Miscellaneous intuitions
I created this section because I believe that even slightly crazy and unclear ideas have their own merit. Have fun reading them, as long as they inspire you.
There is something far greater than humanity’s most eminent geniuses. It is the abstract and highly adaptive structure of our central nervous system, which, when properly utilized, has allowed these geniuses to emerge. These geniuses are merely incarnations within the immense space of possibilities that this organ allows.
(July 21, 2025, 9:05 AM)
The first organisms emerged from colonies of cells that likely found a shared advantage in collaborating, as nature so often does through its symbiotic mechanisms.
The collaboration between these cells proved so prolific that a macroscopic emergent structure developed to serve them with extraordinary efficiency—converging into organisms endowed with complex brains capable of seeking out and selecting their food sources in enormous quantities to meet their chemical needs. This structure also includes an entire digestive machinery designed to break down these massive blocks of nutrients at the molecular level, enabling a vast redistribution throughout the colony. Indeed, who do you think dictates the sensation of hunger you feel ?
What I’m trying to express—and what I sense—is that we uphold the illusion that the cells constituting us exist for our benefit, when in truth, it may well be the other way around. Let us not forget: there are nearly as many atoms in a single cell as there are cells in the human body. This highlights the extent to which our cells are extraordinarily complex machines—just as complex in relation to atoms as we are in relation to them. From this perspective, we may exist solely to serve their meticulous needs. And this, of course, is without mentioning the fact that genetic information survives us and continues to thrive long after our fleeting existence has ended.
Everything else—love, art, science, and human emotions—may be nothing more than a fortuitous byproduct of the excessive complexity of our nervous system, which ventured far beyond what nature had originally intended for it. What leads me to think this is, first, the observation that the psychic life of individuals is, in general, deeply unstable and fraught with hardships to overcome throughout our lives—suggesting that thought, as an emergent phenomenon of nature, was likely never part of its original plan. Had it been, it would have been made more robust, less prone to psychological suffering. The second point is that consciousness, in evolutionary terms, is exceedingly recent—little more than a newborn, or rather an embryo, in the eternal story of life on Earth.
(July 10, 2025, 7:25 PM)
Mathematical theorems constitute the framework of possibilities within which nature can unfold. Indeed, since Mathematics studies all concepts that can coexist in a coherent and non-contradictory manner, it frames a space—the space of possibility—where nature can choose to flourish (in particular, at the atomic scale, nature delights in embodying itself in Hilbert spaces, or in expressing its momentum through the Fourier transform of the probability function of its position). It is also possible that mathematics has gone even further. So far that the only place in the universe where these potentialities have unfolded is in the brain of the person who imagined them.
(July 10, 2025, 6:58 PM)
What if we considered forces in physics not as acting on objects in the present but as being in an already defined future (block universe theory) and who would pull objects from the present toward themselves?
(June 24, 2025, 9:31 PM)
Will we see the possibility of directing and controlling the energies contained in the climate in this century? Anyone who has had the fortune or misfortune to observe a storm or cyclone up close knows the immeasurable quantity of energy they possess.
For example, we could deliberately make it rain at high altitudes where we have built dams using cloud seeding.
However, I’m always very skeptical when humans try to put their hands into complex natural processes they don’t perfectly master. The reasing being : Nature often converged into such configurations for a specific purpose we are not aware of.
(June 24, 2025, 9:25 PM)
Our own stupidity stems from a necessary and essential certainty that we must express about our surroundings, serving as a psychological foundation for the individual to engage in internal dialogue. Dare to imagine a person undergoing reality without ever attributing the slightest judgment to it! Who would he be, thus tossed about by existence, if he never asserts himself through thought or action?
But the need to judge means that this thought was generated over an extremely short period of time. If the individual does not revisit this initially generated thought to refine it, it will form the basis of his own stupidity.
Thus, two possibilities are open to us: either suspend judgment, which is extremely difficult, or force ourselves to constantly refine our own thoughts, which requires considerable mental energy but is incredibly enriching.
(June 24, 2025, 9:19 PM)
We often practice mathematics by manipulating and observing objects and propositions. It would be interesting to take the perspective of these objects and see how they see US manipulating them.
(June 24, 2025, 9:11 PM)
Never forget that at every moment, a part of the universe itself is stirring within you. Considering this reminds me that I think about the universe from within it, which might impose limits on what is humanly possible to consider about it.
(June 24, 2025, 9:10 PM)
There are fields of knowledge where we feel legitimate to think and create because a pre-existing social structure allows for this. I’m thinking in particular of academic fields.
On the other hand, the purest creation is the most frightening to achieve, the one that no social structure legitimizes. You have to be crazy to venture into it and break boundaries to expand the world of conceptual possibilities that no one had previously imagined (the fact that artificial intelligence was already being thought of even before the first high-performance computers appeared completely dizzying).
But the most beautiful things humans have created previously seemed completely unthinkable and outrageous. This is particularly true for physics.
(June 24, 2025, 9:09 PM)
The most essential thing in all things is the energy we put into doing them. I hypothesize that many mental mechanisms (motivation, concentration, etc.) are subordinate to this ill-defined “energy,” which seems to be an expanded version of curiosity.
(June 24, 2025, 8:54 PM)
Taking a nap is like experiencing a brief poetry of the body. When I nap between periods of work, my brain works to construct a kind of poetry of concepts specific to the languages of dreams; I make connections between concepts and sensations that would otherwise seem impossible to achieve.
Albert Einstein and Thomas Edison had already understood this and implemented it in their intellectual work.
(June 24, 2025, 8:48 PM)
During our conscious time, the most important thing we can do is to guide the direction our unconscious mind will take and amplify.
This means actively working to modulate the internal representation of what we experience. If I complain in my head about my workload, I’ll pass this psychic baton in the mental relay race where the conscious and unconscious collaborate.
Conversely, if I take the time to pay attention to what is beautiful, to the little things that have brought me pleasure and happiness, or to regularly practice gratitude, these are all resources from which the unconscious mind can positively nourish itself.
(June 24, 2025, 8:43 PM)
To become good at anything, you just need to spend a lot of time applying the right methods. The hard part is finding the right methods.
(June 24, 2025, 8:37 PM)
Self-referential structures seem to contain more information than we think because information in thoses systems can reconstruct and combine itself over time.
For example, a very simple set of instructions compared to the complexity it can achieve allows an artificial intelligence to train itself to play a game by simulating games billions of times and reach a level superior to the best humans. This is simply because it allows for self-reflection. From very simple rules and principles that can be written in a programming language, and therefore contain a finite and trivial number of instructions, emerges a complexity incorporating a frightening number of optimal and complex strategies. It seems paradoxical that this gigantic amount of newly acquired information depends only on an infinitely smaller set of instructions!
Similarly, very simple rules can generate extremely complex organisms. (See: LENIA)
It seems like a rule for generating information is the most efficient way of storing information.
(June 22, 2025, 11:22 PM)
Scientists’ skepticism toward philosophers stems from the fact that the latter see outsiders to their paradigm offering a critique of a subject they supposedly lack expertise in. Yet it is entirely legitimate to criticize a paradigm if one understands its foundations — even without delving into the full and complex development of its consequences and conclusions. The problem is that the expert clings so tightly to their expertise that they feel dizzy when faced with a potential challenge to its foundations. Did they do all that for nothing? I don’t believe so, because they will likely be all the more precise and industrious in constructing their future edifice — provided they still have the strength and courage to rebuild it.
(June 13, 2025, 12:39 PM)
Let’s suppose that we manage to describe consciousness in terms of the transmission of a flow of information—a goal toward which neuroscience is converging in increasingly surprising ways—and that we manage to detect its structure in humans and animals.
It would then be interesting to observe whether similar patterns of information transmission could emerge at scales other than the one we are accustomed to—at the scale of a forest, a larger ecological network, or even the scale of galaxies?
Considering orders of magnitude, there are as many atoms in a cell as there are cells in the human body. We conceptually consider atoms as independent of the cell’s goals, but we don’t consider the cell as independent of its own goals. This seems arbitrary to me, which underscores the fact that the human body is not such a central concept to consider as a singular entity.
Noting the extent to which we consider our consciousness to be singular when we are not actually such a central entity (we are as central to cells as atoms are to them) could indicate the possibility of subjective consciousness at scales very different from our own.
What matters is the structure, relative to the scale of the environment with which it interacts.
(June 22, 2025, 11:10 PM)