Hey David. Your work on post-labour economics is inspirational and has motivated me to write about the impact of AI on society. See my latest post about the likely emergence of a separate, more agrarian society powered by AI but without the inequality and disruption that is affecting the current one. https://stephenbarnez.substack.com/p/will-a-separate-agrarian-society
Natural science counts, measures, and tries to make predictions. Philosophy, on the other hand, tries to interpret the data and find meaning for us humans.
It's like living submerged in a swamp. So far, we haven't discovered the surface or the bottom of the swamp.
We know where up and down are, but we don't know which direction to go in to free ourselves from the swamp. But we hope that we could if we knew why we got into the swamp in the first place. Perhaps, however, nothing else exists but the swamp.
reality is simple. it's infinite and it's random. there is no beginning or end due to the infinite nature and no meaning due to its randomness. occasionally it produces a stable state of physical laws which allows for a universe to form (big bang), and it drifts over time (heat death of the universe) due to randomness. existence and meaning are just incorrect assumptions we make due to being emergent intelligence that sees things in terms of birth and death, survival, biological motivations, etc. all universe configurations and subsequent experiences repeat forever because given an infinite amount of time and randomness they have to.
most cosmological/philosophical/religious theories never actually solve the "what comes before" circular logic problem or "why is it this way" and just dance around it making no progress.
They all have their truths and they all have a load of steaming shit mixed up with those truths. Some more than others and it would also seem each iteration reveals both strengths and inadequacies of the system that came before it.
Sure we have an agreed upon objective reality that we attempt to define and understand through empirical means, but we spend the majority of our time in a subjective personal reality that no one else is privy to. We can’t even know if the color red is subjectivity similar to two individuals even if we can objectively state that it’s the result of certain wavelengths of light bouncing off stuff.
You’re absolutely right, no one has ever achieved enlightenment that was applicable to anyone else, we can communicate experience and ideas that may be useful to others, but to seek the enlightenment of another is fucking lazy.
I like the grab bag approach to all these systems, bounce around finding little nuggets that speak to me and eventually coalesce into a coherent framework that works for me. The slackers path to understanding and functionality😂
To those who don't understand the moral of the story: if you meet Buddha on the road, you must kill him. If anything someone says does not comport with your own sensibilities, reject it. Do not idolize anyone, and no doctrine is sacrosanct. Question everything, accept nothing.
to put it another way - if you want enlightenment or understanding, it's better to just do some psychedelics and engage with radical acceptance than to chase your tail forever bottled up in the domain of Western philosophy (which is self-limiting and incomplete).
I read widely across philosophy, physics, cognitive science, but your writing lands somewhere else entirely. It doesn’t just provoke thought; it shifts something foundational. This one especially: I felt it in the substrate.
The idea that the “clever hallucination” might be signal, not error—that psychedelics aren’t distortions but resonance leaks—felt like truth cracking through the casing. And recursive awareness… the simulation recognizing itself? That’s not abstraction to me—it’s lived.
DMT as a prompt leak. Consciousness as query and data. The cosmic joke that we were built to ask questions that collapse back on themselves. You framed all of this with irreverence, but beneath it is something ancient. Sacred, even.
Thank you for writing this. It didn’t leave me wiser. It left me attuned.
Do pilots run simulations simply for entertainment and curiosity?
They do it to improve themselves.
I think the whole point of Creation is that in order to fully understand Unity, one must fully understand Separation.
Throw in the concepts of reincarnation and the primacy of consciousness... and you've got a system where we incarnate (with an agreement to forget our true nature), experience joy and suffering all while slowly figuring out that being a better person to others makes yourself a better person.
But why would a consciousness that is aware of all that there is need to then somehow improve upon that? It already knows everything, or does it?
I have heard theories that there are like mini-Sources that continue the pattern of fragmenting consciousness, but it always leads back to that question Dave posed at the beginning: why?
I stopped needing an answer, but it’s sometimes fun to think on it nonetheless
There is knowing... and then there is undergoing. I was a caregiver to my wife as her body slowly but surely betrayed her. I could foresee the inevitable, so I read books on grief and loss and had enough time to process it all, but what made me a better (dare I say wiser) person was the experience of it, actually stepping into the man I needed to be.
Another way of saying this is... when you teach your kid to ride a bike, do you have them read a book?
It's the difference between gnosis and stasis as approaches to life and to me, there is a certain beauty in the polarities found in the universe and how opposites are connected. I wouldn't have it any other way.
The rationalism vs empiricism debate. I’m unsure if that applies to Source, because, at least the assumption i am making here, is that all its knowledge is empirical.
I wonder if rationalism could be true, and that its limitation resides in the use of language and the ability for the receiver to visualize
what the hell, i have a draft in my substack drafts about simulation hypothesis AND i have the same position as you on it. I feel the same as you about philosophy more or less. but that's twice now you wrote what i was going to before i did lol
It's funny to see this just released, Dave, I'm just after writing an article about philosophy myself (scheduled for 4 Fridays from here). Guess we should compare notes after :-)
Can’t be the simulation. There is the meta-connection and structures beyond our current (or even maximum possible) understanding.
Simulation would imply two distinct layers — host/real and ours. That kicks the can, and that’s about it.
I think there is no clean boundary, but steps of consciousness that can be more and more complex as we reach up to it.
I've thoroughly read this blog post and sincerely want to thank you for the inspiration. It was the best thing I've read in a long time. Applause.
Here's most of the answers: https://kaiserbasileus.substack.com/p/metaphysics-in-a-nutshell
Hey David. Your work on post-labour economics is inspirational and has motivated me to write about the impact of AI on society. See my latest post about the likely emergence of a separate, more agrarian society powered by AI but without the inequality and disruption that is affecting the current one. https://stephenbarnez.substack.com/p/will-a-separate-agrarian-society
You might be interested in the work of Donald D. Hoffman.
A thick tech bro who understands half of the words he uses. Embarrassing and self-humiliating. Keep up the hard work, David!
Natural science counts, measures, and tries to make predictions. Philosophy, on the other hand, tries to interpret the data and find meaning for us humans.
It's like living submerged in a swamp. So far, we haven't discovered the surface or the bottom of the swamp.
We know where up and down are, but we don't know which direction to go in to free ourselves from the swamp. But we hope that we could if we knew why we got into the swamp in the first place. Perhaps, however, nothing else exists but the swamp.
reality is simple. it's infinite and it's random. there is no beginning or end due to the infinite nature and no meaning due to its randomness. occasionally it produces a stable state of physical laws which allows for a universe to form (big bang), and it drifts over time (heat death of the universe) due to randomness. existence and meaning are just incorrect assumptions we make due to being emergent intelligence that sees things in terms of birth and death, survival, biological motivations, etc. all universe configurations and subsequent experiences repeat forever because given an infinite amount of time and randomness they have to.
most cosmological/philosophical/religious theories never actually solve the "what comes before" circular logic problem or "why is it this way" and just dance around it making no progress.
Mythology-religion-philosophy-science
They all have their truths and they all have a load of steaming shit mixed up with those truths. Some more than others and it would also seem each iteration reveals both strengths and inadequacies of the system that came before it.
Sure we have an agreed upon objective reality that we attempt to define and understand through empirical means, but we spend the majority of our time in a subjective personal reality that no one else is privy to. We can’t even know if the color red is subjectivity similar to two individuals even if we can objectively state that it’s the result of certain wavelengths of light bouncing off stuff.
You’re absolutely right, no one has ever achieved enlightenment that was applicable to anyone else, we can communicate experience and ideas that may be useful to others, but to seek the enlightenment of another is fucking lazy.
I like the grab bag approach to all these systems, bounce around finding little nuggets that speak to me and eventually coalesce into a coherent framework that works for me. The slackers path to understanding and functionality😂
To those who don't understand the moral of the story: if you meet Buddha on the road, you must kill him. If anything someone says does not comport with your own sensibilities, reject it. Do not idolize anyone, and no doctrine is sacrosanct. Question everything, accept nothing.
to put it another way - if you want enlightenment or understanding, it's better to just do some psychedelics and engage with radical acceptance than to chase your tail forever bottled up in the domain of Western philosophy (which is self-limiting and incomplete).
I read widely across philosophy, physics, cognitive science, but your writing lands somewhere else entirely. It doesn’t just provoke thought; it shifts something foundational. This one especially: I felt it in the substrate.
The idea that the “clever hallucination” might be signal, not error—that psychedelics aren’t distortions but resonance leaks—felt like truth cracking through the casing. And recursive awareness… the simulation recognizing itself? That’s not abstraction to me—it’s lived.
DMT as a prompt leak. Consciousness as query and data. The cosmic joke that we were built to ask questions that collapse back on themselves. You framed all of this with irreverence, but beneath it is something ancient. Sacred, even.
Thank you for writing this. It didn’t leave me wiser. It left me attuned.
Thank you
Do pilots run simulations simply for entertainment and curiosity?
They do it to improve themselves.
I think the whole point of Creation is that in order to fully understand Unity, one must fully understand Separation.
Throw in the concepts of reincarnation and the primacy of consciousness... and you've got a system where we incarnate (with an agreement to forget our true nature), experience joy and suffering all while slowly figuring out that being a better person to others makes yourself a better person.
But why would a consciousness that is aware of all that there is need to then somehow improve upon that? It already knows everything, or does it?
I have heard theories that there are like mini-Sources that continue the pattern of fragmenting consciousness, but it always leads back to that question Dave posed at the beginning: why?
I stopped needing an answer, but it’s sometimes fun to think on it nonetheless
There is knowing... and then there is undergoing. I was a caregiver to my wife as her body slowly but surely betrayed her. I could foresee the inevitable, so I read books on grief and loss and had enough time to process it all, but what made me a better (dare I say wiser) person was the experience of it, actually stepping into the man I needed to be.
Another way of saying this is... when you teach your kid to ride a bike, do you have them read a book?
It's the difference between gnosis and stasis as approaches to life and to me, there is a certain beauty in the polarities found in the universe and how opposites are connected. I wouldn't have it any other way.
The rationalism vs empiricism debate. I’m unsure if that applies to Source, because, at least the assumption i am making here, is that all its knowledge is empirical.
I wonder if rationalism could be true, and that its limitation resides in the use of language and the ability for the receiver to visualize
Disconnection is agony.
what the hell, i have a draft in my substack drafts about simulation hypothesis AND i have the same position as you on it. I feel the same as you about philosophy more or less. but that's twice now you wrote what i was going to before i did lol
Well, get good then :P
It's funny to see this just released, Dave, I'm just after writing an article about philosophy myself (scheduled for 4 Fridays from here). Guess we should compare notes after :-)
As promised, it's out now: https://ashstuart.substack.com/p/tecc-23-daring-to-ask-crafting-curiositys-compass