mmkz

3.1K posts

mmkz banner
mmkz

mmkz

@KoKooffcial

AI/ML, Systems Engineering, Stochastic Calculus and All around Chuddhist

Katılım Nisan 2025
513 Takip Edilen59 Takipçiler
mmkz retweetledi
Ihtesham Ali
Ihtesham Ali@ihtesham2005·
A Russian mathematician invented the math behind ChatGPT in 1906 while trying to humiliate a priest in an academic feud, and he died 16 years later without knowing any of it. His name was Andrey Markov. His nickname was Andrey the Furious. And the thing he built was never meant to be about language at all. Here is the story almost nobody tells you. Russia in 1905 was fracturing. The Russo-Japanese War was bleeding the country. Revolution was in the streets. And inside the Imperial Academy of Sciences, two mathematicians were tearing each other apart over a question that had nothing to do with either of them professionally. The priest was Pavel Nekrasov, a theologian turned mathematician who believed numbers could prove God's design. His argument was this: the Law of Large Numbers, the foundational rule of probability theory, only works when events are independent of each other. Like coin flips. No connection between them. And if human decisions follow the same pattern, he said, then human beings must be making truly free, independent choices. Mathematics, in his telling, proved free will. Which meant it proved the soul. Which meant it proved God. Markov found this professionally offensive and personally infuriating. He was a fierce atheist who had been excommunicated from the Russian Orthodox Church by choice, sending a letter demanding they remove him after they refused to recognize Tolstoy's excommunication. He had no patience for what he called the abuse of mathematics. The idea that a priest was using probability theory to smuggle theology into science made him furious in the precise way his nickname suggested. So he set out to destroy the argument. His proof was elegant and brutal. He showed that the Law of Large Numbers does not require independence at all. Averages can stabilize even when every event is connected to the one before it. Free will had nothing to do with it. The soul had nothing to do with it. Nekrasov's entire theological superstructure collapsed on a mathematical technicality. But Markov needed a real-world demonstration. Something concrete. Something that would make the proof undeniable. He picked up a copy of Alexander Pushkin's Eugene Onegin. Not to read it. To count it. He sat in his study in St. Petersburg and wrote out the first 20,000 letters of the poem in one continuous string, stripping out every space and every punctuation mark until it was just a raw chain of characters. Then he began counting. Vowel or consonant. What follows what. How often does a vowel follow a vowel. How often does a consonant follow a vowel. Week after week, letter by letter, by hand. What he found was that the letters were deeply dependent on each other. A vowel is far more likely to follow a consonant than to follow another vowel. The sequence is not random. Each letter is influenced by what came before it. And yet across 20,000 letters, the overall frequency of vowels converged to a stable number. Dependence and statistical regularity could coexist. Nekrasov was wrong. The math worked without independence. Free will was not hiding inside probability theory. Markov had proven it on the back of a love poem. He called the structure he had discovered a chain. What we now call a Markov chain. The idea is simple enough to explain in one sentence. The next state of a system depends only on its current state, not on everything that came before it. Each step carries just enough memory to take the next step. No more. What Markov could not have imagined is what that idea would become. Every language model that exists today is built on this exact logic. When ChatGPT reads your prompt and generates the next word, it is doing a vastly more sophisticated version of exactly what Markov did with Pushkin's letters. It looks at the current state of the conversation and calculates what should come next based on patterns in everything it was trained on. The core mathematical intuition, that sequences have structure, that the next element depends on what came before, that you can model language as a chain of dependent probabilities, is Markov's. It has been Markov's since 1913. His paper on Eugene Onegin was presented to the Imperial Academy of Sciences on January 23, 1913. The audience was mathematicians. The context was a dispute about free will. Nobody in that room was thinking about computers. There were no computers. The first electronic computer would not exist for another three decades. He died in 1922, nine years after the paper, in the early chaos of the Soviet era. He was 66. He had spent his final years watching the Tsar fall, the revolution rise, and his country become something unrecognizable. He never saw a transistor. He never imagined a machine that processes language. He thought he had settled an argument with a priest. The argument he actually settled was one nobody had asked yet. Today his chains are inside every search engine, every voice assistant, every spam filter, every autocomplete. The 2024 paper Large Language Models as Markov Chains shows formally what practitioners have known informally for decades: the inference mechanism of GPT-4, Claude, and Gemini can be characterized as a Markov chain operating over sequences of tokens. The math is his. The name on the paper is someone else's. There is a version of this story where Nekrasov wins the argument. Where Markov decides the priest is not worth his time. Where nobody counts 20,000 letters in a poem to settle a theological dispute. In that version, the chain is never invented. Or it is invented later, by someone else, for different reasons, on a different timeline. We got this version instead. The furious atheist. The love poem. The weeks of counting. The proof that destroyed a man's theology and accidentally handed the 21st century its most important mathematical tool. Nekrasov wanted to find God in the numbers. What he found instead was Markov. And Markov found something neither of them was looking for.
Ihtesham Ali tweet media
English
13
81
279
18.6K
mmkz retweetledi
OK Then
OK Then@okaythenfuture·
Everyone will find it shocking now, but back in the 1950s and 1960s the overwhelming consensus among economists and geopolitical thinkers was that Africa, even Black Africa, let alone North Africa, was going to rapidly outpace Asia in development. No one saw Asia's export oriented industrialization coming, and instead people thought countries like Ghana, with a stable and educated well developed middle class by the time period's standard and resource riches would surely outperform very poor countries like South Korea. History behaved extremely differently.
Morrisan15@morris_que14

Taiwan vs Egypt in the 1950s. Taiwan was so poor then, most people couldn't afford cars and rode bikes instead. Kids often walked barefoot on the streets. Egypt actually had a functioning tram system and public transportation back then which was non-existent in Taiwan. But nowadays, people are so clueless as to how this switch was so recent they just assumed that Taiwan was always rich while Egypt was always poor. Not so.

English
32
136
1.1K
89.7K
mmkz retweetledi
Breaking Point USA
Breaking Point USA@nixonist·
David Reich's father was the first director of the U.S. Holocaust Museum. Imagine you're the Jew in charge of America's Holocaust propaganda and your son accidentally rediscovers that Aryans were real and kooky racist German anthropologists were right about absolutely everything.
Dwarkesh Patel@dwarkesh_sp

One of the coolest stories I heard from David Reich about the interaction between genetics and human culture: The caste system was powerful enough to essentially 'freeze' Indian genetics for thousands of years, almost completely stopping the process of genetic mixture.

English
48
202
2.7K
80.8K
mmkz retweetledi
Tom Elliott
Tom Elliott@tomselliott·
NYT's @NickKristof to fellow progressives: "A black kid in Mississippi is 2.5 times as likely to be proficient in math & reading by 4th grade as a black kid in Calif. Do we need to look a little bit less at what the Trump Admin is doing ... & look a little more in the mirror?"
English
276
2.2K
16K
1M
चेदिराड्रिपुपार्षदः 🟩⬜️⬛️
Sorry. I should've written Śrāvastī there and not Kapilavastu. Though the point remains that there is no contemporary inscription or document proving the Buddha's existence beyond dispute. We say he is historical because the cumulative evidence makes his existence much more likely than nonexistence, yet the evidence itself is not absolutely conclusive.
English
4
3
14
322
mmkz
mmkz@KoKooffcial·
@real_mahalingam What? Do you have any other studies or research to back your point? Come on, act like an adult.
English
1
0
0
24
NiṣādaHermaphroditarchaṃśa (Mal'ta boy ka parivar)
I think many people assume that the reason for Buddhist philosophy's eventual convergence towards Vedānta, despite starting out from the opposite direction (reductionism instead of holism) is due to the influx of Hindu ideas from discourse/debate or conversions of Brāhmaṇas into the religion. But if you study the chronology it is more a case of them converging onto the truth. Early Buddhism: the self is just a mixture of various elements (body, feeling, perception, personality, consciousness) so it's not real. [as opposed to Advaita which says the self is a universal Brahman obscured by various physical limitations] Abhidharma (atomism): more precisely, they are composed of minimal infinitesimal elements called "dharmas" (which unlike the Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika atoms, are momentary, i.e. they are also atomic in time). But do those dharmas themselves exist? Or is it dharmas all the way down? (similar to the question in classical theism of whether there are gods all the way up) Sarvāstivāda-Vaibhāṣika (atomism + eternalism): Yes; we reject self and Brahman and all the finite things, but we still need some atomic units of causal explanation. AND in fact, all dharmās (at all points in time) always exist, they are just causally connected in a way that gives the illusion of time. Sautrāntika (representationalism + presentism): While Hindu philosophy in general was also broadly positivist (the epistemological position that perception and inference are the ways of knowing), Buddhist reductionism stemmed from a "radical positivist" vibe (even though not yet formalized), positing that whatever isn't completely materially seen isn't real at all. Thus "patterns" in matter like self and Brahman weren't real. Sautrāntikas took this radical positivism to the next level. This meant: - while the external (noumenal) world is real, we only perceive our own mental representations. So consciousness is quite fundamental/important. [Surprisingly they did not take the obvious next step to claim the noumenal world isn't real at all.] - the Sarvāstivādins are wrong: only the present is real. You can see the start of convergence to Hinduism here: the fundamental position of consciousness, and the formalization of the pramāṇas/epistemology as in the Hindu darśanas. [BTW I was curious: if Sarvāstivāda is eternalist and Sautrāntika is presentist, is there a no-futurist school in Indian philosophy? There is Vibhajyavāda, the philosophical precursor to Theravāda Buddhism, which states that the future does not exist, but is a bit weird about the past: it states that only the past dharmas which "haven't yet been karmically accounted for" exist, while the others are gone. Eventually Theravāda just accepted presentism.] Yogācāra ("Consciousness-only"): Now we take that "obvious next step" from Śautrāntika: the external/noumenal world isn't real, only consciousness is real. They clarify this in three levels of understanding of the noumenal world: Parikalpita-svabhāva: "I, the subject, am seeing an independent object out there." [This is regarded as an illusion.] Paratantra-svabhāva: There are stable, lawful patterns of experience. The object in front of me is not my individual fantasy, but a structured cognitive appearance arising from causal relationship between dharmas etc. [This is regarded as "conventionally" real, i.e. is a useful concept in the real world.] Pariniṣpanna-svabhāva: The subject-object structure of experience is itself generated within consciousness. [This is regarded as the ultimate truth.] This is pretty much just screaming for Advaita at this point. If the noumenal world isn't real, but there are stable patterns of experience shared across minds, and these experiences are themselves generated by consciousness ... Madhyamaka (anti-essentialism, i.e. śūnyatā): If you've studied math at some level of abstraction, you will realize that the meaning of stuff fundamentally comes from its relationship to other things. It doesn't matter whether you define the imaginary unit i as a field extension R[x^2+1] or as the matrix [0 1; -1 0], they are fundamentally the same. [The formal statement of this in category theory is the Yoneda lemma.] If you build a physical theory out of some momentary infinitesimal atoms (dharmas), then this also applies to these dharmas. It doesn't matter how you describe these individual dharmas: all of its real, observable properties arise from its dependency/relationship with other dharmas. All observable phenomenon arise from how they are connected and interact with each other. So these infinitesimals are themselves fundamentally "empty": reality is an emergent phenomenon of the superstructure formed by the interactions of these infinitesimals. Now the Madhyamakas take this to say: there is a "conventional reality" (things that are said to exist because they are useful) and an "ultimate reality" (which is śūnyata, nothingness at all). E.g. the concept of a chariot is useful, but if you reductively break it down into parts you do not find a chariot-essence. But the correct inference to make here would be that this "conventional reality": the universe, the superstructure that arises from all the dharmas, Brahman, is the Ultimate Reality because that is the only thing that has any informational content at all! The fact that the individual "essences" are empty precisely means that the exact physical substrate that the computation works with, is māya: just how this computation feels like from the inside.
NiṣādaHermaphroditarchaṃśa (Mal'ta boy ka parivar)@real_mahalingam

Much of Hindu philosophy is aimed at addressing the "hard problem of consciousness": what *is* consciousness? Sure, you can write down all the physical laws underlying your mind etc but how does the subjective experience of consciousness arise from that? Who *are* you? Advaita Vedānta = Monism. You are the universe, observing yourself: and more specifically, you (consciousness) *are* the most fundamental reality, your sense that you, individually are conscious separate from all other beings and matter (ahaṃkāra) etc are only a result of the specific nature of how Brahman manifests itself (i.e. you can only observe your own memory, not other people's etc). This is quite promising and basically correct, but is a bit vague. In particular, it leaves open the question of what "how Brahman manifests itself" is. Advaita typically models Brahman as completely nirguṇa, and all specific facts about the physical universe and your individuality as completely illusory (Māyā), but this seems to just invert the question of "Why does consciousness exist?" to "Why do all the specific material attributes of the world exist?" Paramādvaita ("Kaśmīr Śaivism") = Pan-computationalism. If Brahman were totally nirguṇa and that was all there was to the world, it would be śūnya: none of our observed reality would exist. Sure, you can talk all you want about how the ultimate goal is to forget all that observed reality and just focus on Brahman, but clearly this observed reality is an actual phenomenon that needs to be explained: why is this the observed reality, rather than anything else? Śiva (=Brahman) is the universal consciousness, and Śakti (no longer mere Māyā) is that consciousness actively computing reality, i.e. the physical universe. One specific analogy given is that of the sea and its waves, i.e. Śiva is "pure" consciousness while Śakti is the specific patterns or information that correspond to the real world; though in other places it looks more like Śiva and Śakti are computation and physics respectively, and are both equivalent views of the same reality. [@Jakhar_ankit_ was the one to point out that it's specifically Paramādvaita that is computationalist, not really Advaita as a whole as I had thought.] Viśiṣṭādvaita = Panentheism + Exemplarism. Brahman is a multi-agent system comprised of all the individual ātmans, just like you are comprised of cells, or the economy is comprised of people. However we have a holistic rather than a reductionist view of the multi-agent system. Much like Paramādvaita, Viśiṣṭādvaita also rejects the notion that Brahman is nirguṇa, for similar reasons. However, its answer is to say that Brahman (here visualized as Viṣṇu) possesses only "good" attributes like infinite knowledge and strength and mercy, and all the bad attributes of individual souls are due to their incompleteness. One may compare this to the famous verses in the Bhagavad Gītā where Kṛṣṇa says "Among gods I am Indra, among mountains I am Meru, among birds I am Garuḍa" etc. This latter tenet is something I'm not convinced of. I would say that this exemplarism (as well as the resulting conclusion is that the goal is to have your ātman reach Vaikuṇṭha and be in eternal service of Brahman/Viṣṇu) is a borrowing from popular theism (which would later be formalized as Dvaita). [It should also be noted that the monism or panentheism of the Advaita schools should not be confused with panpsychism, where consciousness is viewed as an inherent microscopic property of matter, rather than linked to its interactions and dynamics. I would actually say panpsychism is equivalent to a dualistic philosophy, and is basically Jainism, but both would disagree.] ------- Advaita and its schools are definitely the correct approach to metaphysics in my view. However there is an alternative view, based on a simpler intuition about consciousness (think: dualism, Descartes, philosophical zombies). Sāṃkhya (Dualism). Human brains and bodies can run as perfect philosophical zombies, composed entirely of matter (Prakṛti). But consciousness exists (for we observe that it exists). Thus consciousness (Puruṣa) must be an entirely passive/static observer, enjoying the dance of Prakṛti but with no effect on it. This is similar to Descartes's dualism, except a bit less wrong because it doesn't randomly claim that philosophical zombies would be slightly less intelligent or agentic or whatever. Still, it is basically non-explanatory of consciousness, like asserting heat is a substance called phlogiston. Yoga (Sāṃkhya + God). Īśvara is a special, formless, Puruṣa who has never been tangled up with matter; a perfect reference point of pure consciousness to meditate on to also attain mokṣa. This is similar to the Buddhists' view of Buddha, except Buddha was not "eternal" like Īśvara but instead had to seek liberation himself. And the Buddhists do not actually have a model for what this liberated state is, since they do not believe in either Brahman or Puruṣa. In general I view their philosophy as comprised of incoherent and haphazard borrowings from Hinduism (as well as from Jainism or an earlier common śramaṇic base) with a bunch of wordceling put in between. Dvaita Vedānta (Classical theism). Brahman (usually seen as Viṣṇu or Śiva) is a completely separate creator god who designed the universe. ------- Apart from pondering consciousness, there are two other sources of darśanas: science and Vedic ritual. Which one is theistic, might surprise you. 1) Philosophy of science -> Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika. Nyāya is a school of epistemology and formal logic: what are the valid ways of knowing (pramāṇa)? What is valid logic and inference? What are the rules of debate? Vaiśeṣika asserts that the universe is comprised of atoms which form bonds and structures to comprise a zoo of the various substances seen in the world. If N-V "knew their place" and limited their claims to the material world, they would have no contradiction with Advaita or any of the other darśanas. However, they sought to explain consciousness with the same "atomistic" method, asserting that it is the result of the mixing of four substances (soul, mind, senses and the perceived object). Thus they did not see consciousness as fundamental: instead, the noumenal world was fundamental and consciousness was just a material property that emerged from certain "chemical interactions". N-V did not initially believe in/require Īśvara, but in medieval times became the strongest defenders of the idea. Their arguments (specifically that of Udayana) were: 1) Matter does not spontaneously arrange itself into structure, like clay does not spontaneously arrange itself into a clay pot. 2) Calculating karma for every soul in the world (and physical effects in general) is a complex task that requires an intelligent being. 3) Human knowledge must have been passed down from a "first teacher". Even if you learn things from observation etc, there must be some prior knowledge of how to even internalize this new information. One may note that all of these arguments have an "entropic" flavour, i.e. "the universe contains order, thus there must be an external source of energy/information into it". Dvaita also accepts the N-V view of Īśvara, but rejects its view of consciousness, and instead regards Īśvara as synonymous with Brahman. The Advaita (including Paramādvaita and Viśiṣṭādvaita) critique of this is not to reject this entropic argument (we are quite happy to say that Brahman is this "cause" of the world). Rather, they reject the proposition that Brahman is only the "efficient cause" (i.e. creator) of the world, and that the "material cause" (i.e. the raw material) is some completely separate "Prakṛti". 2) Exegesis of the Vedas -> Mīmāṃsā. In my post "The early development of Indian philosophy", I stated that there were two basic roots of Indian philosophy: intellectual speculation on the nature of consciousness (jñānakāṇḍa) and exegesis of Vedic ritual (karmakāṇḍa). One way to interpret the Vedas was a philosophical guide, often via analogies e.g. the famous "chariot analogy". This is Uttara-mīmāṃsā, which takes us back to jñānakāṇḍa/Vedānta. The other way to interpret it is as an explicit ritual manual. This is Pūrva-mīmāṃsā, which holds that (a) The authority of the Veda is *only* in prescribing ritual actions. Any other claim in the Veda is only an "auxillary" claim to make a broader point, and does not hold authority over observation and inference, the pramāṇas for the material world. (Note that Vedānta states the same.) (b) Ritual and its fruits are physical laws followed by the universe, and not administered by intelligent gods. [In fact, while jñānakāṇḍa motivates the development of philosopy, karmakāṇḍa was responsible for both philosophy and the Vedāṅga: auxillary disciplines such as linguistics, geometry and astronomy developed to better understand the Vedas and perform Vedic ritual, and thus Indian science itself.]

English
2
5
15
1.7K
mmkz
mmkz@KoKooffcial·
@real_mahalingam x.com/i/status/19878… This is the most recent and high profile one. Take a look at the Pubmed server. There are thousands of studies like this. The constant self or soul is more or less now completely out of the window and consensus in the neuroscience community.
mmkz tweet media
Matthew D. Sacchet@MatthewSacchet

I recently spoke with New Scientist @newscientist, one of world’s major weekly science-and-technology magazines, to share how our work is revealing one of the most promising frontiers in human development, and may also be part of a bigger story about our collective potential and evolution. After decades of research on meditation, we still have so much further to go. The inner frontier runs deep. Many people wonder why we study advanced meditation, why we believe we’ve only begun to scratch the surface of its potential, and how such research can make a real difference beyond the Meditation Research Program at Harvard Medical School @harvardmed and Massachusetts General Hospital @MassGeneralNews. It’s true that our findings, including that meditative states like extended cessation and non-dual awareness are real and track meaningfully to measurable brain activity, are groundbreaking in their own right. But what may be even more radical and profound are their philosophical, scientific, and cultural implications. If the science of advanced meditation continues to explore the depths of the mind, alongside other bold frontiers of consciousness research, I believe the data will eventually speak for itself. We are learning, empirically, that the brain and mind can be rewired, reconfigured, healed, and transformed in ways that challenge what we thought possible. Some of these ideas about who we are, and what we might be capable of, include: — The “self” is a fluid, dynamic process, not a fixed entity. — The mind can be reset, similar to a computer rebooting to cleared settings. — Massive reductions in suffering can be learned. — Experiential distance between ourselves, others, and the world is profoundly malleable. And some of our most unhealthy desires and impulses may not be flaws hardwired into biology, but conditioned psychological patterns that can be seen through and transformed as we develop toward new ways of being. The possibilities this all hints at, what might be experienced if we realize these latent, powerful capacities, feel both hopeful and suggestive of a new beginning for what it may mean to be human. In a not-too-distant future, we may even have neuroscience-informed methods, perhaps biomarkers or brain stimulation, to accelerate meditative development and democratize access to deep transformation. Neuroscience alone may not have all the answers. But I hope this work continues to inspire more people, across disciplines, to safely explore how human experience can be radically good, extraordinarily plastic, and mind-blowingly beautiful. Personally, when studying a heretofore unstudied advanced meditative state, I feel we’re on the cusp of something incredible: to give more people a chance to stand in awe of their own awareness 💫 Thanks so much to Claudia Canavan @ClaudiaCanavan and New Scientist @newscientist for making this interview possible. The full interview is included in comments ⤵️

English
0
0
0
9
mmkz
mmkz@KoKooffcial·
@real_mahalingam Also take a look at the dialogues between the Dalai Lama and other leading scientists in life and mind institute. It has been going on for more than two decades although the public is largely unaware of this.
English
0
0
0
11
mmkz
mmkz@KoKooffcial·
@real_mahalingam wsj.com/opinion/charle… This is from the leading cognitive scientist from Harvard chastising the christian conservatives for pushing the belief in soul. This is now part of the wider culture war in the west.
English
0
0
0
13
mmkz
mmkz@KoKooffcial·
@real_mahalingam You still don't know about Harvard medical school, don't you?
English
1
0
0
34
mmkz
mmkz@KoKooffcial·
@agniyuta Oh, now that you're talking about universal evidence, what would that be? Because I only see verbal hot air and still no evidence. At least you should cite some papers and replicable lab results. If you can't, it's still verbal nonsense.
English
0
0
0
7
Śrēyān Singh
Śrēyān Singh@agniyuta·
Kumārila refutations of the Bauddhas in particular, as well as of the Jainas, Nyāya, Sānkhya, Yoga, and Cārvākas, are remarkable.
Śrēyān Singh tweet media
Română
5
12
34
867
mmkz
mmkz@KoKooffcial·
@agniyuta Anyway, I'm kind of having fun trolling you pajeets.😁
English
0
0
0
9
mmkz
mmkz@KoKooffcial·
@agniyuta Well, tell that to the Harvard medical school. Do I also need to remind you again? You people only have verbal nonsense with no evidence to back up your claim. Rather than spreading shit on the internet, go fund some neuroscience studies to find that fucking atman.
English
0
0
0
10
mmkz retweetledi
Mehdi (e/λ)
Mehdi (e/λ)@BetterCallMedhi·
chinese academy of sciences just dropped qimeng, an AI system that designs entire processor chips end to end from natural language spec to to physical layout, their first version qimeng-cpu-v1 produced a fully functional 32-bit RISC-V CPU in 5 hours with 4 milliongates, performance on par with intel's 1990s chips, version v2 already matches arm cortex a53 from the 2010s, the whole thing runs on a domain specific model that learns the graph structures of circuits the way GPT learns text honestly i’ve been staring at this paper for an hour & i still can’t fully wrap my head around what it implies, this is what real sovereignty looks like, when an AI can design your chips you stop depending on TSMC EUV machines on synopsys cadence licenses on US export controls, every kid with a laptop becomes a potential chip architect, the bottleneck of semiconductor design that locked the industry into 5 companies worldwide just got broken open, the next decade of hardware will be designed by AI agents @ the country that owns those agents owns the future think about what this means for everyone, custom chips for your medical implant designed in days, processors tuned for african languages built by ethiopian students, agricultural sensors optimized for malian soil sketched by farmers themselves, the entire 80y monopoly of SV over how computation gets shaped is about to dissolve into a planetary movement of garage chip designers,… the same way the printing press took writing out of the monasteries this takes silicon out of the fabs, we are watching the MOST centralized industry on earth become the most distributed one & the window to participate is wide open rn
Mehdi (e/λ) tweet mediaMehdi (e/λ) tweet mediaMehdi (e/λ) tweet mediaMehdi (e/λ) tweet media
English
24
245
1K
46K
Joscha Bach
Joscha Bach@Plinz·
@algekalipso @tim_tyler @patriciacraja @vidhvatm Buddhism has more advanced mindfulness traditions than most other religions, but is not collecting scientific Nobel prices. Study emotional regulation in Tibet but metaphysics in places that value rational inquiry over everything else?
English
1
0
5
292
Joscha Bach
Joscha Bach@Plinz·
I think it was a mistake for our culture to dismiss religion, instead of understanding and redesigning it with rational epistemology. Religion defines the intentionality and structure of the superorganism. Without seeing the shape of the superstructure, we cannot derive ethics.
English
175
52
704
35.8K