## 1. can consciousness arise from physical complexity?

This article contains a series of thought experiments that try to mimic evolution from a physics and evolutionary point of view, with the goal to see how will consciousness arise from complexity.

### 1.1. thought experiment

First let's define consciousness:

Definition 1. $x$ is said to have “consciousness” if, and only if, $x$ has a point of view.

#### 1.1.1. low complexity

Consider the following thought experiment:

• A large basket is filled with lots of balls of equal sizes, but different masses.
• The basket is constantly shaking.
• The rule is: balls at the bottom are the losers.

Result: after a while, heavy balls will be eliminated 1st, and the lighter survive longer.

Question 1. Do the winning balls have any consciousness? Feelings? A point of view?

Answer 1. As per the standard Physics model: perhaps they don't. They are just stuff happening as matters interact as energy moves from higher to lower — they have no point of view, nor feelings.

#### 1.1.2. more complexity

Now let's increase the mechanical complexity of the balls:

• Each ball has a working combustion engine inside of it (with fuel tank, throttle, etc).
• Each ball can swing a leg (or stick/bat) by its engine.
• Engine's throttle is attached to a tentacle.

Result: balls that have strategically positioned throttle tentacles will survive longer than otherwise. Reason: the position of the throttle can determine that if a 2nd ball comes close to get over the 1st ball, the 2nd ball will hit the throttle tentacle of the 1st, which causes the 1st to spin a kick against the 2nd, ultimately disabling it from getting on top.

#### 1.1.3. much more complexity

The balls now have several sensors (cameras, pressure, gyroscopes, accelerometers), with ASICs that implement image processing using neural networks. Each ball even has a rat's brain hooked up in it as an extra processing unit beyond the ASICs.

What about now, how will the answer to Question 1 be? Will the standard Physics model find out that the balls have a point of view? Nope, Answer 1 still holds, and even the rat's brain is nothing but a mere collection of matter that's reacting with each other as energy is flowing from higher levels to lower levels.

### 1.2. conclusion

Conjecture 1. Consciousness is beyond the reach of the standard Physics model.

But we seem to strongly know that we have a point of view, or consciousness. Therefore, I think, consciousness is not physical, and that the reality might be that we are living beings in another world, that are hooked up to some simulation. We might be right in a simulation (possibly tested for something).

IMO consciousness seems beyond this universe/simulation. I.e. this simulation's internal API does not expose enough information to tell us where consciousness comes from.

Maybe we are in a pretty deep recursion of simulations. Maybe if we die here, we wake up in the parent simulation, up until a point where we end up being in a life form that finally exposes adequate API to explain the source of consciousness.

Meanwhile, I think it's good to behave nicely in this simulation, based on how nice is defined in this simulation. So that in case we are being audited for good behaviour, we do a good job, and please the simulation's master.

Question 2. How do we know if we do a good thing in this simulation, then it's good in the parent simulation?

Answer 2. We don't know. But IMO that's our best bet.

My reasoning to Answer 2 is that, if we simulate people in this universe to test people, it would not make sense to hate those that behave properly in the scenario of our child simulation. Evolution rewards good doing, and it's hard to see a surviving species hating the good doers.

I know it's not enough evidence. But until I formalize this better, which I work on slowly from time to time, that's what I have for now.

## 2. the blindfolded faggot thought experiment

This is a thought experiment to investigate what makes a faggot, a faggot. Consider the following:

1. Group 1 — A blindfoldeded faggot is given a woman's butt, but the faggot is lied to that the butt is a man's. He then f***s the butt, then rates it from 1 to 5 (1 is bad, 5 is good).
2. Group 2 — Same, but the faggot is told the truth that it's a female's butt.

Imagine that we randomly sample 100 faggots from Amsterdam's faggot pride rally, and randomly assign 50 of them to Group 1 and the other 50 to Group 2 — what do you think will happen?

On average, I bet this will happen:

• Faggots of Group 1 would say “OMG BEST MALE BUTT EVER 5/5!!”.
• Faggots of Group 2 would say “No. 0/5. Can't even have an erection. We are born faggots don't you know?”.

You probably agree. Because, I guess, a male's anus is the same as a female's. Or, if you are too skeptic, you may at least agree that a female's anus is like, say, a 10 years old boy's anus1? This probably also explains why faggots are often crypto pedos.

Here is what I think the thought experiment implies:

1. Technically, in the thought experiment, the faggot is fucking the anus, not the butt, not the legs, not the face with shaved beard, etc.
2. The reason a faggot appreciates an anus that's attached to a man's butt, over another that's attached to a female's butt, is because of the context around the anus. E.g. man's anus has the context that it is attached to a hairy man's ass that's attached to a face with shaved beard.
3. Such context information is a very high-level information.
4. High-level context-information is IMO processed by the brain.
5. IMO neural activity about context information is by far mostly influenced by the past memory, or environment, than (say) genes.
6. Therefore, the primary contributor in the making of a faggot is the environment, and not the genes (genes might be only a marginal/secondary cause).

Theorem 1. Environment is the main factor in the making of a faggot.

• 1. I'm just guessing. I never tried any. IMO it's easy to simulate anuses given their simplicity since they are merely some elastic holes. IMO You don't need to actually put your junk in anuses to discover that they are elastic holes.

## 3. imo music is not good

Unless you are a spy or a secret agent, then when you listen to music, you only get this information:

• That some retards liked generating noise in certain way.

That's it. Now the next question is:

Question 3. Why do you need that information?

Answer 3. Maybe to study stupid humans that their intelligence didn't evolve fast enough to realize that music is shit.

So if you are not studying retards (e.g. their history, how to cure the, etc), then why bother with this shit? No reason!

Unless you are listening to music to study retards (for a greater purpose), listening to music has these problems:

• Induces bias to your brain's activity.

For the drums damage point, evolution-wise, we are more evolved to handle sounds found in nature, as opposed to sounds produced by musical instruments. This may explain why music is more harmful to our ears than natural sounds.

But what do I mean by the bias shit? Basically music IMO alters how you think. E.g. depending on the music you listen, you may end up being more risky, more cautious, etc. IMO this is not good, because it induces some artificial bias in your brain's function as shown in Figure 1.

IMO it's better to keep your brain at neutral, so you get thoughts that hit the center, without having external bias due to music to drag your thoughts to the sides.

### 3.1. criticism

Some people disagree with me and say that music can make people smarter. But IMO the study has a fundamental flaw: the alternative to music classes for kids were drama lessons and nothing. They didn't include, say, mathematics classes as an alternative.

This is why the study is shit: maybe the reason the kids that learned music became smarter was thanks to them needing to learn musical notes (those fancy symbols for music) which functions as some kind of programming (except for generating sound).

In other words, if the kids had taken a programming class, or extra mathematics classes, then maybe they would have been even smarter, without having the side effect of musical instruments possibly damaging their ears.

IMO it's disgusting that the study claims it's due to music that kids became smarter, and not because of the abstract mathematical and logical aspects of generating music, which —itself— is not music.

This other study says that that study is shit, but then adds its own shit by doing similar wrong shit. One funny aspect it mentions that music is good to calm retards. See… I LITERALLY told you music is for retards!