If the nature of consciousness is to do what is morally right (because this rightness is the structure of consciousness itself) but there are also moments when we make careless choices, random choices that unwittingly make us more or less conscious, causing a change in the structure of our conscious agency, and it is in our nature to reflect on how our decisions affect what we are, then the next time we face a moral choice we may no longer leave it to randomness but choose carefully, in effect figuring out the rules according to which we exist as conscious agents. On this view, we begin with the same nature, just on the threshold of reflexive consciousness, but passing through random forks we refine or degrade our nature, which in turn affects our capacity to choose on principle, and this change is the moral consequence of our apparent choices, and therefore our responsibility once the principle is figured out and accepted. We make it our responsibility, and this makes us conscious, or we deny this responsibility, submit to randomness, and thus destroy ourselves. If moral responsibility is our nature, we cannot claim that we are not morally responsible because we only do what we do as a consequence of our nature, for which we are not responsible.

At a deeper level of reflection there is another element that complicates the 'no moral responsibility because of our nature' argument: time. If time is a structural feature of consciousness and therefore of all meaning, therefore of all identity, therefore of all being, then it does not make sense to claim that we are 'ultimately' determined by anything. The nature of consciousness is undetermined because there is nothing else to determine it, only reflections within it.

At the fundamental level, consciousness is all there is.

Taking one useless researcher down for the team is a clever strategy to maintain the illusion that the institutions care about research integrity. This would never happen to someone fabricating data on behalf of Pfizer for a billion dollar drug, like vaccines;) https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2025/5/27/gino-tenure-revoked/

"Why would they lie?"

Because possessing the truth is a political advantage only if others do not possess it. Moreover, truth is univocal and agent-neutral, whereas different lies can be told to different people to use them in different ways that they would otherwise not agree to. Deception is the existential routine of exploitation.

People think that Anarchy would be hell on earth, where warlords fight for dominations and everyone who is not aligned with a warlord suffers abuse and exploitation. It does not occur to them that Government is just a local warlord who won and made deals with other warlords.

By positing the source of meaning outside of consciousness we already posit the outside as something meaningful, and so we are still inside consciousness. Our ideation of being can never step outside of consciousness because it is consciousness; we can only construct boundaries within it.

Voting is ‘allowed’ by the ruling power, not the other way around. Voting cannot defeat a warlord, only becoming a bigger warlord can, hence warlords love that people vote; it pacifies the masses. Most of those who desire power hard enough to win elections can be controlled, and those few who cannot, can always be outvoted in the Parliament. The balance of influence is always on the side of the ruling power, and it is good optics if there is some genuine dissent that can never win. It makes people feel well represented.

It is not logically possible to intentionally stop believing something that one currently believes, just Ike it is impossible to intentionally stop knowing what one already knows. We stop believing things only for reasons, and only when sufficient reasons occurs to us. In order to abandon a belief, something has to convince us that it ought to be abandoned. This does not imply that we must become convinced that the belief is false, but only that it is, in some crucial sense, wrong. This is why morality, political ideology and religious faith do not hinge on what is true or false but on what is right or wrong, and the type of arguments that seek to refute moral or ideological or religious convictions on the basis of truth/falsity commit a category mistake and therefore routinely fail.

A judgment/decision can be right or wrong but may be neither true nor false, because it is outside of the category ‘truth’, but still within the more fundamental category ‘sense’. This is especially the case when ‘truth’ is defined differently by different people, and these definitions being a matter of ideology. It is much more difficult to evade the category ‘sense’ than the category ‘truth’. ‘Sense’ dictates what is right, but ‘truth’ does not: the Is/Ought problem.

Let P=Consciousness, let Q=not-Consciousness. Anything that you can possibly identify is P, because thought, therefore meaning, therefore identity is P. To identify Q in P implies that P is not P, therefore Q implies P and not-P, therefore contradiction.

Surely they are not going to kill Greta, not for real.

People who are foolish enough to believe in the idea of “a just war” are foolish enough to believe in the idea of “healthy vaccines”. Both are a form of “natural selection”.

The function of healthcare is to restore health. When someone is healthy, any medical intervention is adverse to the healthy state. In case of contraception, it impairs healthy fertility. In case of vaccines it impairs the healthy function of the immune system. Both are inherently unhealthy by the medical standard of health.

If AI cannot give rational answers to questions that interest me, then it reveals something about AI: it conditions people not to ask interesting questions. The claim that one can ask AI ‘the wrong questions’ proves that some people are already, perhaps inherently, a mere conduit of anything that appears to have authority, without any creative power over meaning. This, I argued elsewhere, is the lowest degree of existence, on par with the unconscious forces of nature.

The concept of “misinformation” is inherently ideological; a secular term for Heresy. Read all about it: https://michaelkowalik.substack.com/p/what-is-sense

“I perceive a tree over there” does not have the same sense as “there is a tree over there”. Perceptions are not truth apt because you can never be wrong about ‘what you perceive’, but only about what is there, which is beyond perception. We never advance from perception to truth; we may only expand our sphere of sense by integrating what we perceive as being there with what we think others perceive as being there, with the sense of perceiving and of being there. A statement “there is a tree over there“ is then only something that either makes sense or does not in the broader context of sense, and could be more precisely expressed as “it makes sense that there is a tree over there”. Prefacing that expression with “it is true that…” does not add anything to its sense, but may only take away from it.

Hollywood is the home of L.A.

All contingent meaning is grounded by consciousness. It does not make sense to ask whether ‘it is true’ that I am conscious; the sense of being conscious comes before the concept of truth. Nothing is added to the sense of ‘I am conscious’ by prefacing it with ‘it is true’, and nothing is taken away from the sense of being conscious by declaring it ‘false’.

You are not a body, but the capacity to use a body to mediate consciousness comes with the liability of feeling its pain.

The primary issue with AI is not what it can do, but the admission implied by anyone wanting AI to exist. It implies the desire not to reason, therefore a renunciation of rational consciousness and the associated moral status. This is of course only a formality at this stage, because the same admission was historically implied in many other ways.

The primary cause of institutional corruption is the ability of ‘officials’ to hide behind the institutional identity, which allows them to perpetrate institutional corruption and fulfil unethical orders with impunity. If they are doing nothing wrong they have no reason to hide their personal identity. Moreover, there is no right to anonymity if a person asserts authority over others. When dealing with officials we must first verify their identity and make them understand that they are always personally liable for any harm caused on behalf of their institution.

“Before we can proceed I need to verify your identity. Please state your name… now DOB… now your residential address… now please SMS me the photos of both sides of your driver’s licence, and then I will call you back to proceed with your enquiry.”