/**
 * file: journal_karbytes_19january2025.txt
 * type: plain-text
 * date: 18_JANUARY_2025
 * author: karbytes
 * license: PUBLIC_DOMAIN
 */

I made a challenge recently to not complain in any format which I think is accessible to the general public or to people who are not me but who are in physical proximity to me regularly. As usual, such resolutions fail within three days of me attempting to adhere to them. I think I know why: free will (i.e. agency) is an emergent property of sufficiently complex information processing systems and, like all other fundamentally physical phenomena, requires a specific amount of energy to sustain (especially if a respective free will reserve is used up relatively quickly). The human brain allegedly consumes roughly 25% of the respective human individual's total energy (which seems to be related to why activities which require a high degree of cognitive processing seem to be only routinely performed by those who are not too impoverished to afford to keep their brain's stoked to "performance capacity" instead of mere "economy mode" (and mere "economy mode" is all it takes to make babies)).

Last night I got mad about various things I noticed in the news and in my personal experience which I thought were glaring examples of what I think is unethical yet normalized by the "economy mode majority". I went onto Quora dot Com and started publishing flippant comments to various Quora posts I saw in my feed which "triggered" me enough to come up with not so nice words about such posts. I usually browse Quora when I am waiting for BART trains to arrive at the station or riding the trains or waiting in some kind of office to be called in for my appointment. The items which appear in my Quora feed seem to me to be "third world country" quality and hence quite entertaining for me to read, but if I do that for "too long" I tend to feel a bit depressed and irritated after such self-induced "brainwashing" which makes me feel stolen away from the "first world country" state of mind (and body) I feel entitled to inhabiting at all times (or at least in general). 

I felt better after "mouthing off" in the format of leaving slightly unhinged-looking and hateful-sounding comments to random Quora posts. Doing so allowed me to break out of the metaphorical straitjacket I put on of always having to be sparse and emotionally and politically neutral in all that I commmunicate to the world outside of my skull. I figured that such venting is relatively low-risk for me to continue to engage in (and so is talking to myself out loud (even though it seems frowned upon by most people due to the fact that it makes me look "crazy" and "unsettled" to be having such impassioned speeches with "no one" to hear them (but I consider myself to be just as legitimate of a listener to my rants as anyone else would be but I would rather spare people other than myself having to be the captive audience of my rants))). I keep to myself largely so that I can talk to myself about whatever I want to without getting cut off by people who do not want to or else cannot offer my rantings any of their puny attention spans and abysmal cognitive resources. Way too many people seem eager to censor me out of existence and even seem to throw a fit at me for going on long walks alone (especially "past curfew" at night). I notice that such people are uncomprimising road hogs who sit in their idling cars on the side of the road with their high beams on facing me or else they drive past me slowly several times in their oversized pickup trucks trying to intimidate me by insinuating that they could run me over or jump out of the car to put their grubby ape hands on me in a violent manner. I saw one of such example several nights ago. The same guy in the white pickup truck slowly drove past me while I was walking past the front entrance to Lake Chabot Regional Park and he kept parking his truck in the middle of the road at the intersection near where I was walking to. I decided to extend my walk for another half hour instead of cutting across the road to get home like I was originally planning in order to avoid that guy and the other guys acting like road hogs who could not tolerate me simply being a self-sovereign and solitary hiker instead of some piece of chattel to be obsessively guarded by chauvinist pig apes. 

I am not interested in sex because now I think it is a waste of time for someone like me. I think that overal human interest in sex will decrease as more humans are allowed to have alternative options for how to spend their "free" time and energy (especially at night). It seems that most humans think that women should never leave the stifling overwatch of whoever is appointed by the patriachy to own those women. If people were allowed to engage in more intellectually and creatively stimulating hobbies (especially solitary ones), people would have more to "bring to the table" when they meetup to socialize other than having a cooped up body equipped with a sensory deprived, intellectually understimulated brain which is force-fed propaganda that sex is the most important (and only) outlet for a female-bodied human to look forward to as mere "stress relief" but probably also it is an implicitly mandatory form of payment. I am interested in personally remaining celibate for the rest of my life and pointing out that other people can and should do the same if they feel like how I do. I shall elaborate in the next paragraph...

I noticed that sex is treated as implicitly mandatory and those who do not seem to have a minimum quota of sex are treated as criminal suspects. Why? Well, sex is, of course, supposed to be the ultimate activity and the end to all means (and the only way humans have so far been able to generate fresh, naive new human hive members). If someone arrogantly thinks otherwise, then they deserve to be treated as suspicious and maybe even dangerous (because they are doing something other than kneel before the patriarchy and ask it for sweet release (which is really just more stifling cliches and role-play games being carried out by meat robots which seem to unoriginal inside and out that they could be functionally if not epistemologically interchanged)).

Another thing I get ranty about is how so many so-called feminists are staunchly opposed to banning abortion. I only condone abortion because I think Earth is already overpopulated by humans and, also, because pregnancy causes the pregnant person's brain to atrophy (and causes that person to experience other health issues including some which are life-threatening) and, once the child is born, that woman is usually cornered into having to have almost no life outside of being a mother (while the father generally gets to keep his pre-parenthood identity and career in tact while the mother is the designated child care provider to the extent that her professional life and social life and hobbies are pushed to the wayside unless they center around patriarchy-sanctioned motherhood and wifehood). What I really want is for women to find alternative activities to having sex with men (especially if they use birth control which is less than 99% effective (and such seems to be the overwheliming norm throughout this species of primates)). Yes, I think women are pigs that, for whatever reason, show a disgusting level of indifference to systems thinking topics in favor of just getting all fake cliche emotionally animated about cute baby animals. Those women do not seem to be any less selfish or conniving than men but they sure seem to be excused to act as innocent and as dumb and as weak as small children (perhaps because they spend too much time in the company of brats and not enough time in the company of modern intellectuals). I would rather women take a more active role in preventing unwanted pregnancies than merely begging the patriarchal establishment to grant their wish of continued or reinstated abortion access. I hate how there is a silent and widespread implication that a woman cannot control what goes INTO their orfices (whether it's dicks or food) but they seem to be fixated on what is expected to come out of such orfices. Why is it that so many people act like women cannot distinguish consentual sex from rape? I think women generally are socialized (and maybe conditiond through generations of sexual selection) to exhibit less agency than their male counterparts. Hence, with that dynamic of inequality (in terms of agency level) firmly and widely established throughout human civiliation, it makes sense that most heterosexual intercourse is the end result of a man wearing down a woman's already relatively low will power reserves so that she cannot distinguish what is her own will from that of her male "partner". I do not mean to imply that such a man is a rapist. I would say she is just as innocent as she is except for the fact that he does seem to have more decision-making power overall and less pressure to cave into someone else's desires than what what she has. So, I could say that the man is expected to control the timing and emergence of most events in his heterosexual dealings while the woman is like a trained dog responding to his whims and cues. I think it is contemptable but most of society seems to think that is wholesome. 

This journal entry (like the previous two before it) provides a murky glimpse into my mind and why I seem to be a bit misanthropic. All of such journal entries are what I consider to be informal and unprofessional in their quality but they are not absolutely useless as historical artifacts for those who are genuinely interested in understanding the inner workings of karbytes or human nature in general. I rarely seem to feature what I consider to be "role model" humans in my blog (and, by that, I mean humans who seem to genuinely and practically contribute to society in way which karbytes thinks is praiseworthy and relevant to karbytes' utopian ideals and interests). In other words, I have not yet featured examples of humans other than myself in this blog who are what I consider to be staunch and effective proponents of transhumanism, ecological sustainability, animal welfare, social equality, media transparancy, and self actualization for all Sufficiently Sentient Information Processing Agents. Such "heroes" seem to be extremely rare (i.e. less than 0.0000001% of the total global human population at this time). Until that number seems to take up more than 5% of the global human population in "real time", I doubt I will feel that there are enough humans on the planet who share in my endeavors and who are also available for me to interact with for me to want to invest even a modicum of my time and resources towards socializing outside of what is strictly necessary for my survival and means to earn material goods which I covet and cannot seemingly obtain any other legal way than by pretending to be a scared dog who must appease someone above it on some hierarchy in order to get the money, products, or services that "dog" wants but will be denied by the middleman controlling the "dog's" access to such things unless that "dog" appeals to the middleman's conceit and control freakery. In other words, I resent the fact that, in order to get many if not most of the things I want in this life, it seems necessary that I pretend to like people I might actually feel contempt or disgust towards in order to get what I want (and, now that I am such an "open book" on the Internet and through privacy-destroying mind surveillance, it seems that many if not most people know I feel this way and such people use that knowledge to penalize me further even if only for sadistic amusement).

I would much rather do what I said I vowed to do for a long time (which is limit my concentration to what my recreational and vocational interests are (which are in the domain of natural science, information technology, and analytical philosophy)). When I "try" to maintain my focus on just those things, however, people and things other than myself somehow seem to succeed at derailing my focus (no matter how much free will I am stocked up on initially). Those focus-diffusing entities seem to deplete me rapidly of free will resources (and also money and time) by ganging up on me, physically cornering me, and prolonging or starting conflicts I always try to avoid or descalate. Hence, I will finish up this blog post with a reformed resolution about how to maximize my free will and minimize my focus getting diluted against my will...

I will never again promise not to commit physical violene nor any other crime. That's right! I hereby promise to not promise to never commit any crimes in the future. I also do not promise to censor my thoughts or communications in any particular way. Hence, I am not making any more of an effort than what I think is absolutely required for me to attain my goals. That way, I can optimize my use of cognitive resources and hence keep my free will from drying up as quickly as my enemies seem to want it to. There are probably things I can do to increase my overal capacity for free will. Whatever gives me the sense of having plenty of physical or mental space in which to freely think, feel, and move seems to be a win for me and a loss for my enemies. My enemies are seemingly not as high in overall free will capacity because they have not gone through nearly as much physical and mental conditioning as I have to make myself relatively superhuman in terms of how it uses its own mind. Thinking for oneself and acting as one's own authority and only friend is probably easier for me than it is for them because I seem to have inate built-in advantages and also mostly because I trained myself to become unusually self-aware and self-sovereign (while seemingly most ofher humans tap out more quickly and usually resort to hiding inside of a collective ego instead of standing out as an enterprise controlled by and consisting of exactly one indivible entity of a person).

* * *

Key Facts About KARBYTES' (Current Worldview):

1. NIHILISM: karbytes believes that purpose and ethics are merely thought processes generated by and subjectively experienced by Sufficiently Sentient Information Processing Agents rather than unconditionally ubuquitous properties of nature (and karbytes thinks that such mental phenomena are subject to change over time and cannot exist independently of the computational hardware which render and experience those thoughts).

The fact that karbytes is a nihilist means that karbytes has a situational rather than generalized notion of personal ethics. For example, karbytes may justify the eating of non-vegan products if karbytes thinks that no other viable nutrition options are available (including perhaps cannibalism) while generally adhering to a vegan diet due to the fact that karbytes generally stays confined to environments where vegan options are relatively plentiful.

2. SOLIPSISM: karbytes believes that karbytes only knows what occurs inside of karbytes' own personal subjective frame of reference and (currently) has no viable means to become cognizant of any phenomena which occur outside of that scope. 

The fact that karbytes is a solipsist does not necessarily mean that karbytes thinks that all that exists in the present moment is whatever karbytes is subjectively aware of in that moment. Instead, karbytes acknowledges that phenomena other than what karbytes is aware of at any time could take place outside of karbytes' awareness (but proving that such is the case seems to be a futile endeavor according to karbytes' current understanding of reality).

karbytes refers to itself as a "relative solipsist" instead of an "absolute solipsist". 

If karbytes is an "absolute solipsist", then karbytes believes that the only phenomena which ever occur throughout all of nature are what occur as qualia inside of karbytes' own subjective frame of reference and that literally anything else is purely nothingness.

(An "absolute solipsist" implicitly believes that it imagines itself into existence rather than discovers itself to be existing after not initially being aware that it exists).

If karbytes is a "relative solipsist", then karbytes believes that there could be phenomena other than what karbytes experiences (whether in the past, present, or future) as qualia inside of karbytes' own subjective frame of reference (and such phenomena (which karbytes does not ever observe), according to karbytes' frame of reference, are referred to as noumena (by the definitions presented on the web page at the following Uniform Resource Locator: https://karlinaobject.wordpress.com/nature/ )).

3. COMPATIBILISM: karbytes believes that free will (i.e. agency) is an emergent property of relatively low-level (i.e. concrete) and deterministic processes rather than merely an illusion.

karbytes refers to itself more as a "compatibilist" than as a "hard determinist".

If karbytes is a "hard determinist", then karbytes believes that free will does not exist and that all processes occur in a manner which could be said to be pre-determined (which means that, if it were possible for an information processing agent to know the state of the entire universe at any point in time in the relative past (as an informationally complete snapshot of that universe at that exact point in time), then that information processing agent could infer from that snapshot what that entire universe would look like at any other point in time after that initial snapshot was take). That means that all future events are inextricably controlled by past events (within the same respective universe (which is a unified yet complex and evolving information structure)).

If karbytes is a "compatibilist", then karbytes believes that free will exists as a spontaneously emergent property within the context of a virtual reality which is rendered and experienced by a particular information processing agent of requisite hardware and software complexity. In other words, karbytes would see itself as having the ability to literally create something, X, out of nothing, Y, by willing it (X) into existence through repetitious thought (which takes some finite amount of energy and time but which could technically happen at any point within the encompassing virtual reality's lifespan in a manner which makes X appear to magically arise out of something X is not: Y).

At times karbytes prefers to adopt a more "hard determinist" worldview than a "compatibilist" worldview for the sake of being as minimally ideological and as reductionist as possible.

In general, karbytes tends to exhibit exhibit a more "compatibilist" worldview than a "hard determinist" worldview for the sake of claiming to itself and other people that karbytes assumes moral and legal responsibility for karbytes' actions (and assuming such personal responsibilty seems to be generally encouraged by human society given that it places humans in the role of active participants within society instead of robots which reflexively and indescriminately carry out whatever instructions are fed into their nervous systems).