>>780319how in-depth do you actually have to be though? it's not rocket science, it goes a little without saying. I struggle to find the words a little and not necessarily the most articulate but the most eloquent. I am not a world class writer here or academic.
I know I will just be ridiculed and laughed at regardless. There is a small spectrum of acceptable opinion and public discourse which is condoned or even allowed, and sure very lively debate can be encouraged within the spectrum but it's still very limiting. We almost have thought crimes, doublethink.
Here is the inside mainframe of a computer next to a picture looking down at an ancient city. Is further conjecture really necessary?
I think what you're asking (in particular out of everyone else) is you are expecting me to go in depth and make a detailed assessment on par with academia (because, I shouldn't think freely on my own so much; and instead get gridlocked by institutional biases) about the conjecture and obvious relationship between society serving or acting as the basis of an elaborate and grand complex system, and how that is also comparable to a computer program. Since computer programs rely on systems in essence as well. Correct me if I am wrong
I appreciate not calling me schizo though I guess and trying to threaten me with coercion the likes of, oh, I don't know, I deserve to be locked up in an institution against my will.
This was mostly a joke anyway, and I was just trying to have fun. It's a sad state of affairs that philosophy is so dejected by double think and thought policing.