morals is pain. You think of something immoral and your brain creates pain and shame. You interpret this as ‘wrong’. The morals are a distraction from this fact, to keep you thinking and analyzing whether something was ‘right’. While in fact, it is simply pain and conditioning that stops these thoughts in you.

        Whether or not we have a soul is irrelevant for this fact.

        • thordaddy

          The reason to abide by The Order is to exist maximally. The desire to “go off the rails” is a desire to test that maximality ALWAYS to the effect of self-annihilation.

          • You, sir, are talking nonsense. If it is ‘ORDER’, it does not need to be abided by, as it is automatically abided. Tell me, smartass, if the order is natural and somehow just ‘right’, how come I need you to tell me about it? Why is it not just?

          • thordaddy

            So now your claim is a total lack of free will? You CANNOT diss Order?

          • I am not certain about the existence, meaning and nature of free will. If I was to make any assumptions or say anything about it, I would say: It just is.

          • thordaddy

            But can you diss Order?

            Can you create disorder?

            What is this blog? Creation of order or disorder?

          • What the hell is ‘order’ and ‘disorder’, man?

            Everything is just as it must be, even this blog.

          • thordaddy

            Then… Is “it” so ordered? Or, is “it” so disordered?

          • Order is the imposition of structure. Whether something is in order depends on the structure you compare it against.

          • thordaddy

            “Imposition” as in “having a hand” in Things? Is Structure REALLY imposed or just plain necessary for existence itself?

          • Well, physical structure is necessary. Physical laws et cetera. But they can not be broken. Man-made structure may be necessary for survival, but there is more than one possible structure, which is my point.

          • thordaddy

            The point though was conceptualizing necessary structure as “imposition” so as to subconsciously and memetically “justify” self-annihilation. There is no evidence that even an infinite array of man-made structure can alter the Final Order even one iota. Structure per se is necessary to existence… Man-made structure may be entirely superfluous in every single example ALTHOUGH some of man’s structure seem Divinely inspired.

          • How do you distinguish between ‘absolute’ and manmade?

          • thordaddy

            By granting a Transcendent realm…

          • thordaddy

            EVEN TO ASK that question is to state almost explicitly that one could not possibly understand ANY answer…

            BUT….

            Is this just a pose… A posture… A resi-STANCE with no underlying principle that just is not maximizing one’s autonomy?

          • I am not sure. If it is, what is the problem? It does not make me feel good or bad, either way.

          • thordaddy

            The only “problem” is not accepting the consequences of one’s beliefs…

          • As far as I can see them and feel them, I do. I do not feel any way about ‘right’ or ‘wrong’, so I do not care if you call me that.

          • thordaddy

            So you believe yourself able to FEEL indifference? How is that done, empirically-speaking? How are you consiously able to possess the “influence” of “nothing?”

          • Easy. I speak the word and observe my emotional reaction. Then I compare it to the other. And compare it against the state before I read or spoke them. I notice no difference. So I do not feel either way about them.

          • thordaddy

            Yes… Again… I ask…

            Empirically-SPEAKING, how are you able to possess and observe “nothing?” It is nonsensical… As in, I cannot SENSE how you sense “nothing,” EMPIRICALLY-SPEAKING?

          • Well, I do not sense nothing as an entity. I just do not sense any particular entity.

          • thordaddy

            “The reason to abide by morals is pain” = The reason to abide by The Order is to exist maximally…

            That you are now fighting against this truthful equivocation AS THOUGH “we” had came to antithetical conclusions IS YOU PRACTICING your radical autonomy… It’s you seeking to maximize your autonomy in relation to me and thus at my expense.

            This is, in effect, my counter reaction to your attempt to “go off the rails” and diss Order in your subconscious desire to create greater empirical disorder.

          • Wait, what?

          • thordaddy

            “We” said equivalent things and you then turned this basic agreement into a disagreement FOR THE VERY PURPOSE of maximizing your autonomy at the expense of truth.

          • Really? What did we agree upon?

          • thordaddy

            “The reason to abide by morals is pain” = The reason to abide by The Order is to exist maximally…

            No need to “agree” upon truth… It SHOULD be intuited.

          • You said ‘The Order’. I said morals. You conflate both. But ‘morals’ indicates man-made rules. The Order implies something god-made. So no, we do not agree. It is not the same statement.

          • thordaddy

            You said “pain” and invoked God first… I can play this game of radical autonomy better than you… It is my “wayward child” afterall.

          • Actually, I did not mention god in that particular comment.

          • thordaddy

            No… You said “pain,” introduced “evil” and Evil and thus invoked God.

          • Not really. Evil is just a word.

          • thordaddy

            So is “pain” and thus simply stating that the “reason to abide by morals is pain” is a meaningless statement. Literally, what does it mean? One cannot abide by morals out of desire for pleasure? What does it means exactly?

          • It means that one abides by them because not doing so causes pain.

          • thordaddy

            And how is saying that ^^^ any different than saying that one abides The Order to maximally exist?

          • Because morals are imposed through conditioning which can be broken to exist even more maximally.

          • thordaddy

            Wait… You said the reason to abide morals was to avoid “pain.” What is, empirically-speaking, existing maximally if not equal to a pain-free existence?

          • To go through pain to eliminate it. First time lifting a weight always hurts. But in the long term, it becomes a joy.

      • thordaddy

        Monad…

        It seems to depend on one’s final conception of “free will.” Those who possess a free will gifted by God will be more partial to the memetic influence of religion whereas those whose conception of “free will” derives from the secular notion of “from nothing, something,” will be partial the memetic influence of the procedural power of programming.

        • Although the ideal would be to be influenced by neither and truly ‘freely’ discovering the meaning free will for oneself.

          • thordaddy

            Sure… But, per a strictly empirical paradigm, no such scenario could ever arise simply by the fact that one is perpetually influenced AT EVERY STEP of his existence due the absolute nonexistence of “nothing.”

          • Which only means that you are always ‘freewilling’. Hey! The movie is named Free Willy. Haha.

          • thordaddy

            Modern male is most definitely possessed by a desire to “free willy” in the most noxious passive-aggressive manner possible… Desirous of de facto homo lifestyle… His memetic “trick” is to transform in the minds of the masses a de facto homo lifestyle as “free will, he?”

          • But you always are acting out of free will. Not always consciously, maybe.

          • thordaddy

            I don’t conceptualize “free will” as SIMPLY a physical action…

            I conceptualize free will as a state of being sought through an application of perfect will…

          • Okay.

  • Micah Geni

    It is a bit like the Intellect in the simulation hypothesis of Bostroem. I pondered a little myself over that. What would motivate such a “being”. Neither emotios, nor spirit. Would it not jsut be an SP ? A camera ? How would it be bothered to repair worn out parts ?
    https://mikkemusblog.wordpress.com/2015/11/25/what-is-god/

    • thordaddy

      My take is that AI already exists in its suboptimal state prone to “equality” programming called human being. The Nerds’ quest to “transcend” this suboptimal AI with optimized AI is INTELLECTUALLY impossible DUE true inconceivablity.

      ONE CANNOT CONCEIVE an optimized AI that then just isn’t then just the most optimized of suboptimal AI. In other words, one cannot conceive a more complex intelligence than the most complex human intelligence, raw processing power, energy efficiency and proximical scope not withstanding. This inconceivability makes optimized AI inconceivable.

      • Micah Geni

        AI need motives to create something. Lust, desire, inspiration, curiosity, satisfaction. Where would AI get that from ? And if AI gets such a thing, does it continue to be an AI ? Spirit + Intellect. That is a human on drugs. On Psykofarma. One can then wonder if that “AI” is an ex-human, who has lost the bodily and emotional part of “him”.

        What motivates you ? It ain’t your cortex. The “disk”. You need a CPU too. I may tend to think “AI” as in God, is a type of Conscious Energy. May even be tempted to think that God and his “angles” may use Earth as a holdiday site. Just to experience a body and instincts, once in a while. Senses

        • Micah Geni

          A bit like British going to Spain, Turkey on Holiday. They go there only for the experience for the enjoyment of the moment, because they appaerently remember shit nada from that holiday, when they get back to England again. They do have an idea though. Even though they do not remember the episodes.

      • Well, you could – one day – most certainly simply create a very very large version of a brain and put it through a process of evolutionary adaption to stimuli, which would influence the neural structure to new purposes. Just theorizing, yeah, but you can find Youtube videos where little slices of neural tissue of mice are used to create intelligences for little driving robots.

  • Smokingjacket

    Machines are made for an express purpose. Are we? This is where the analogy becomes redundant.

    • Purpose is in the eye of the beholder. A motor may be created to power a car – but you may end up using it as a desk for your glass of milk.

      • Smokingjacket

        Purpose is in the hand of the creator and not in the eyes of the beholder. This is a big difference. The motor example pertains to utility- using something in another context, but, that’s still not the same as saying that was the purpose for which is was created. Its purpose is to drive a machine of some description not to act as a desk for your glass of milk. Unless you desk needs to be powered by a machine of course? It would be an interesting desk then!

        • No, the word purpose relies on context. The purpose of that motor on my example would be the function of a desk. The concept you mean may be described as ‘the purpose the creator of the machine had in mind for it at the time of its creation’. Maybe one may abbreviate it as ‘original purpose’ or something like that. But once the creation is finished, purpose is nevertheless in no way ‘imprinted’ on the machine. The machine keeps being an arrangement of atoms in a specific manner and usable in any way this arrangement allows it. The original purpose was a thought in the head of the creator that may long have ceased to exist and it is pointless to try to reverse engineer it. Hence I am also not a great fan of doing classical music ‘as the composer intended’. Who cares?

          • Smokingjacket

            Your desk is not a machine even if it is a motor! The motor was made to do something with an express purpose. If you do something different, well that’s fine, but it’s not acting as a machine that had its defined purpose anymore, and, that’s the point I was making between humans and machines. Human beings unlike machines are not made to have an express purpose in life, we do loads of things, but not necessarily with any purpose.

            Yeah, but hey who gives a fuck anyway? The classical music thing is cool, you’re just interpreting the piece in a novel way based on your singular place and distance from the composer. Good Musicians do this all the time.

          • Well, what you are saying is: It has a purpose as long as you use it as a machine with a purpose. In that sense, you can use your body as a machine with a purpose (any one you like and see in it) or you can just put a glass of milk on it. Your choice.

            Why even bother needing it to be a ‘rendition of piece XX by composer YY’? Just for the prestige, for the big name. People are scared and in awe when they hear the name Beethoven. Well, fuck me in the ass, he was just a dude. I can take the stuff he wrote and just create something new out of it. Or just use parts of it. But why would I obsess over whether it is what HE wanted? Who cares about him? The music is important.

          • Smokingjacket

            ” In that sense, you can use your body as a machine with a purpose (any one you like and see in it) or you can just put a glass of milk on it. Your choice” No, you can’t and this comes precisely back to the original point I made about machines being created by someone for an express purpose. People talk causally and ignorantly about the human body being just like a machine. It’s not, you cannot compare bodies and machines and say they’re the same. You can’t even say you use your body as a machine. It’s nonsensical to say so. One has a defined purpose the other doesn’t. Besides when you talk of machines you must compare the human body to a particular type and not just “machines” as different machines have radically different purposes. A plane and a washing machine do completely different tasks and yet people make the silly claim that the human body is just a machine. How silly and dumb this analogy is.

            How’s scared of Beethoven? He was just a dude who did fucking wonderful things with music and that’s why people keep on playing him. I don’t think Beethoven want give a shit if you used his music to create something new and novel. He was very anti-establishment and eccentric, a bit like you!

          • I am somehow confused about this debate. Let us end it here. Maybe I will find out what confuses me, but I do not see a point to continue right now.

            Good point.

          • Smokingjacket

            Fine. The point is abstract but important.

          • thordaddy

            The debate is whether those who proceed like “machines,” consciously or subconsciously, are still to be granted “human being” status with their ideologically-induced desire to equate humans to machines and express purpose of blurring the line OF LIFE IN FAVOR of the high IQ “white” male over to low IQ “white” male.

          • Why so? There can still be smarter and more stupid machines.

          • thordaddy

            Again… The problem is not your desire to blur the line between human and machine, but your desire to have your cake and eat it too… Your desire to be machine-like while still receiving human benefit while holding a parallel desire to be a human being excused by your deterministic mechanics is JUST PLAIN radical autonomy… Just a plain naked grab for excessive and gratituous autonomy on your own behalf. That you then believe your ability to “tranform” with cyclical efficiency human –> machine –> human –> machine, always in pursuit of maximizing your autonomy is an even higher application of radical autonomy.

          • Guess I am the perfect autonomist.

          • thordaddy

            Which then in fact would be the most radical autonomist… One who operated at the level of nanoaggressor.

  • Micah Geni

    Think Steiner refered to the maquina. Mankind reaching a phase, where they should be able to develop spiritually with no birthgiven extra engine. I may be remember it wrongly. See if I can find the piece again.

    Another video you may find truly interesting. Im approaching the end, and it has been very good so far:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ny6VyTMaekI

    • Good point. Art tells a lot about the artist.

      • Micah Geni

        that video is a Must See