[HN Gopher] How to summon and sell your soul to Satan and other ...
___________________________________________________________________
How to summon and sell your soul to Satan and other devils
Author : flannery
Score : 244 points
Date : 2021-08-01 14:52 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (hastyreader.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (hastyreader.com)
| OhMidER wrote:
| I strongly advise anyone seriously considering this to not mess
| around with it. There is more out there than we know. Whether you
| believe in a traditional religion or not, bear mind that nobody
| knows what happens after death until they experience it (or not).
| That we exist and are sentient is evidence of the possibility of
| continuity AD.
|
| Don't make deals with Satan/demons, even jokingly.
| citruscomputing wrote:
| Thinking about how this plays with Gurdjieff's[0] idea that I've
| been partial to lately that one is not born with, but instead
| must develop a soul through effort.
|
| [0]https://www.wikiwand.com/en/George_Gurdjieff
| mimixco wrote:
| That's an interesting concept which aligns well with our
| vernacular use of the expressions "soulless" and "selling your
| soul." If a soul is _sensitivity to others_ then that certainly
| has to be developed. The fact that it 's poorly developed in
| many people (and even less so down the line of animals) is a
| good indicator that it might be learned or built-up
| evolutionarily in the species and the individual.
| h2odragon wrote:
| Research demonology: have computers casting summons over fractal
| fragments looking for any whose phone numbers we don't already
| know. cf the works of Charlie Stross
|
| Perhaps that pokemon game had more in it than we thought...
| yoloyoloyoloa wrote:
| Please explain? Are you talking about dwave?
| tobmlt wrote:
| Maybe... or The Atrocity Archives, or something from the
| laundry files... something along those lines perhaps.
|
| Edit: somebody scooped me
| ben_w wrote:
| Charlie Stross is an author (and occasional poster here) who
| has a series collectively known as "The Laundry Files" in
| which magic can be performed by computers as well as by
| humans, by having the computers perform specific
| calculations.
| phendrenad2 wrote:
| Also books by Aya Nishitani
| h2odragon wrote:
| if you mean these folks [1], then no; I think that falls
| under divination. I was thinking more about the graphical
| sigils; but there's surely other attractive signatures that
| could be found computationally, right?
|
| More practical: synthesize sounds and play them in a garden,
| with some cameras and vision software to count insects
| attracted, perhaps classify by type. Add some seeking
| function and you might make a mechanical pied piper for
| pests.
|
| Surely thats only an analogy. Cicadas are not _actually_
| demons.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D-Wave_Systems
| tobmlt wrote:
| Is wishful thinking part of divination?
|
| Then again they did manage to get, e.g. google and Lockheed
| Martin(?) To actually purchase some of their wishful
| thinking hardware. There might have been a deal with
| minor/slightly demonic imp to get that far.
|
| 2nd part - you could find the song of the mosquito. They
| suck blood at least, and seem to be good for nothing except
| feeding bats. So there's that.
| neither_color wrote:
| I already have quite a few daemons in my PC. I communicate with
| them using launchd.
| throwanem wrote:
| You might like Scott Alexander's _Unsong_ , freely available
| online. On the grounds of Yudkowsky's HPMOR, you could be
| excused for expecting fiction by rationalists to be generally
| terrible, and it is; _Unsong_ is the exception, and proves if
| nothing else that Alexander missed his calling.
| nuker wrote:
| I see only "Our system thinks you might be a robot!"
|
| Does it mean robots are excluded from the deal?
| erikpukinskis wrote:
| I read these stories much more literally.
|
| One of the things the human brain does is project an honest
| picture of your self. This is your soul, it's whatever you
| perceive is your true nature. It's not nice stories you tell
| about yourself, it's your honest bottom line appraisal.
|
| "Selling your soul" is doing something that you know will
| inflicting trauma on others in return for rewards to you. This is
| going against "God" where "God" is defined as the sum of all
| forces in the universe which heal trauma.
|
| If you do this repeatedly, it makes irreparable changes to your
| self image. It gets harder and harder to see yourself as part of
| the movement to heal trauma, and you start to see yourself as
| part of the non-healing world, which includes "The Devil"--
| defined as the sum of all sentient forces in the universe which
| inflict trauma, either delighting in it or by suppressing normal
| emotional responses.
|
| Alongside this, Christianity points at "seeking forgiveness", or
| asking for (external) trauma-healing forces ("God") to change
| you... with an earnest desire to be changed. That forgiveness,
| when granted, can then repair this self image in your brain. So
| that's the opposing side of this process.
|
| Where you "soul" gets "sold" is just that the more you engage in
| trauma-for-pay, the more distance you put between yourself and
| the flock of trauma healers in this world. And the harder it is
| for you to believe any interest you might have in forgiveness is
| earnest. Eventually you get far enough out there you need a
| Jesus-level counsellor to bring you back into the flock, of which
| there are VERY few in the world.
|
| That kind of person goes and finds the people with the most
| damaged self image, and is skilled at uncovering an old self
| image and healing their trauma. In Christianity, these are
| "saints".
|
| But that's the long shot. The "don't sell your soul" directive is
| saying, don't head down that path because it's hard enough to
| maintain a positive, honest self image as it is.
| dctoedt wrote:
| > _One of the things the human brain does is project an honest
| picture of your self. ... It 's not nice stories you tell about
| yourself, it's your honest bottom line appraisal._
|
| That's quite counterintuitive: It seems extremely likely that
| for most people (including but not limited to your humble
| servant), their self-image is delusional to a greater or lesser
| extent.
| erikpukinskis wrote:
| I think that's too metaphysical a concern for this form of
| Christianity. There's no "universal truth" component here.
| This "new testament" Christianity operates in the individual
| person's mind, so as honest as you can be as an individual,
| that's the world in which this drama plays out.
| deadalus wrote:
| Recommended contemporary occultists(demonic/dark magic
| practitioners) and their works:
|
| EA Koetting (founder of BALG, 9 demonic gatekeepers)
|
| Konstantinos (Nocturnal Witchcraft)
|
| Somnus Dreadwood (Maergzjiran Cabal founder)
|
| Kurtis Joseph (Black Magick of Ahriman)
|
| Mark Alan Smith (Primal Craft books)
|
| S. Connolly (The Complete Book of Demonolatry)
|
| Asenath Mason (deals with Qliphotic magic)
|
| NAA 218 (unknown author, created 'Liber Falxifer' and 'Book of
| Sitra Ahra')
|
| Dragon Rouge (esoteric group that produces very detailed books)
|
| Baron and Baronessa Araignee (magic dealing with the dead)
|
| Frank White (knowledgeable YT channel - Grail of the Serpent)
|
| S. Ben Qayin (Djinn Magick, The Book of Smokeless Fire)
|
| International Guild of Occult Sciences - IGOS (group, produced a
| lot of books that are well respected)
|
| VK Jehannum (https://vkjehannum.wordpress.com)
|
| Temple of the Black Light (Liber Azerate)
| 3gg wrote:
| Hey deadalus, quick question here: how does all of this compare
| to Luciferianism and left-hand path kind of stuff? I started
| reading some of the latter, but I found them to be so ridden
| with grammar errors that I wish Satan were an English teacher.
| Perhaps the most decent book I found was Anton LaVey's The
| Satanic Bible, but so far I am finding it too down-to-earth to
| quench my thirst for the exotic.
|
| By the way, do you have an English translation for the Liber
| Azerate? I have the original in Swedish, but I have not learned
| Swedish yet.
| zozbot234 wrote:
| Despite the name, LaVeyan Satanism has nothing to do with
| summoning occult beings as in GP's post. The latter (as with
| worship of the devil more generally) would instead be
| comprised under "Diabolism" which is very much a niche
| pursuit. It's even hard to tell if what _looks_ like
| Diabolist practice isn 't something subtly different, and
| more like the Voudun practice of summoning some "negative,
| dark, powerful" archetypal beings who are however quite
| recognizably different from any "devil". Heck, occasionally
| even something as basic as worship of the god Cernunnos (a
| very recognizable archetype of nature and the "male"
| principle) gets conflated by some with Diabolism.
| 3gg wrote:
| I see, thank you for explaining, that should guide my
| future reading. Looks like I hadn't gone dark enough yet.
| deadalus wrote:
| Most of the authors I linked here are not linked with
| Luciferianism. They deal with occult 'rituals' in order to
| gain a certain result - wealth, love, happiness, destruction
| of enemies, getting more opportunities. So you can expect to
| find a lot of rituals that aid you in getting those results.
| The work is not philosophical or analytical - but result
| oriented.
|
| Here is the link to 'Liber Azerate' in English : https://gate
| way.pinata.cloud/ipfs/QmUHcdL7U78k1FiQbh5aC4JKVf...
|
| And here is the link to 'Liber Anaxeiraxz'(another good book)
| - https://gateway.pinata.cloud/ipfs/QmT7m33x9munihmnAXxqth5mW
| P...
| zozbot234 wrote:
| > wealth, love, happiness, destruction of enemies, getting
| more opportunities
|
| One should be aware of the fact that these things can be
| pursued quite effectively with no need for seeking out or
| confronting any malevolent beings or forces, and this will
| generally be an easier and more fruitful approach, at least
| for the novice practitioner. It's very rare that even one's
| outwardly "selfish" goals are not far more amenable to a
| positive approach which can implicitly leverage the "loving
| kindness" that's inherent to the universe according to many
| practitioners of magick and similar pursuits-- relying on
| it as a key regulating, stabilizing and harmonizing
| principle.
| 3gg wrote:
| Fantastic, thank you for the links.
| akomtu wrote:
| That LaVey guy seems to be a quack who's appropriating
| Eliphas Levi's thoughts to give himself credibility, so why
| not to just read Levi's books?
| YeGoblynQueenne wrote:
| cough, cough:
|
| _Dragon Rouge is a global, independent, graphic design,
| branding and packaging agency that ignites brands and propels
| them forward since 1984._
|
| https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffcm&q=Dragon+Rouge&atb=v100-1&ia=...
| deadalus wrote:
| That's a different group unrelated to the occult. This is the
| one :
|
| https://para.wiki/w/Dragon_Rouge
|
| http://dragonrouge.se/philosophy/
| citruscomputing wrote:
| Thanks for the list! Will check them out.
|
| A few less "dark" folks I try to follow:
|
| Jason Miller (http://www.strategicsorcery.net/blog/)
|
| Aidan Wachter (http://www.aidanwachter.com/)
|
| Damien Echols
| (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCnRyoC6Oww6FrYVc-
| BxKyDg/vid...)
|
| Bluefluke (https://bluefluke.tumblr.com/)
|
| Frater U.'. D.'.
|
| Further suggestions of contemporary practitioners are much
| appreciated.
| deadalus wrote:
| Further suggestions (from my Youtube subscription) :
|
| Behemoth-X, Black Witch Coven, Anewbiz, Ashera Goddess,
| Chthonia, Clandestine Lodge, D.H. Thorne, Damon Dark, Dark
| Sorcery, Enoch Petrucelly, From the Light of the Darkness, Go
| Virtual Lucifera, Groovy Psycho, Jenny Constantine, Kali
| Tribune, Mark Henry, Martin Faulks, Michael Hyson, Michael W.
| Ford, Mimir's Brunnr, mindandmagick, Mona Magick, Nexus Void,
| Occult Hive, OFSAdrianna, Orlee Stewart, Reality Files,
| Robert Sepehr, Satan and Sons, Saurious 7, ShanGO Rei TV,
| Slayden Sorcery, Sorsha Runarius, SQS, Taliesin McKnight,
| Tata Lucero, Taylor Ellwood, Teala Petrova, Temple of
| Ascending Flame, The Black Tower, The Eternal Black Flame
| 666, The House of Magick, The Infernal Obelisk, The Magick
| Couple, The Nemeton, The Serpent's Key, The Symposium, Thomas
| LeRoy, Thomas Sheridan, traditional church of satan, Travis
| Magus, Vidian, XELASOMA, Xag Darklight
| bobbytit wrote:
| Don't forget Hillarys books
| zozbot234 wrote:
| My question is why would anyone _want_ to deal with this stuff.
| If you 're relying on this silly material, you clearly don't
| have the faintest idea what you're doing - in all likelihood,
| you'll just end up "summoning" lots of random mischievous
| spirits who'll be trying to have fun at your expense in weird
| and surprising ways until you finally learn how to banish them
| properly. There are plenty of other ways to get started with
| occult and magick that don't have this particular pitfall!
| mimixco wrote:
| Well, you had me at the first sentence but lost me at the
| second.
|
| Bertrand Russell said it's all "the random collocation of
| atoms." As far as anyone can tell, the meaning of Life, The
| Universe, and Everything is quantum physics. It explains all
| of the concepts currently attributed to both the physical and
| "spiritual" worlds.
|
| Many religions acknowledge that there is no dichotomy between
| the physical and spiritual forms of experience. There is only
| one thing. If that's the case, the one thing's name is
| quantum physics. We can puts lots of other names on it from
| chance to deja vu, from "bad behavior" to Beelzebub, but it's
| demonstrably the random collocation of atoms and probably not
| much more. Unless it's The Matrix, lol.
| thrwwy20210801 wrote:
| Please please please for God's sake stay away from this stuff.
| It will steal your mind and your soul. This isn't something one
| can innocently dabble with. Turn to God instead, He will hear
| you.
|
| // Catholic ex-occultist
| nashashmi wrote:
| Well said.
|
| This article did not go over much of the problems with this
| stuff.
|
| Demons are notoriously child like creatures. Once summoned
| they will have the human try to put themselves in some
| position that they believe to be humiliating for the human.
| They hate the human for being naturally innately better than
| them even if less powerful.
|
| The article does not go over some of the acts humans are made
| to do. It's quite disgusting and vile. It does not go over
| the nature of demons. It's quite pathetic. There is zero
| point in trying to dabble in this. Unless you believe your
| life cannot get any worse than it is. Occult will help you
| realize how bad it can really get.
| selimthegrim wrote:
| I understand you can trap them in a iron pot, from what I
| vaguely remember people telling me in Karachi.
|
| Edit: unless I'm confusing this with the flying pot at
| night?
| nashashmi wrote:
| Haha. But this is no joke. Normally demons live in a
| separate universe and stay to themselves. Interaction
| with animals can occur. But unprovoked interaction with
| human is rare.
| kome wrote:
| ok, cool, now i want to try, thank you!
| [deleted]
| 3gg wrote:
| We're not "innocently" dabbling with it, we're all experts
| here on HN.
| weare138 wrote:
| I hope you're being sarcastic and don't actually believe in
| this crap.
| [deleted]
| xnyan wrote:
| I thought I sold my soul to Satan for unfathomable worldly
| power, but accidently sold it to Stan, Certified Public
| Accountant[0] and then had to make so many calls to CityCorp
| to my soul back[1].
|
| [0]https://mst3k.fandom.com/wiki/Stan_Johnson
|
| [1]https://youtu.be/ZebKhabJItE?t=5280
| nickthemagicman wrote:
| I accidentally sold mine to Santa.
|
| Im assuming that's how he gets his elves.
|
| At least there will be hot cocoa.
| dominicjj wrote:
| Amen brother. Not to be messed with.
| DangitBobby wrote:
| > For example, a priest once asked the devil to build a bridge
| over a river, in exchange for the soul of the first one to cross
| the bridge. The devil upholds his side of the bargain and builds
| the bridge, but the priest then sends a dog to be the first one
| to cross it. Realizing he was tricked, the demon throws the dog
| over the bridge as a consolation prize.
|
| Sounds like the demon won. An evil man exchanges the soul of an
| innocent for some "free" labor.
| cyberpunk wrote:
| Ah cool, was looking for something to do with the kids next
| weekend.
| korethr wrote:
| The passage about following the contracts to the letter and thus
| being able to get out of those contracts with a bit of cleverness
| reminds me of a similar principle in stores about faeries -- that
| faeries will follow their bargains with mortals to the letter. In
| faerie stories, this is what makes deals with faeries so risky,
| especially with the more malevolent ones; you never know just how
| your words will be twisted against your intentions and desires.
|
| I wonder how much of the to-the-letter aspect of demonic
| contracts borrows from the older European folk stories of
| faeries, or whether it is the opposite -- the to-the-letter
| aspect of deals with faeries being a medieval Christian
| projection upon those stories.
| rushabh wrote:
| Why is this on hackernews again? I thought it was a blog on
| Kubernetes or React!
| _game_of_life wrote:
| Yeah, what the actual fuck. This really makes me question the
| audience on this site...
|
| Does anyone have any alternatives to hacker news? Preferably
| ones with more skeptics than there are occultist and
| "demonologist" morons?
|
| Fucking bizarre.
| Lammy wrote:
| "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a
| thought without accepting it."
| _game_of_life wrote:
| I forget, is your quote attributable to Michael Scott or
| Wayne Gretsky?
|
| You assume I've neither read the article or researched
| demonology. I have.
|
| All of the neopagan bullshit and demonic sigils can be
| traced back to obvious frauds starting in the 19th century,
| when occultist grifting was in vogue.
|
| This is a simplistic article on an already childish
| subject.
| 3gg wrote:
| Why all the anger? I may read on different philosophies
| and religions that I do not fully or partially agree
| with, practice or believe in, yet I may find useful life
| lessons in each, or drive pleasure just from the act of
| reading. I do not regard any of them as "bullshit" just
| because I do not understand or share their opinions.
| Lammy wrote:
| You seem pretty caught up in your own emotions on this
| topic and are missing my point entirely. These stories
| and ideas still came from human minds, and that's the
| part that interests me even if I think the claims are
| fraudulent.
| 3gg wrote:
| One could argue that the mere existence of a concept or
| an idea in someone's mind makes it real, especially so if
| that concept or idea has real, observable side effects
| for others in the "real" world. Heck, isn't this why we
| read science fiction or play board games? They create a
| mental image, the image is real in our minds.
| quesera wrote:
| As technologists, we play in complicated contructed
| worlds, with rules and rituals, and obscure variations
| and debatably non-stochastic processes, created by other
| people _all day long_ (and sometimes all night).
|
| You don't have to believe in demons (or third normal
| form, or agile) for the body of knowledge to be
| interesting.
|
| Some people take it pretty seriously, and some people do
| it for fun. Like LARPing.
| whoaisme wrote:
| Funny how the pretentious dorks that spam this never seem
| to apply the quote to itself. I mean do educated people
| have to entertain thoughts of pedophilia without accepting
| it? Idiot.
| sombremesa wrote:
| You're mistaken about something - the only thing hacker news
| denizens have in common is that they could potentially feature
| in posts on /r/iamverysmart.
|
| You probably thought it was tech or something about
| startups...think again.
| gwbas1c wrote:
| Just flag it
| pvaldes wrote:
| Is a classical 'testing your interests' hook. Probably for
| filling reports. Similar to
|
| 'What brand of sunglasses do you wear?'.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28029206
|
| or the, always popular bunch of themes falling in the pattern:
| 'do you take drugs?/ what drugs have you experienced?'
|
| or 'what diseases do you had?' also very popular theme.
|
| In resume, Don't talk with the police but, would you mind to
| answer this bunch of questions about your personality on
| internet instead, please?.
| jimmygrapes wrote:
| If you have showdead turned on, there's a fella spamming almost
| every thread saying it's a covid site
| nprateem wrote:
| Posted by someone with high karma. Yes, I know...
| lordnacho wrote:
| Why would learning stuff require a deal with the devil? Two of
| the listed demons are described pretty much as what a scientist
| is.
|
| If you find a proof of P != NP or the Riemann hypothesis, why
| would that be as bad as using the Death Note book?
| drdec wrote:
| The demons are just trying to satisfy the marketplace. They
| provide whatever will sell.
| lordnacho wrote:
| Surely there would be more demons in the
| vanity/jealousy/revenge market than the knowledge market?
| krapp wrote:
| There are many more demons to choose from than the ones
| listed in the article[0].
|
| The interesting thing about demonology is that it was
| mostly being practiced in secret by Christians, even clergy
| (a lot of these spells and rituals use Christian liturgical
| elements.) They didn't believe what they were doing was
| "selling their soul to the devil," rather that Christ had
| given them dominion over angels and demons, so they had
| every right to summon demons and use them as they saw fit.
| Legend at the time was that King Solomon built the First
| Temple using demon slaves.
|
| Of course the Church proper would have strenuously agreed
| with this way of thinking.
|
| [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_demons_in_the_Ars_
| Goet...
| krapp wrote:
| There was no such thing as "science" at the time - every aspect
| of human thought and philosophy had some religious dimension or
| spiritual connotation. The study of the stars and planets was
| tied to astrology, and the study of herbs and healing was
| associated with witchcraft and folk magic.
| hodgesrm wrote:
| Notes for those planning to sell your soul online: eBay
| specifically prohibits such transactions. [1] Compared to some
| online bans, the reasoning is pleasingly coherent.
| eBay does not allow the auctioning of human souls for the
| following reasons: If the soul does not exist, eBay could
| not allow the auctioning of the soul because there would be
| nothing to sell. However, if the soul does exist then, in
| accordance with eBay's policy on human parts and remains,
| we would not allow the auctioning of human souls.
|
| This is unfortunate. eBay seems perfect as souls are by
| definition somewhat used.
|
| [1] https://www.businessinsider.com/soul-listing-policy-
| ebay-201...
| [deleted]
| dv_dt wrote:
| If it were a financial market, one could perhaps sell the
| option to buy a soul pending resolution of the matter.
| mimixco wrote:
| You've just invented a new kind of "futures trading" and the
| mother of all kinds of innovative financial scams. Awesome!
| Someone should definitely start a business trading in "souls"
| and NFTs seem to be of the same ilk, so you guys are onto
| something.
| classified wrote:
| Couldn't the Bockchain be used to make sure souls can be
| optioned away only once? We would have finally found a use
| for the Blockchain after all!
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| This already exists - that's how Heaven and Hell keep
| track of souls.
|
| You know why it's so hot in Hell? Because that's where
| the exhaust ports of the AC units cooling the soulchain
| mining servers are.
| ithinkso wrote:
| Well, if you're powerful enough you can always fork to
| create Horcruxes
| MichaelZuo wrote:
| That technology is too advanced to be revealed to humans,
| didn't you get the memo?
| mimixco wrote:
| Fantastic! Surely someone will torture you for your key,
| no? This needs to be an episode of Your Pretty Face is
| Going to Hell.
| classified wrote:
| Even with the key the transaction cannot be deleted. The
| eternity of the soul is a perfect fit for an append-only
| ledger.
| dv_dt wrote:
| Starting a timer to see how long it takes for a soulchain
| to be offered.
| Adverblessly wrote:
| They brought up Death Note, but not Jigoku Shoujo ("Hell
| Girl"), presumably because one is vastly more popular and well-
| known than the other.
|
| Going by Jigoku Shoujo you can actually sell your soul online,
| though it is a bit closer to a "contact me" form, you only
| really get to buy "revenge" and only on one person. Definitely
| a far cry from what you'd expect of modern online commerce.
| dkersten wrote:
| Surely the modern way to sell your soul online is through NFTs?
| praptak wrote:
| Not necessarily. It is speculated that the Devil can solve
| any mathematical problem and thus human crypto is useless to
| him, as he can just reverse all hashes, compute the discrete
| logarithms and factor arbitrarily large numbers.
|
| So an NFT (or any other cryptographic artifact) is rather
| something that Satan can _offer_ you for your soul.
| IIAOPSW wrote:
| Its true. Instead of oracle calls, I use Faustian bargains.
| weare138 wrote:
| Money made with math seems like something the Devil would
| be into.
| dkersten wrote:
| I meant more human-to-human selling of your soul, as an
| alternative to selling on ebay. Doesn't even require you to
| believe in the supernatural.
| [deleted]
| mountainriver wrote:
| Perhaps we should creat soulcoins which are a secure way of
| trading souls
| highspeedbus wrote:
| That's a running thing in my mind for years. The devil can
| do math. So It's an incredible lost opportunity when people
| are being possessed and we dont go and ask them some clever
| questions.
| anchpop wrote:
| https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/04/21/universal-love-
| said-th...
| alangibson wrote:
| That's not the way math works. G-d himself can't reverse a
| hash.
|
| Before you go invoking the "miracle" loophole, consider
| that miracles are logically impossible. If an impossible
| thing happens, then it was not in fact impossible. We just
| didn't understand the rules.
| highspeedbus wrote:
| God is supernatural by definition. Anything we can
| compute, analyze and give logical meaning is just regular
| science.
| ithinkso wrote:
| That's how maths works. Hashes are trivially reversible,
| all it takes is time, no miracle needed.
|
| Oracles in complexity theory are a bread and butter
| concept
| alangibson wrote:
| If hashes were trivially reversible, there'd be no
| cryptography.
|
| You're thinking of something like a rainbow table.
| Definitely not the same thing as rewinding a function
| that loses information.
| pjbeam wrote:
| If two different x can produce the same y information is
| lost on the hash transformation. Finding _an x_ for your
| y is not the same as finding _the x_. That said,
| Laplace's Demon is, well, a demon. Presumably the devil
| can get the demon to unspool time to see what the input
| was and the math doesn't matter, collisions or not.
| ithinkso wrote:
| In cryptography either you only need 'an x', in cases
| that the original x does not matter, or if it does, then
| you can just as easily find all x of size less than large
| enough N and find 'the x', it is still solely restricted
| by time.
|
| Laplace's demon, information loss, Landauer's principle
| etc. are at most tangentially related to the problem
| discussed
| pjbeam wrote:
| You understand that isn't the same mathematically as
| reversing the hash? If you farm the set of all possible x
| and try them to see what works you do not have an inverse
| function in your hands.
| ithinkso wrote:
| > If you farm the set of all possible x and try them to
| see what works you do not have an inverse function in
| your hands.
|
| I'm not sure I follow, what do I have then? Could you
| give me an example?
| Sebb767 wrote:
| > Finding _an x_ for your y is not the same as finding
| _the x_.
|
| Not in all cases, but in the case of NFTs and other
| cryptocurrencies, it is. If a second private key fulfills
| all constraints of the original one (like size and all
| computed results so far), it is functionally equivalent
| to the original one.
| true_religion wrote:
| Back when I studied theology, the way we used to describe
| omniscience was to indicate that entities that exist
| outside of our universe can trivially see all points of
| our time stream.
|
| Thus the hypothetical devil need not reverse the hash,
| they just have to view its creation to know what it was
| created from.
| alangibson wrote:
| Anything existing outside out universe would have no
| access to anything happening inside it by definition. If
| the could access it, they would have to be part of the
| universe system. How else could information be
| transferred.
| praptak wrote:
| God himself is omniscient, so He by definition knows all
| the reverses of all hashes.
|
| Also, to know the reverse of any hash you don't even need
| full omniscience, just "merely" the knowledge of anything
| that ever happened. Rewind the history of the universe,
| read the reverse from RAM when the hash was computed,
| done.
| alangibson wrote:
| That's prior knowledge of the answer. Not the same thing
| as rewinding a trapdoor function. It's not very
| impressive if you already know the answer.
| anthk wrote:
| If God is omniscient, he can't do shit to punish you as
| he already knew you would commit a sin since the
| beginning of times.
| praptak wrote:
| Yes, the conflict of omniscience and free will is known
| in theology. I think they try to solve it by redefining
| omniscience to "being able to know everything but also
| being able to exclude stuff from one's knowledge".
| anthk wrote:
| Then there's no omniscience, because excluding oneself
| would cancel it.
| ben_w wrote:
| "Can god create a paradox so mind bending even he gets
| confused?"
| dsr_ wrote:
| The omniscient one doesn't need to reverse a hash; they
| recognize immediately all possible values that could
| produce the hash.
| alangibson wrote:
| So God had access to a really big rainbow table. Not
| terribly impressive for the supposed creator of the
| universe.
| Jerrrry wrote:
| You are failing to grasp the notion that rainbow tables
| and knowing 51 factors to 17 and 3 are equivalent.
| vmception wrote:
| The NFT standards need to be updated to include a hook that
| ensures royalties go to the creator upon transfer.
|
| Sadly this is currently impossible as the NFT doesn't store
| the amount of value it was traded for within it. But it
| could.
|
| For now, royalties only occur on third party platforms of
| NFTs.
| dkersten wrote:
| Seems that they're doing just what they were intended to:
| proving ownership, nothing more.
|
| Having said that, yes, I think building a concept of
| royalties in would have been a good idea.
| prpl wrote:
| I tried to buy a soul ~2004 but got the auction cancelled when
| I saw there was a duplicate auction
| hansvm wrote:
| So long as they were transparent about the soul having been
| split I'm not sure I see the issue.
| SuoDuanDao wrote:
| Didn't you read the ending of Harry Potter? Split souls are
| not something most people would want around!
| the_only_law wrote:
| Given what I know from retrocomputing eBay, I imagine people
| would try to sell their souls at much more than they're
| actually worth.
| classified wrote:
| But in the long term the market would determine a fair price.
| Assuming demons are rational economic actors, that is.
| vinceguidry wrote:
| You're really better off selling it to a demon anyway. If you
| get nothing out of it then when you get to the afterlife you
| can convincingly claim that the demon reneged on the deal.
| abecedarius wrote:
| About a dozen people sold their souls on Twitter a while back,
| so there's another venue.
|
| E.g.
| https://twitter.com/liminal_warmth/status/142135011902313677...
|
| Terms: https://liminalwarmth.com/contract-for-sale-of-soul/
|
| Discussion: https://liminalwarmth.com/the-questionable-ethics-
| of-buying-...
|
| As a total atheist I'd still say don't do it. It's not
| farfetched to interpret the word 'soul' as a future high-res
| brain scan runnable in emulation on future hardware. There may
| be other pitfalls.
| [deleted]
| samatman wrote:
| My argument against this is as follows: would you sell your
| dignity for $10?
|
| Now, my dignity doesn't exist in any sense which makes
| selling it meaningful. So it's kind of like free money.
|
| But really it isn't. There's someone out there who can say "I
| own samatman's dignity, and I got it for cheap". I'm a guy
| who sold his dignity, and everyone knows it. I feel like
| people would judge me for that.
|
| There are definitely people out there who will judge you for
| selling your soul. It doesn't have to exist for that to be
| real. Is it actually worth ten bucks? I expect there aren't
| many people who would see that and say "oh cool, you sold
| your soul for less than a sandwich in SF! You must be an
| interesting person, I think better of you now that I heard
| that".
| jareklupinski wrote:
| ah i liked that episode too
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_Sells_His_Soul
|
| >After proclaiming there is no such thing as a soul, Bart
| agrees to sell his to Milhouse for $5 on a piece of paper
| which reads "Bart Simpson's soul". Lisa warns Bart that he
| will regret selling his soul, but he dismisses her fears.
| ASalazarMX wrote:
| What if you sell it to many people? Dignity, as an abstract
| concept, is self-replenishing and infinite. In fact, all of
| our dignities should be given for free, as they're
| infinitely less scarce than any currency that uses finite
| resources.
| France_is_bacon wrote:
| Dude. We've ALL sold parts and parcels of our dignity for
| $10 or less.
|
| Some people, simps for example, don't even get $10 for
| themselvs, but instead _pay_ to have their dignity removed
| from them.
|
| (this post is meant to be half humorous, and half not
| humorous.)
| diegoperini wrote:
| Humans usually put their dignity on rent.
| tuckfrump666 wrote:
| Nobody has come up with a SaaS for renting your dignity
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| Instagram and YouTube are two known sites for doing just
| that. You loan out your dignity when you become an
| influencer, and have it come back when everyone forgot
| about that chapter of your life.
| onecommentman wrote:
| The Internet never forgets. Never. People may forgive and
| be forgiven, but the Internet never forgets.
| cmeacham98 wrote:
| Counterpoint: I have serious doubt that many people (even
| those religious) believe you can sell your soul using a
| contract from the legal system in this mortal world. Thus,
| almost everyone should see it as the joke/fun that it is,
| and not you actually valuing your soul at $10. "I sold my
| soul for $10" is a lot better icebreaker than I've ever
| used.
| tsimionescu wrote:
| Religious people who believe in the existence and
| sanctity of the human soul would probably see such a
| transaction as something similar to spitting on a holy
| object - it doesn't hurt the object itself, but as a
| symbolic gesture it shows your lack of respect for it.
| White_Wolf wrote:
| aaa.. onlyfans for less than $10?(heard from a simp
| friend... really)
| suifbwish wrote:
| Unfortunately one does not need to be religious to realize
| that it's foolish to assume there is no "god" when we have no
| way of proving that with science since we can only deduct
| reliably.
| zwirbl wrote:
| Isn't it just as foolish to assume there to be a good?
| vintermann wrote:
| No. These questions have been well explained by a couple
| of old French philosophers, but they're usually presented
| in such a weak form ("weak man") that their answers
| aren't appreciated.
|
| Pascal's infamous wager, for instance. It's usually
| rendered in the form of salvation and probability, but
| it's better for modern people to think of it in terms of
| meaning rather than salvation, and the probabilistic part
| of it can be simplified away.
|
| Instead of asking, "Is there a God", ask first, "Does
| anything matter in any meaningful sense?".
|
| If the answer is no, then one of the things which doesn't
| matter, is what you answer to that question. So you might
| as well answer yes. But if the answer is yes, then you
| should definitively answer yes, no matter what thing
| matters (because clearly, it also matters that it
| matters).
|
| A better version of the argument in Pascal's wager is
| thus that "nihilism isn't more reasonable than the
| alternatives, even on its own terms". So you might as
| well have positive beliefs (though which ones, this
| argument can't answer). Bringing in probabilities is not
| necessary.
|
| The classic argument against Pascal's wager is "but what
| if there's a God who will punish you from following the
| logic of this argument?". You can make that argument in a
| non-probabilistic way too, and suggest that maybe the
| positive meaning of existence is to not buy into
| arguments about the positive meaning of existence.
|
| But that is rejected by another much misunderstood French
| philosopher's argument, Descartes' demon. The argument is
| that if there's some demon messing with my thoughts and
| perceptions to make me come to exactly the wrong
| solutions, then _I am screwed anyway_. Outsmarting it by
| definition won 't work. So obviously, we might as well
| reject this assumption too.
|
| To sum up, we reject the assumption that we have no
| meaning in the universe, because if that is true, we
| might as well. And we reject the assumption that the
| universe is out to get us, because if that is true, it
| makes no difference what we think.
| dalmo3 wrote:
| > Instead of asking, "Is there a God", ask first, "Does
| anything matter in any meaningful sense?".
|
| That's moving the goalposts and completely avoiding GP's
| argument. Interesting viewpoint nonetheless.
| suifbwish wrote:
| Precisely. If atheists are correct and there is not a
| god, you gain/lose nothing. However if the other side is
| correct and God does exist, the risk of existential woe
| is unfathomable. (None of this describes a personal
| perspective, merely things I've read)
| ithinkso wrote:
| To this day, constructive mathematicians at eBay are trying to
| close the remaining loophole in the ban's reasoning
| hodgesrm wrote:
| Given the subject matter, I'm going to hazard a guess they
| are somehow getting stuck on the Axiom of Choice.
| jesuslop wrote:
| They could use a paraconsistent logician also
| a1369209993 wrote:
| Not really. The axiom of excluded middle is false* because
| it's a universal quantification, and consequently includes
| pathalogical cases like "This proposition is false."; there
| are plenty of _specific_ classes of proposions on which
| resticted versions of excluded middle are valid, just like
| there are plenty of classes of sets (eg all well-founded
| sets) that have well defined membership despite Russel 's
| paradox.
|
| *: Give or take technicalities.
| dr_dshiv wrote:
| I've seen the law of excluded middle used to deny the
| existence of platonic idealism. But I really don't get it.
| I'd love to understand your explanation better.
|
| If soul=psyche (as in Plato) then it seems easy to sell
| access to the attention. But if soul is referring to an
| ideal noetic form, then it's hard to understand how
| immaterial ownership would work without a material
| intermediary.
| a1369209993 wrote:
| The axiom of excluded middle is that for every
| proposition, either that proposion is true or it is
| false. That's a universal quantification, so any
| counterexample makes it false. "This proposition is
| false." is such a counterexample (it can't be true,
| because than it's false and your logic is inconsistent,
| and it can't be false, because than it's true and ditto).
| This reasoning applies to pretty much any recognizable
| system of propositional logic (including, per Godel
| nineteen-thirty-something, systems that explicitly
| prohibit the basic self-referential counter example, as
| long as they're expressive enough to describe
| arithmetic), so it's at least colloquially correct to
| simply dismiss it as false, even if the pedantic version
| is that it's a axiom that cannot be part of a consistent
| set of axioms.
|
| The theorem of included middle doesn't prevent specific
| classes of propositions from being exclusively divided
| into true and false, though. As a simple example, any
| proposition of the form "natural number SSS...SS0 is
| prime" will be either true or false, and there's nothing
| inconsistent about (say) "for every proposion P _matching
| regex /(S)*0 is prime/_, either P is true or P is false".
| Just like there's nothing weird about a linter that can
| reliably tell you that "while(1) {...}" doesn't
| terminate, halting problem or not.
| perl4ever wrote:
| >"This proposition is false."
|
| What about "this proposition is true"? Does it have a
| truth value?
|
| If "this proposition is true" is true, then it's true.
| But if "this proposition is true" is false, then it's
| false.
|
| It's self consistent whether it's true or false, but
| there's no way to determine if it is true or false.
|
| I've been wondering what the formal name is for this kind
| of statement; surely it's not a paradox. Searching for
| "the opposite of a paradox" is apparently not the right
| query.
|
| I feel like there's something questionable going on with
| the word "is" in either statement.
| a1369209993 wrote:
| > What about "this proposition is true"? Does it have a
| truth value?
|
| I think it'll probably end up being neither true nor
| false too in most 'nice' systems (since general rules
| that could be used to prove or disprove it tend to set
| off things like Curry's paradox[0]), but unlike the other
| one it's (I think) dependent on the details of how you're
| defining things.
|
| 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry's_paradox
| ithinkso wrote:
| I understand what you're saying (in the first paragraph).
| I really do because I also went down this path. Self-
| reference is _very_ tricky and it 's way easier to trick
| yourself into proving things than to prove things.
|
| You are referencing Godel and there is a reason why he
| only proved 'non-provability', namely Tarski's
| undefinability theorem[1]. In short, you cannot express
| the truthiness of a statement in the system within the
| system itself. This prohibits you to draw conclusions in
| a way you did above.
|
| I'm of course no expert on the matter, and I might be
| wrong just as likely, but I'll encourage you not to make
| such strong, definitive statements. Maybe the reason for
| it is only that what you stated above would be a _huge_
| result in mathematics so one would think there is a
| mistake somewhere (especially since Liar 's paradox is
| nothing new). And one would explore the subject further
| to find it rather than 'I post it on online forums
| because no one wants to accept my theory'
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarski%27s_undefinabili
| ty_theo...
| a1369209993 wrote:
| > you cannot express the truthiness of a statement in the
| system within the system itself.
|
| Of course not; I'm not talking about truthiness; I'm
| talking about truth.
|
| > that what you stated above would be a _huge_ result in
| mathematics
|
| Not really; it's the same sort of trivially-blatantly-
| obvious thing as "two-boxing on Newcomb's problem is
| irrational" or "quantum superpositions never actually
| collapse".
| ithinkso wrote:
| > it's the same sort of trivially-blatantly-obvious thing
| as
|
| > "quantum superpositions never actually collapse"
|
| Popsci is fun,
|
| Never stop learning, even if it's obvious.
| swayvil wrote:
| As I understand it, "soul" is synonymous with "attention".
|
| That is : you direct it and concentrate it. And it is prone to
| distraction (temptation?).
|
| Given that, we are all well familiar with our soul. And its
| manipulation is a common everyday occurrence.
| varelse wrote:
| Sell your soul: not OK Sell your best years to the man(tm):
| 100% OK
| normac2 wrote:
| This seems to be mostly a history of ideas about devils and
| demons, but it also has things that sound like the
| oversimplified/mythologized versions of history that neopagans
| come up with. Mainly this:
|
| > The traditional method of summoning demons involves drawing the
| sigil of your desired demon on the ground. If your summoning
| ritual is successful the demon will be conjured on the location
| of the sigil and be unable to move away from it. They are
| constrained to that particular location, and cannot affect
| anything beyond it.
|
| And then the list of sigils. Is that, or any other specific
| thing, the "traditional" way to summon demons?
| samatman wrote:
| Actually yes.
|
| There is an historical body of literature on various kinds of
| summoning magic, starting with the Picatrix.
|
| Those particular sigils are from the Lemegeton, also known as
| the Lesser Key of Solomon. Which verifiably predates the
| neopagans. The general idea of constraining the demon by
| writing its sigil and summoning it has existed for a long time,
| although in the Lesser Key (and most sources afaik) the demon
| is summoned into a triangle, with the sigil drawn within, and
| it is the triangle which constrains it.
|
| I can't recommend doing any of these things, but if someone
| wants to, I highly suggest not naively following the directions
| of a satirical blogpost.
| normac2 wrote:
| > I can't recommend doing any of these things, but if someone
| wants to, I highly suggest not naively following the
| directions of a satirical blogpost.
|
| Very interesting stuff. Regarding this part, are you saying
| that that the supernatural claims behind these rituals are
| real in some literal sense, or that they have psychological
| effects that might not be desirable?
| zozbot234 wrote:
| One does not have to believe "that the supernatural claims
| behind these rituals are real in some literal sense" to be
| _very_ wary of this sort of stuff - magick is not something
| that works along "literal" lines in the first place!
| Anything that you do in a serious magickal ritual (and if
| you're intending to "sell your soul", that definitely
| qualifies!) can have very real and long-lasting effects in
| the spiritual plane. That's what's especially troubling
| about this: it's definitely doing _something_ , that
| something it's doing is going to be very much not-nice
| (since you're _expressly intending_ to deal with malevolent
| beings) and we don 't even _know_ what exactly is
| happening! It 's just madness unless you happen to be
| _very_ familiar with this sort of left-hand path stuff, and
| even then there 's plenty of reason to be very careful
| since you're straying way off from even most acknowledged
| "left-hand path" stuff (which is ultimately about
| skillfully leveraging evil and chaotic forces in ways that
| will accomplish some greater Good).
| normac2 wrote:
| It sounds like you're referring to "spiritual plane" as
| something that is a distinct metaphysical entity that
| exists alongside what would be normally be seen as the
| natural world. (In this case I mean "metaphysical" in the
| philosophical sense.)
|
| I realize that "natural world" is a fraught concept in
| itself, but please take me in a common sense reading;
| basically what would be seen as natural in everyday
| conversation or depicted in a movie/book/etc.
|
| Maybe that concept should be expanded or contracted or
| eliminated to slice up the world in the most accurate
| ontology that we can, or maybe we should have no ontology
| at all. All of those are lines of argument that have been
| advanced by those who believe in religion, magic, etc.
| But as of right now the term "natural world" does have a
| _current_ common sense interpretation that most people
| having good-faith discussions would recognize.
| zozbot234 wrote:
| "Metaphysical" is a confused word. You don't _have_ to
| include spiritual stuff in your model of the world (there
| 's plenty of people who don't, and this doesn't seem to
| stop them from leading outwardly fulfilling lives!) but
| if you do, you're going to see it as no less "natural"
| than anything you'd include in your 'common sense natural
| world as depicted in everyday conversation or in a
| movie/book'. It's literally something that's part of the
| exact same web of cause-effect relations as what we all
| acknowledge as 'physical'. The metaphysical question is
| ultimately uninteresting and we don't need it to work
| with this stuff effectively.
| normac2 wrote:
| Fair enough. Then would you say the spiritual plane that
| can be accessed or interacted with via these rituals,
| couldn't be fully described under the laws of physics as
| we currently know them?
|
| (Obviously almost _any_ phenomenon can 't be fully
| described by the laws of physics in the sense that it's
| too complex to account for the location and state of
| every elementary particle involved. But I mean in the
| sense of introducing entirely new laws, or instances
| where the existing ones are overridden.)
| zozbot234 wrote:
| Nope, I wouldn't necessarily say that. Just as there's
| many people who don't acknowledge the spiritual in their
| model of the world, there's many, many people who do very
| real magick using nothing more than the commonly
| acknowledged laws of physics! We generally call them
| scientists and engineers. And the kind of magick they
| customarily deal in (known, somewhat conventionally, as
| "natural magick") is probably the most powerful of all,
| at least wrt. its effects on the purely physical plane.
| Other, more spiritual kinds of magick then act in a
| strictly subsidiary role, to "fill in the gaps" and
| "augment" this work in ways that aren't generally overt
| or amenable to be described by some outward "law". I
| realize that this description will probably seem very
| frustrating to you if you're inclined to very literal
| thinking, but that's how this stuff works. It's silly and
| childish to expect that "spiritual" magick will ever
| _substitute_ for effective science and engineering.
| normac2 wrote:
| Yeah, to be honest, parts of this message I'm having
| trouble even parsing as information. If you've had/seen
| interactions like this where the other person just seemed
| too literal-minded, I'd ask you to think about whether
| your ability to explain it is also contributing. Maybe
| it's a bit of both. Certainly, I don't pretend this stuff
| is easy to explain to an outsider. But I think of people
| like the clearest defenders of Buddhism or Advaita
| Vedanta--Swami Sarvapriyananda has both Eastern and
| Western education and is an extraordinarily good
| popularizer of Advaita Vedanta, for example. I actually
| understand what they're saying and for the areas that
| simply can't be described in words, I understand the
| general bounding box of where the nonverbal insight needs
| to happen. (E.g., I don't know what it's like to be in a
| state of pure consciousness without thoughts, if that
| exists, so I can't understand that specific part of their
| argument.)
|
| I don't think of myself as very literal-minded. I've
| spent hundreds of hours doing things like meditation and
| lucid dreaming and have experienced a range of states of
| consciousness. I'm even interested in very wild (but
| naturalist and law-bound) accounts of why subjective
| experience exists, like mind/body dualism and Russellian
| monism.
|
| In this sense I appreciate people like psi researchers
| who at least overtly say "yes there are supernatural
| phenomena that go against the current laws of physics, we
| understand them very little if at all, but we're trying
| to get some initial data." I don't think they've ever
| succeeded, but at least I know how to have a conversation
| with them. But in other cases the answers just get bogged
| down in elliptical wording that I can't even understand,
| and I think that's what happened here.
| zozbot234 wrote:
| The POV of psi researchers these days is more like "psi
| phenomena might or might not exist, but if they _do_
| exist they 're mischievous enough that there's no way
| they're going to show up unambiguously in a rigorous
| controlled experiment!" In this sense the physical
| effects of higher or "spiritual" magick are
| indistinguishable from psi, and for the same reason
| they're most likely not going to impact our understanding
| of "the laws of physics".
| normac2 wrote:
| Interesting take. It's analogous to religious arguments
| defending the idea of miracles. I don't say that in
| principle the world must be causally closed and bound by
| natural laws; only that it seems very likely, as it
| enough to explain an insanely huge ratio of what we
| already witness, and the quality of the evidence for
| other stuff is very low.
|
| I just finished with a quick edit to my post to be more
| specific, but I suspect your answer would be similar
| either way.
| zozbot234 wrote:
| I might agree, except I view it more productively as an
| argument defending the idea that the physical world _can_
| be inherently lawful ( "bound by natural laws", in a very
| real sense) _despite_ the common belief in miracles or
| magick! You don 't have to renounce belief in the reality
| of physical laws just because you might also practice
| some ceremonial magick (or religious prayer, for that
| matter) - indeed, one can make very rigorous claims about
| just how much physical laws explain already.
| normac2 wrote:
| Well, I can agree with all that, probably more so than
| 80%+ of other naturalists. Although naturalists tend to
| actually be pretty open to the powerful psychological
| effects that can happen via natural means, as you need
| that to explain things like alien abduction experiences,
| near-death experiences, etc. in natural terms, unless
| those people are literally all lying.
| samatman wrote:
| I'm going to punt on the first half, the second is
| emphatically true. Or the psychological effects could be
| desirable.
|
| No one should recommend ceremonial magic and occult study,
| in my opinion. Anyone who 'should' be going down the rabbit
| hole can't be dissuaded.
|
| But if you must, start with something like _Prometheus
| Rising_ by Robert Anton Wilson. Don 't just pull out the
| Goetia and start summoning demons. Reality may or may not
| be mutable, but our perception of it certainly is. Would
| you really pick that as a first experiment?
| onecommentman wrote:
| I'd put the case a little differently. If you say those
| who stumble down that path were "destined", to such an
| extent that no human intervention is possible, then that
| very assertion will attract to that path those who
| already feel helpless and disempowered. Those are the
| very ones least able to manage that sort of path.
|
| How about this? Do not invoke what you cannot dismiss.
| You cannot be certain that you can dismiss anything you
| invoke. Don't be an idiot.
|
| Or perhaps this. You are playing a first-person shooter.
| You can be seen by your adversaries, but the adversaries
| are invisible to you and you have no idea of their powers
| or weaponry. Sounds like a stupid game for which there
| are only stupid prizes.
|
| There are many paths up the mountain. Don't be an idiot.
| normac2 wrote:
| > But if you must, start with something like Prometheus
| Rising by Robert Anton Wilson. Don't just pull out the
| Goetia and start summoning demons. Reality may or may not
| be mutable, but our perception of it certainly is. Would
| you really pick that as a first experiment?
|
| Maybe so, because my mind is so bull-headedly resistant
| to being modified (at least in the ways associated with
| occult stuff, like visions, extreme emotion, etc.) that
| maybe I need a dose of the hard stuff to even notice it
| ;)
|
| As a naturalist I don't think I can sign on to the first
| half, even as a realistic possibility. But for
| psychological effects, sure, I could buy it. The ability
| of the mind to do get into pretty extreme psychological
| states, via ritual and otherwise, is easily
| underestimated.
|
| In fact I would say many naturalists hold onto that
| argument harder than just about anyone, because it's
| critical to help explain the weird stuff people
| experience (e.g. alien abductions are often hypnagogic
| hallucinations or sleep paralysis, near-death experiences
| are due to various impaired brain states, etc.)
| classified wrote:
| Given the stigma attached to summoning demons I would expect a
| dearth of accurate historical documentation. Practitioners
| would have taken pains not to leave evidence of their
| activities.
| normac2 wrote:
| That's a fair assessment, and it's one of the reasons that
| neopagans have had to fill in a lot of gaps.
| pipthepixie wrote:
| For me, becoming famous is similar to selling your soul, in the
| sense that you trade in your privacy in return for being famous
| and also presumably being rich too. It's like Cypher in the
| Matrix who wants to be reborn as an important actor in exchange
| for handing over keys to the Zion mainframe.
|
| Sidenote: The problem with fame is that you can't reverse it. If
| people know your face, then they know your face. There's no
| getting away from it.
| onecommentman wrote:
| David Cassidy, former teen throb (yes I'm old) had a good
| quote, "If you want fame and fortune, try fortune first and see
| if that's enough".
| deathcultoffun wrote:
| As it seems on topic, in case one wanted to join a _quality_
| internet death cult, but not sell one 's soul, the Internet Death
| Cult of Fun is highly recommended.
|
| https://www.deathcult.fun/
| YeGoblynQueenne wrote:
| I come to HN exactly to find detailed tutorials of obscure
| technical matters like this. Thanks!
| xyzzy21 wrote:
| I thought selling your soul was done by signing on to work at
| Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc.
| mgh2 wrote:
| You can be a spy instead, and try to change it from the inside
| (however impossible that seems). That is the moral
| justification.
| dkersten wrote:
| That's just the simplest and most common method.
| unmole wrote:
| To be fair, _selling your soul_ definitely pays better than
| working a job where it 's slowly crushed everyday.
| dylan604 wrote:
| I worked with someone that went on vacation, and never
| returned. Instead, he called in and said that the job was
| stealing his soul and would not be returning. Sadly, we all
| understood 100%
| 3gg wrote:
| I guess this must be the premise of capitalism.
| the_only_law wrote:
| Startup for a quick online soul market?
| tobmlt wrote:
| If you are grinding leetcode, you are already in hell.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| That is just a rental, not a sale.
| praptak wrote:
| In the modern economy you are always a small, finite number of
| transactions from someone using slave labour, bombing civilians
| or using torture.
|
| At some of the big tech corps this number is 1 though -
| murderous regimes do use these companies directly.
| mgh2 wrote:
| The article does a great job at explaining an important topic
| (morality) to the common public, using analogies from popular
| culture and religion to make its point.
|
| It resonates with the tech community because some may have been
| struggling with this dilemma in the shadows for a long time, due
| to the conflict of interests.
|
| Since this was a "how to" guide, if you want to get serious, here
| is a short video how to do _the opposite_ :
| https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XzWpa0gcPyo
| heikkilevanto wrote:
| Do the opposite? Buy an extra soul from Satan? Why?
| daenz wrote:
| It's worth a read, but the ending is what brings it home, since
| (in my opinion) "selling your soul" has always been a metaphor,
| like many other religious ideas:
|
| >That being said, while you can't sell your soul to the devil in
| a real transaction, you can do so at metaphorical level. This
| happens every time someone is willing to overlook their humanity
| and decency in exchange for external temptations: power, money,
| fame etc. Sometimes it doesn't even have to be external
| pleasures. Ignoring basic human principles in order to obtain
| revenge, satisfy pride or envy can lead down the same path.
| egypturnash wrote:
| Hasty reader seems to have skipped the parts about circles to
| constrain the summoned demon in their haste to get through their
| grimoires. Well. Good luck with that.
| SlyShy wrote:
| Generally one stays inside a circle for protection and summons
| the demon into a triangle for containment. :P
| egypturnash wrote:
| Yeah, I should have said "designs", not "circle".
| user3939382 wrote:
| One of the best Christian theological treatments of the subject,
| for those interested -- The Devil by Bishop Fulton Sheen:
| https://youtu.be/FuCw8UT5y6c
| ImpressiveWebs wrote:
| On a related note, let's clear up a few things...
|
| Myth: The "soul" is something separate from the body.
|
| Fact: The soul being a separate entity from the physical body did
| not come from Judaism or Christianity. In Genesis 2:7, the first
| man "became" a soul (Hebrew "Nephesh"[1]), he was not "given" a
| soul. The Old Testament teaches that the "soul" is the whole
| person. The Bible uses the word "soul" in reference to both
| humans and animals (Genesis chapter 1 and Revelation both do
| this). The Old Testament also teaches that the soul can die. See
| Ezekiel 18:4, 20.
|
| Myth: Hell is a fiery place of torment to punish those who reject
| God.
|
| Fact: There is no word "hell" in the original writings of the
| Bible. This was a later development. The idea that God punishes
| people for all eternity, essentially making him worse than
| Hitler, is not found in the Bible. In multiple places the Old
| Testament says that God does not condone burning your children in
| fire. See Jeremiah 7:31; 2 Kings 17:17; 2 Chronicles 28:3;
| Deuteronomy 12:29-31 for a few examples. When the New Testament
| speaks about "eternal fire", these are symbols or illustrations
| to demonstrate eternal destruction of the evil ones, not literal
| torment. Also, the place that Jesus said people would go for this
| "eternal fire" was called "Gehenna"[2] (not Hell) which in those
| days was just a garbage dump outside of Jerusalem.
|
| Myth: The Devil's name is Lucifer.
|
| Fact: The word "Lucifer"[3] comes from the Latin translation of
| Isaiah 14:12. It's simply a word that means "shining one", a word
| that was used to describe the King of Babylon at that time, not
| the Devil. The King's fall is similar to that of the Devil, but
| the Devil in the Bible is never referred to as "Lucifer".
|
| [1] https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/h5315/kjv/wlc/0-1/
|
| [2] https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/g1067/kjv/tr/0-1/
|
| [3] https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/h1966/kjv/wlc/0-1/
| DangitBobby wrote:
| > Also, the place that Jesus said people would go for this
| "eternal fire" was called "Gehenna"[2] (not Hell) which in
| those days was just a garbage dump outside of Jerusalem.
|
| You are taking the use of Gehanna literally. How do we know
| that Gehanna is not being used metaphorically as a
| representation to provoke an emotional visualization of real
| conditions in an actual Hell?
|
| How do you interpret
|
| > Mar 9:48 - Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not
| quenched.
|
| Other than that "the worm" the cause of death, decay, and
| suffering, never ending, and thus the suffering never ending?
|
| A while back I looked into what the Bible really seems to say
| about Hell in the hopes that something so evil could not have
| been written there, but I think ultimately any interpretation
| that leads to the belief that the Bible doesn't describe a Hell
| as it's commonly understood is just wishful thinking.
| aurizon wrote:
| I want to know how to sell the soul of someone who has aggrieved
| me with his holier than thou attitude. I want to see the look on
| his face when he confronts Old Nick and has a WTF moment...
| shannifin wrote:
| > In this case, selling your soul is just a sin, a pretty bad
| one, but still a sin. In Catholicism and some Protestant
| traditions, you will enter into a state of Purgatory, (or
| purgatory-like phase) after death where you are cleansed of sins.
|
| Catholicism does not teach that you will necessarily enter
| Purgatory; if you are unrepented, into the eternal fire you will
| go. This isn't because Satan owns your soul, but because you
| rejected God, who will not force you to be cleansed against your
| will.
|
| https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_P2O.HTM;;catholic
| aoetalks wrote:
| I don't see where this says selling a soul is "only" a sin.
| nukst wrote:
| If I buy someone else's soul, could that be resold?
| adamredwoods wrote:
| As an atheist I must point out this is for entertainment
| purposes. Although, I see 'selling one's soul' as a contract with
| oneself. For example, if I say I would sell my soul for a hot-
| cooked meal, that means I'm going to get up and go cook. If I
| don't, then the consequences are that I will suffer with a cold
| sandwich.
| krapp wrote:
| If anyone is interested in this from the point of view of
| folklore or mythology, or as a source for worldbuilding, I
| suggest the Youtube channel Esoterica[0] which covers historic
| occult rituals and texts. The Lesser Key of Solomon, referenced
| in the article, is discussed here[1].
|
| [0]https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCoydhtfFSk1fZXNRnkGnneQ
|
| [1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0HyPIwco38
|
| Edit: a depressing number of people in this thread seem to take
| this stuff seriously. A lot of your parents wouldn't let you play
| D&D or listen to Black Sabbath as kids, huh?
|
| Let go of your fear of the boogeyman, he isn't real.
| aurizon wrote:
| Those with pet devils will be relieved to know that Devil's Food
| is for sale on ebay... https://www.ebay.ca/itm/Pillsbury-Sugar-
| Free-Devils-Food-Cak... Also sold, cat and dog and fish food..
| JohnJamesRambo wrote:
| Oh, a guide to working at Facebook.
| lazlee wrote:
| What? No ones built an app to simplify the process and bring this
| amazing opportunity to the masses? Come on already... get on it
| boys.
| neither_color wrote:
| I will never get a more relevant chance to bring this up, so has
| anyone heard of Napoleon Hill's(Think and Grow Rich) other book?
|
| It's called Outwitting the Devil, where he interviews the devil.
| He refused to publish it during his lifetime, and his estate also
| put off publishing it for decades because it contains strongs
| critiques of the educational system, the government, and the
| church as being tools of the 'devil' to keep the population
| confused, ignorant, and demoralized from a young age. It was
| considered too controversial for its time and I found it to be a
| thought-provoking book, very different from the "here's a secret
| to success/power within/what they dont want you to know" genre.
| Instead of "think positive" it's "here are all the tricks the
| 'Devil' is using to try to sabotage you." If you like self-help
| books its a fun read/listen. http://outwittingthedevil.com/
| cweill wrote:
| As much as people love Napoleon Hill and his book, he may have
| been one of the first and biggest fake gurus of the 20th
| century, having never actually interviewed Carnegie and other
| rich people for his beloved book: https://youtu.be/iEDzb9ZplX0
| briefcomment wrote:
| What does that have to do with this other book?
| Ensorceled wrote:
| The original comment seemed to be recommending this other
| book based on the quality of this book.
| weare138 wrote:
| Research Napoleon Hill. He was a notorious lifelong scam
| artist. He made all that crap up and it's painfully obvious
| if you read any of his books.
| praptak wrote:
| "The Screwtape Letters" by CS Lewis is another book written
| from the similar point of view. Here the tricks are presented
| by an older demon to a younger one.
| yoloyoloyoloa wrote:
| Great book and so is Mere Christianity
| j_crick wrote:
| The actual interview text keeps hammering down on the same
| talking points so repetitively and unimaginatively, that it
| quickly becomes hard to get past first couple of pages. If a
| bit of information can be briefly, just for the sake of
| argument, defined as a difference that makes a difference, the
| book you mention makes a few starting laps and then halts at
| making a difference in its over-arching narrative with a
| remarkable braking force.
|
| In other words, aside from "think for yourself" message,
| (sadly) it's a classic example of a bad "business" book,
| annotations included. Mystery and woo-woo are also present, so
| yeah, there's that.
| hollerith wrote:
| If anyone is wondering what sort of writing would get you
| canceled in the US in the 1970s, this is a decent example.
|
| Source: I'm old enough to have been able to understand news
| stories of the 1970s as they were being published.
| optimiz3 wrote:
| Many of the demon sigils resemble circuit schematics!
| nukst wrote:
| Perhaps demon culture is heavily influenced by electrical
| engineering.
| dafelst wrote:
| As someone who studied EE and briefly worked in the field
| before abandoning it, can confirm that EE and demonology are
| inextricably intertwined.
| [deleted]
| akomtu wrote:
| I think they even play the same role. At least the prominent
| occult authors say that all these effects are nothing but
| electricity and magnetism (snake is a typical occult symbol for
| electricity). Levitating a frog by a magnet is legit magick,
| NMRI is high-end sorcery. Things that are considered magical
| are various magnetic effects that haven't been discovered (by
| science) yet, but are known to people who don't quite
| understand the underlying mechanism. But in each and every case
| it's the good old magnetism. I'd guess that these sigils are
| meants to shape a magnetic stream produced by something else,
| and when properly shaped it tends to capture a "fish" of some
| kind. As for why the low type occultists use blood to fill
| these sigils, it's because of its magnetic properties (if you
| live in medieval ages, getting access to a lab with ferrofluids
| and 100 Amp generators is pretty difficult).
| yoloyoloyoloa wrote:
| Please whatever you do, dont mess with this stuff. Ive really had
| interactions of this kind and I can tell you it is not fun, you
| will not be happy or at peace. Satan is a liar,murderer and
| deceiver.
|
| Jesus came to save you and even if you have "sold" your soul to
| satan then just know that Jesus defeated satan on the cross and
| paid for your soul with his blood.
| imjustsaying wrote:
| Logged on just to upvote this.
|
| Lest one person out of a thousand that read this actually try
| the things mentioned in the article, I'd like to point out that
| the topics in the article such as summoning demons and dabbling
| in magic is ultimately not desirable.
| trasz wrote:
| If any of this were true, we would have a proof, and it would
| become science. We known it doesn't work, because all the
| recorded attempts resulted in absolutely nothing.
| yoloyoloyoloa wrote:
| In order for it to work you must believe it will work. That
| is how christianity works and how witchcraft works.
| latexr wrote:
| > In order for it to work you must believe it will work.
|
| In other words: if you are susceptible to having your mind
| play tricks on you, it will. Mentalists[1], mediums[2], and
| other proven charlatans[3] make a living out of that
| effect. Add some confirmation bias[4] and you do it to
| yourself.
|
| [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mentalism
|
| [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediumship
|
| [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Million_Dollar_Paran
| ormal_...
|
| [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
| trasz wrote:
| It never worked even for people who believed it works.
| anthk wrote:
| Until Columbus no one had ever heard of neither God or Jesus from
| Canada to The Patagonia. Just think about it, FFS.
| ethbr0 wrote:
| I don't buy a lot of books on demonology, but when I do, I try to
| buy from the most successful author.
|
| _Edit:_ If you 're actually "interested" (definition to personal
| taste), plug for Stjepan Sejic's upcoming _Fine Print_ series
| https://imagecomics.com/comics/releases/fine-print-vol-1-ogn...
| (No relation to disclose, just a fan of his work)
| dylan604 wrote:
| >I don't buy a lot of books on demonology, but when I do
|
| Naturally, this must be read in the voice of the Dos XX guy
| Rd6n6 wrote:
| I thought this was just going to suggest you play old school
| dungeons and dragons
|
| https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wL7lEwD1uGI
| new_guy wrote:
| Looking at those Demon sigils I'm wondering if any of them match
| Crop Circle patterns, at a quick glance they look pretty similar.
| unreal37 wrote:
| I thought they resembled hockey playbooks.
| throwanem wrote:
| They may or may not have been _deliberately_ designed as
| apophenia targets. That is in any case what they are.
| ben_w wrote:
| Almost certainly, given they can be made whatever shape you
| like and the overlap of interests.
| _game_of_life wrote:
| Since both are undoubtedly created by hoaxes and frauds, that's
| an interesting observation. I guess all artwork really is
| derivative.
|
| It would be neat to trace that artistic lineage back to its
| sources.
|
| Then again, there is a commenter on here claiming they look
| like circuit diagrams (whereas I look at schematics on a daily
| basis and see no resemblance). So stupid.
| yoloyoloyoloa wrote:
| If you have ever messed with the demonic and you want to feel
| safe again here is a prayer you can say out loud that will help:
|
| Father God, I come to you in the Name of Jesus, declaring that no
| weapon that is formed against us shall prosper and every tongue
| which rises against us in judgement we do condemn. This is our
| heritage as servants of the Lord and our righteousness is from
| You, O Lord of Hosts (Isaiah 54:17). If there are those who have
| been speaking or praying against us or who have rejected us, even
| cursed us, we forgive them and, having forgiven them, we bless
| them in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ (Matthew 5:43, Romans
| 12:14). Now we declare, O Lord, that You and You alone are our
| God, and besides You there is no other God. You are a just God
| and Saviour: You are Creator, Redeemer, Faithful, Loving God. You
| are Father, Jesus the Son and Holy Spirit - and we worship You!
| Your Word says: "Submit yourself to God, resist the devil, and he
| will flee from you." So we submit ourselves afresh to You in
| unreserved obedience. Having submitted to You, Lord, we do as
| Your Word directs. We resist the devil: all his pressures, his
| attacks, his deceptions, every instrument or agent he would seek
| to use against us. We do not submit! We resist him, drive him
| from us and exclude him from us in the Name of the Lord Jesus
| Christ. Specifically we reject and repel: * Every form of
| witchcraft. Every influence of the occult. * Every spirit of
| infirmity: infections, malignancies, viruses, pain, inflammation,
| and allergies. * Every spirit of depression and heaviness;
| confusion and deception. * Every spirit of accusation and
| condemnation. Thank You, Father, that You confuse the plans the
| enemy has against us. Finally, Lord, we thank You that through
| the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross, we have passed out from
| under the curse and entered into the blessing of Abraham, whom
| You blessed in all things (Galatians 3:13-14, Genesis 24:1).
| Thank You for Your favour, Your presence, Your provision, Your
| protection. Thank You for good health, victory, exaltation,
| reproductiveness, and prosperity.
| trasz wrote:
| Even assuming the daemon thing would work, and that the daemons
| would turn out to be evil, why do you assume it's your religion
| that would work, and not one of thousands others?
| onecommentman wrote:
| Poster didn't state that this was the _only_ religion that
| would work, only that this one _would_ work. Existence proof,
| not uniqueness proof.
| trasz wrote:
| I didn't state there would be only one religion that
| worked; I've questioned if his religion belongs to the set
| of religions that work.
| yoloyoloyoloa wrote:
| Cause Ive tried this. Demons shudder at the name of Jesus
| 3gg wrote:
| Well, it was their religion that was in large part used to
| wipe out every pagan religion and culture that existed prior
| to it -- and then some more -- and submit the heathens to the
| true god. So, obviously, this must be the one :)
| trasz wrote:
| In one (granted, particularly aggressive) part of the
| world.
|
| Except it then got replaced (reduced to an ornament, if you
| like ornaments commonly associated with raping children) by
| humanism. So, it's just one of the gods who was doing
| really well, and then failed.
| quaintdev wrote:
| Since we are on a metaphorical plane today. Let me put my comment
| along similar lines on a youtube video [1]
|
| You see in Zombie movies, the zombie is always trying to turn an
| individual capable of moral decisions, empathy, insight into just
| another zombie out of his own self interest. Our society is
| actually far closer to the truth shown in those movies. Just
| because people are not biting each other does not mean those
| movies are far from reality.
|
| Symbolically those movies are depicting the fact that there are
| people, groups, organizations, companies who are trying to rob a
| man from himself by trying to turn that individual into just
| another member of the herd who looks out for nothing more than
| self interest which are not even his own but of that group. Tell
| me this is any different than what is shown in those zombie
| movies.
|
| [1] Is a Mass Psychosis the Greatest Threat to Humanity? -
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojPcF-oLABE
|
| You may also like
|
| [2] In Shadow - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j800SVeiS5I
| sershe wrote:
| Interesting, my take was always diametrically opposite, that if
| it has any meaning at all it's the allegory for getting
| converted to a collectivist religion or an ideology.
|
| Zombies are not really selfish - I mean, if you were chasing
| one human in a horde and you were selfish, wouldn't you, for
| example, try to eliminate or exclude the competition? They are,
| rather, single-minded to the exclusion of any priorities other
| than one.
| H8crilA wrote:
| What's the difference between a religion and a corporation
| that someone devotes their life to? Other than scale.
| sershe wrote:
| Very few people really devote their life to a corporation,
| at least as far as I can tell. It's either just a job to
| pay the bills (for most people), or an exciting project
| that you easily switch from when it suits you (if you are
| in tech or other such job).
|
| To be fair, relatively few people really devote their life
| to religion or ideology, too, although I'd argue the
| average level of devotion is higher and lasts longer :)
| briefcomment wrote:
| That makes sense. So the majority of us are already zombies
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| 0dayz wrote:
| I mean zombies are _spook_ y.
| User23 wrote:
| One might wish to be careful with this. While strict materialism
| is probably the dominant paradigm amongst HN readers, there is
| significant evidence and reliable testimony of inexplicable
| events[1] that defy a natural explanation.
|
| On the other hand, it may well be the fastest way to start
| speaking fluent Aramaic. Duolingo eat your heart out!
|
| [1]
| https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/07/01/...
| [deleted]
| mimixco wrote:
| All quantum events defy natural explanation. Since all physical
| phenomena derive from quantum behavior, the physical world can
| neither be observed nor predicted accurately without access to
| the quantum view -- which we don't have.
| holoduke wrote:
| Everytime I hear something about this topic I think about one of
| the oldest unchanged websites I know of: https://beyondweird.com/
| Many downloadable books there containing occultism.
| cududa wrote:
| Wow. Been nearly 20 years since I stumbled on this site.
| Unfortunately, I still am not psychic according to the test on
| there.
|
| Also, I did find it fascinating, just the first essay I clicked
| "The Body of God" from 1922, seems astonishingly similar to
| Scott Adams' novella God's Debris. As well, the preface is
| shockingly similar to Adam's antisemetic views, views on
| women's rolls in society/ child-rearing, and views on male
| "self determination"/ self-actualization.
|
| Wonder how foundational that was to a young Scott Adams,
| assuming he read it.
| aflag wrote:
| If selling your soul to the devil works, you'd be a fool to sell
| it. Otherwise, you're just wasting your time.
| 3gg wrote:
| In America, you'd use it as collateral.
| cwkoss wrote:
| Interesting premise for a story:
|
| Act 1: Protagonist sells their soul to the devil for infinite
| riches, wealth and power.
|
| Act 2: Protagonist uses this power to solve the vast majority of
| the evils in the world: feeding and housing the poor, removing
| the corrupt from power, etc.
|
| Act 3: The devil and god fight in 'court' over protagonist's
| soul, with god arguing that protagonist used the faustian bargain
| so benevolently that it would be unjust to send them to hell.
| ourmandave wrote:
| Just agree to the GameStation EULA back in 2010.
|
| https://www.engadget.com/2010-04-16-uk-game-retailer-claims-...
| anthk wrote:
| On Christianism, it's just a metaphor on the first agricultural
| societies and the fights between the hunting-hoarders and land
| workers. You know, the roots of.. civilisation. Solstice is
| celebrated and so is the harvest times which are exactly the
| months of Jesus' death. Oh, and the Virgo placement in the sky
| matches harvest times, too. So, all of you Christians are nothing
| more than secret vegetarians.
| ryanmarsh wrote:
| Sunday mornings on Hacker News seem to have taken a turn for the
| dark side.
| onecommentman wrote:
| Seems a bit Eternal September to me...online equivalent of
| fourteen year olds drawing pentagrams on their notebooks (I
| suppose nowadays putting demon stickers on their tablets).
| earth_walker wrote:
| Speaking of selling your soul, this post is a veiled advert
| funnelling you to sign up for audible.
| bladefire wrote:
| So early in the article and already a mistake. Humans are not
| God's creation. The word human comes after the creation, and is
| reference to what is of Man, but not Mankind itself. It is the
| vulgar / common tongue that distorts to their convenience.
|
| human (adj.)
|
| mid-15c., humain, humaigne, "human," from Old French humain,
| umain (adj.) "of or belonging to man" (12c.), from Latin humanus
| "of man, human," also "humane, philanthropic, kind, gentle,
| polite; learned, refined, civilized." This is in part from PIE
| _(dh)ghomon-, literally "earthling, earthly being," as opposed to
| the gods (from root _dhghem- "earth"), but there is no settled
| explanation of the sound changes involved. Compare Hebrew adam
| "man," from adamah "ground." Cognate with Old Lithuanian zmuo
| (accusative zmuni) "man, male person."
| tonis2 wrote:
| In Catholicism and some Protestant traditions, you will enter
| into a state of Purgatory, (or purgatory-like phase) after death
| where you are cleansed of sins. This could potentially take a
| while.
|
| This should be written in the devil contract, like how long do I
| need to stay in purgatory...
| syril wrote:
| They have no control over how long your purgation will last,
| that depends on your own sins. Anyway, if you make a deal with
| devils, you will go straight to Hell if you are unrepentant of
| the act.
| dylan604 wrote:
| Depends on your sins, wouldn't it? Murder would be one term,
| but working for an digital ads company, developing dark pattern
| UI, or social media companies would be at least half of
| eternity.
| tobmlt wrote:
| Is eternity countable? I really want to know what I am in
| for, ya know. Plus, depending on the properties of the
| eternal manifold, maybe I can perform some useful closed
| timelike computation while there and use that to get rich
| when/if I return.
| [deleted]
| mimixco wrote:
| It's countable. But you can always add 1.
| aoetalks wrote:
| I believe the correct term is "countably infinite"
| dylan604 wrote:
| Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in
| AlbertCory wrote:
| There's a movie about that [1]; well, not exactly "selling" it to
| the devil but upgrading to a better one. Paul Giamatti plays an
| actor named "Paul Giamatti" who feels he can't properly do Uncle
| Vanya without a Russian soul. Hilarity ensues.
|
| [1] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1127877/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1
| aoetalks wrote:
| I'm appalled this is even on HN.
|
| - If you are an atheist, would you sell it for $5? If the answer
| is no, why sell it for more? What value can you place on your
| soul (or someone's idea of it)?
|
| - If someone is willing to pay much more than $5, consider what
| they are gaining, and what you are losing. Why would they be
| willing to pay so much?
|
| - If only in the interest of self preservation, have you heard of
| Pascal's Wager? [1]
|
| [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-08-02 23:03 UTC)