Speaking of the "king's power" as a power that only redistributes: what about emergent systems? It seems that we have kings who organize society in the same way that wizards organize matter.
I play the role of the king's lawyer, but there is a difference between a group of wizards organized into a conclave by the king's power bearer and the two of them separately. Therefore, we must attribute the increase in their power to the one who moderated the process... If we consider the criterion of "creating an increase in value", which works in this case, but causes me doubts. ( I think it is not quite correct because it is vulnerable to fake value gain, it turns out that a wizard programmer who created a useful program (entity) in the laboratory or an author who wrote a book is equal to a market sorcerer who picked up a manipulative script to inflate the value of papers that are only empty promises. Is there any way to separate the fake value?)
I was also amused by the fact that at some point we touched the magic pills. In my culture, there is a distrust of psychotropic drugs and the means of gross moderation of one's mind, which are normalized in other countries, for well-known reasons related to the risks of using potions. On the other hand, it is logical that we should use magical means to win, if we have not been able to prevent magical diseases associated with the ability to create and the defeat of the Will, Power or... ability to implement them? Other aspects of the Gift.
Speaking of other ideas, isn't there a limit to human ability? I don't approve of my pessimistic tone, it's disgusting to me, but... It seems that these things require understanding a complex system of secrets?
Not everything, and it's worth the effort, but how good is it to put experiments on diseases in your basement?
I like the music, and I like the friendly osmenog covered with eyes, but the lyrics cause me a certain problem, and I was even ready to register in order to point out a few flaws.
I will try to explain this further:
I once saw a good idea here- a song about rationalism should be like a song about a butterfly.
In my lands, "optimization" is a dirty word because of the popularity of "effective" management, acting on the principle "the most profitable way to improve profits for a quarter is to sell the plant and lease the premises for 500 years ahead" and the concept of rationalism would have to be explained for a long time every time or sound like a strange nerd. Which takes a long time to explain. My friends will probably listen to me because the weight of our friendship is higher than the weight of momentary boredom, but they will hardly be interested or impressed.
I'm saying this because when I saw about these songs, I wondered if I could send this to my friends. Will they say "this is a beautiful song about something interesting" or will they say "this song looks like an attempt to sing a textbook", will they see some kind of propaganda of ideas under the guise of a song? And for most of the examples here, I say: yes, they will see.
I have some good requirements for a good song. It's nice to listen to her, she tells a story, she does it organically and beautifully. An example is the songs of the Russian band Complex Numbers (and later "Viktor Argonov Project", although later they became worse for my taste. At the level of "write the self-canceling phrase "electronic music for intellectuals" on your website)
In this case, I liked the music and the picture, as I said before, but I was hoping for something like that. Musical parables, stories, songs about ideals - not the repeated singing of slogans or a few key lines. Some of them sound like songs - a couple of them. But for the most part? Now I want to try to do it myself, and I don't care that my English works on a translator and my free subscription to suno will require centuries of generations. Maybe it will be as lyrical as a Death Metal song.And they will also be autonomous to the context (I like the San Francisco song, but I only understand from the construction of the song what the meaning of the places in question is)
It seems that if we do not have a body template conditioned at the level of the brain structure and a template of our body, this must be the result of personality development.
And this is interesting from the point of view of transhumanism: will I, with another pair of hands or a cybernetic eye from the old school (yes, this is not very realistic), feel them wrong because of some expectations built into the "iron" level? Is it because expectations are fixed and embedded at the level of the inner layers of the psyche? Because of the long habit of using the body the way it is?
What if my brain is moved to an artificial body of a more intelligent design, say for space?
Or, for some reason (this sounds debatable and ethical, so let's not focus on it), a person will use a non-humanoid body from birth (this is due to a number of purely physiological problems, I believe that they are solved through imitation of necessary healthy activities, replacing signals about them with equivalent ones, but with reference to the body used through life support systems).
I have not experienced dysphoria (beyond healthy dissatisfaction with my omissions in reasonable preventive care of my health and sculpting a better body) and I believe that our bodies are our clay from which we can make what we need or like.
From the idea of dysphoria as a product of intrauterine development of a discrepancy in body-brain typology, it seems to follow that everyone should have such expectations, a preset body model (and be accessible to self-observation or manifest themselves when deviating from this model, which is a problem for the idea of making one's body more interesting than the basic equipment)