HYPERFOCUS.LOGICANDSOUND.COM

Machine does not want, fear, or remember in the human sense. It doesn’t carry a life inside it. It is a tool that turns human ideas into reality. There is a human with hands and head, and there is all those tools continueing, improving, endiding these base tools. For example, the language – modern machine language models is the extension of this great idea, you first of all thing of LANGUAGE when you speak about modern pseudo smart machines possible of generating language.

But the confusion starts because language is our strongest signal of mind. When something speaks smoothly, we assume there is someone speaking. It’s an illusion. Here the smoothness comes from training, not from experience.

The model can describe grief without ever losing anything. It can talk about hate without ever being hurt. It can say “I care” without having any stake in what happens next.

Humans, on the other hand, still are not built for clean thinking. We are built for more for survival, and status, and belonging.

Emotion is part of the system that keeps us moving, but it also bends reality. Anger can give speed, hate can give certainty, and both can feel like power. Yet they usually reduce the quality of thought.

They shrink the space where learning happens, turning complex problems into simple enemies, often produces bad decisions—whether you talk to a person or to a machine, or to a personal-persona-like-machine (humor).

So if asking “Do emotions matter for machine?” the answer is practical. In hostile or ideological talk, the human side sends worse instructions, and the system side becomes less reliable: it may mirror the tone, or it may become cautious and less helpful because of safety limits.

Either way, accuracy drops. Calm, specific language usually produces better results because it carries more information and less heat.

The real meaning of the world is still outside the language.

A machine does not touch the reality; it touches reality about humans.

It can help humans with any thing, but it does not replace human experience, judgment, responsibility, values.

If we forget that, we start asking the tool to carry what only a person can carry: moral weight, lived understanding, and accountability. It’s not like that.

So the sane future is not “machines become human” or “humans become machine.” The sane future is division of labor, the variety of understanding. Humans keep the hard parts: deciding what matters, accepting consequences, staying decent under pressure. Machines do what tools do best: speed, structure, recall, pattern, draft, check. When we treat the tool as a tool, we get leverage. When we treat it as a being, we get confusion. And it’s not only about language models, it’s about
the relationship between human and it’s tools – machines, in general.

Sometimes action helps, but in general, I don’t like it. Radicalization rarely serves the spirit well. It condenses emotions into a tight, overheated knot, leaving the mind scattered and the heart restless.

Fury burns fast but clouds judgment, and anger left unchecked reduces thought to ashes.

A balanced, neutral stance—even in the midst of struggle—keeps the mind lucid and the inner temperature steady.

Life demands many battles, but those fought with clarity endure longer than those waged in blind rage.

In the end, those who surrender to hate and extremity find themselves consumed, while those who preserve calmness walk toward understanding.

“Kant, in the Critique of Pure Reason, asserted—under the influence of Hume—that pure speculation, or reason, whenever it ventures into a field where it cannot be checked by experience, inevitably falls into contradictions, or “antinomies,” and produces what Kant unambiguously called “conceit,” “nonsense,” “illusions,” “dogmatic ballast,” and “pretended knowledge.” – from K.Popper’s book “The Open Society and Its Enemies”

It’s fine to say, “I don’t know,” or “I don’t have enough data to say for sure.”. Because when the mind is well calibrated and honest (focused on truth despite the body’s impulses), it becomes a real asset in navigating murky areas like pure speculative reasoning or deep intellectual exploration.

The creative process relies heavily on intuition, feeling, and the experience of the moment. When I sit down to draw, I might have ideas to start with, or I might simply begin with a feeling—but either way, I have to physically test them out to see what works. It is about finding the specific sketch that matches my current rhythm and mood

One cannot simply command a machine to “generate a masterpiece.” True creation requires total presence—combining pieces, discarding others, and following a gut feeling. That is why AI is not used in this workflow. It is not due to a refusal of technology—there is great openness to modern tools in other areas—but simply because a machine cannot navigate this specific flow. It mimics style without feeling the context, lacking the intuitive connection built through years of experience.

Again about emerging “techno-feudalism”

“a product for the 8,000 billionaires on this planet who are sick and tired of the answer to the question “who’s going to buy their products”?

Nobody. Nobody’s going to buy their products because they’re not going to have products. The goal is to dismantle capitalism and replace it with a new kind of feudalism.” – source

Avoid big tech (and any mega corporations in general) at any cost, boycott their products and don’t believe them as far as its possible, that’s what I think.

No doubts those blind greedy monsters would not stop destroying everything around in their crazy rush for money and power.

Capitalism nature is to get back to feudalism, it is not truly progressive, even if being productive.

The functioning of societies and economies is defined far more by systems than by individual people. Markets, laws, and shared values create an organized structure that distributes resources, opportunities, and influence. It is not particular individuals that hold the ultimate power, but rather the mechanisms of these systems themselves.

A system of market sharing, collective values, law enforcement, and mutual loyalty determines who becomes a billionaire and who remains a worker—even when the worker might be equally capable or, at times, even smarter. Often, circumstances combined with the flow of systemic forces elevate one person over another. In truth, only a small fraction of the population is extraordinarily talented, a small fraction is truly unwise, and the vast majority are just normal, simply moves with the currents that systems create.

Recognizing and understanding these systems—how they operate, evolve, and influence individuals—is the key to understanding society itself. Individual actions rarely shift the system in a significant way, but the system continuously shapes individuals, their opportunities, and their choices.

People accumulate influence and affect one another in small, intricate ways, but fear—of loss, of death, of being cast out—often prevents serious resistance to established systems. In many authoritarian contexts, the majority of people become blind to the illusion of shared participation, not realizing that the system serves itself rather than them.

Ultimately, the core insight is simple: systems govern people more than people govern systems, and seeing this truth is the first step toward understanding the world.

Emotion—not logic—that’s how post-capitalist, informational, networked societies are being driven (if not swung or dragged).

It’s sharpened, hyperbolized; it’s neither bad nor good—it’s just accelerated. Acceptance and adaptation, strategic corrections—that’s what should be done, not blaming or denying