605
Anon conserves power
(sh.itjust.works)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 25 Jun 2025
605 points (98.4% liked)
Greentext
6628 readers
2039 users here now
This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
- Anon is often crazy.
- Anon is often depressed.
- Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
If you ever study biochemistry, it leaves you absolutely in awe. The best engineering we can do is pretty amazing, we have computers and airplanes and all this magic stuff, but the stuff in you is a hundred, a thousand times better made. It's stunning. Comparatively speaking, it is perfect. And that's only the stuff we understand. The stuff in your brain, we do not.
I remember a quote from Civ along the lines of "if the brain was simple enough for us to understand, our minds would be to simple to understand it."
It's a pretty trivial informational paradox for a mind to comprehend itself -- comprehension of its comprehension of itself then needs further comprehension... So yeah. Only a much more complex mind can understand a given mind
We don't need a single mind to understand the entirety of how the brain works. One of the powers of human knowledge is its distributed nature arising from our ability to write things down and create abstractions. What matters in the end is that we as a collective understand the brain.
But then you just have the same paradox writ large. Maybe we, as a collective, can entertain understanding of a single mind - but the generalisation of us as 'the mind' rather than 'a mind' includes all of us, and must therefore be left wanting
Actually wait this is glib as fuck and probably wrong, I retract it. You could have the capability to understand, given specific allocation of resources but only do it rarely, without violating any information theory fundamentals