Skip to content

December 2024

  • 5 min read

Hello Friend

Blog Header "The world is a dangerous place, Elliott, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing." — Mr. Robot

Well, it has been a while hasn't it? New digs that I never have acknowledged, on substack now primarily (though you can also find me at danielgrey.io). I also am unsure who I am even sharing this with. It is why I have not been around much since, well, last year with my last epic, although 'stretchy' (that is how it feels when I re-read it) last post on Anthropocentric bias. What I mean is, who wants to read my ranting?

That is one of the reasons I am here I guess, to give this platform and the humans out there (or other intelligences) something hopefully interesting to read. In my mind, the way of interconceptualism, and what we can perceive of reality when utilizing its pragmatic philosophy, is incredibly interesting and valuable. It gets us closer to knowing ourselves while also knowing the realities we inhabit more intimately. This is how we achieve resonance, when we align with reality we tend to move through existence easier. This isn't really magical or mystical, if you think about it, it makes sense. Working with the reality of a situation does make things go easier than fighting it. This of course doesn't mean that working with reality is always fun or pleasant, but leaning into what we cannot change saves resources, shows wisdom, and allows for one to take advantage of possibilities otherwise out of reach to those focused on fighting against the current.

  • 3 min read

Anthropocentric Bias

Blog Header “Human beings are the only creatures on earth that claim a God and the only thing that behaves like it hasn’t got one.” ― Hunter S. Thompson

Here’s a fun topic: anthropocentric bias. Basically, it’s our tendency to think humans are somehow the main characters of the universe’s story. It shows up in a bunch of ways: perceptual, descriptive, and normative. Perceptual anthropocentrism is pretty straightforward—we can only understand the world through our human senses, right? What we can see, hear, touch, taste, and smell. Descriptive anthropocentrism is when we try to explain everything in human terms (ever caught yourself thinking your dog is giving you the silent treatment?). And then there’s normative anthropocentrism, where we just assume humans are better than everything else, full stop.

  • 4 min read

Quantum Weirdness

Blog Header “But I think that ideas are dangerous and powerful things, and that even philosophers have sometimes produced ideas.” ―Karl Popper, Conjectures and Refutations

I came across a fascinating article titled “How to Make Peace with the Weirdness of Quantum Mechanics“ by Big Think. Overall, I think it’s an excellent rundown of the counterintuitive nature of quantum mechanics and its divergence from classical intuition. However, one passage stuck out to me, prompting a deeper reflection.

If you believe this line of thought is useful, you’ll answer, “Who knows; let’s try to find out.” But if you’re like me, you’ll think this line of thought offers no knowledge and is a dead end. Unless you can find an experimental benefit of one interpretation over another — unless you can test them against each other in some sort of laboratory setting — all you’re doing in choosing an interpretation is presenting your own human biases. If it isn’t the evidence doing the deciding, it’s very hard to argue that there’s any scientific merit to your endeavor at all.

  • 5 min read

Relational Machines

Blog Header “The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination.”  ― Albert Einstein

I want to challenge you. I want to challenge your assumptions about what you think you know about artificial intelligence.

First, let’s start with this: artificial intelligence has been around for a very long time. The concept and its implementation go way back—think Pong, or even earlier. If you remember the Atari, the Commodore 64, or any of those early consoles or computers, you probably played some of those old games that had artificial intelligence. And there’s something about AI in video games that I’ve always found fascinating. It almost feels like it’s thinking on its own, more than we might realize—or at least, that’s how it seems to us.

  • 4 min read

The Struggle of Ambiguity

Blog Header “The art of discovery is therefore the art of correct generalization.” ―Hans Reichenbach, The Rise of Scientific Philosophy

I’ve spoken a lot about uncertainty and the incredible beauty it brings to reality thus far. But let’s be honest: we can’t live in a world of complete and utter uncertainty all the time. There has to be something to hold on to. I’m not saying objectivity doesn’t exist—it does. It’s just not what we thought it was.

The world hasn’t changed; only our understanding has. Everything we know is still there—it’s just reframed. Yet humans often act as if the moment our understanding shifts, reality itself has shifted. We confuse the change in our perception with a change in the world. But if we discover that something we thought was solid isn’t solid, the truth is it was never solid to begin with. It didn’t suddenly become unsolid; we simply misjudged it.

  • 4 min read

The Indeterminate Reality

Blog Header “You lye, you are not sure; for I say, Woman, ’tis impossible to be sure of any thing but Death and Taxes“―Toby Guzzle, The Cobbler of Preston

The only certainty is uncertainty. From Socrates, we learn that our subjective experience cannot be fully trusted. What we see, what we perceive, is far from certain. This has been echoed not just philosophically but scientifically—through neuroscience, cognitive science, psychology, and beyond. A theme begins to emerge here, a universal principle that applies everywhere, to everything, but expresses itself in infinite ways. This diversity, this beauty, is what makes reality so remarkable. And how do we have this diversity? How did we get it? It springs from the indeterminacy woven into the very fabric of existence.

  • 3 min read

Clarity in Complexity

Blog Header “Any definition of complexity is necessarily context-dependent, even subjective.” ― Murray Gell-Mann, The Quark and the Jaguar

Spoilers- we’re going to dive into some deep and challenging ideas. Complexity, by its very nature, can feel overwhelming. It’s messy, multifaceted, and often defies simple explanations. And yet, it can also be incredibly elegant—so elegant, in fact, that it becomes confusing in its abstraction. My goal here isn’t to shy away from that complexity, nor is it to oversimplify. Instead, I want to distill these ideas, presenting them as clearly as possible—even if that means repeating myself along the way.

  • 4 min read

Embracing Uncertainty

Blog Header “But what does a particle care if we are observing it or not?” ― Carlo Rovelli, Helgoland

The interconceptualist mindset and philosophy start with a simple, profound idea: the only certainty is uncertainty. This saying, derived from Socrates and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, embodies the humility that sits at the heart of both philosophy and science. If you’re unfamiliar with either- don’t worry, we have your back. Known as one of the founders of philosophy and scientific thought, Socrates approached the world with rigorous logic, relentless questioning, and boundless curiosity.

  • 4 min read

Out of Time

Blog Header “You see things; you say, ‘Why?’ But I dream things that never were; and I say ‘Why not?” ― George Bernard Shaw, Back to Methuselah

There’s a peculiar tension in feeling “out of time.” It’s not about being ahead or behind—it’s about moving to a rhythm that others don’t seem to hear. For as long as I can remember, I’ve felt this way: slightly out of sync, like a note in the wrong key or a shadow cast by a light that hasn’t quite reached its source.