Nostr notes by alisson

Nostr event nevent1qqs2st7tj8hcwdl3nlkzxslw53ranr3phjr5mzvj76pjs9hc9zurg8gzyzu2fz5qlqs0zd9lttz76gjrhyl04ff7jqtca3gt9szj93dt6wklu7tskfd

2026-03-27T13:16:24Z

Good Morning #Nostr ☕️⚡️

@nprofile…gxxv sou um forte fã do senhor e admirador do seu ...

2026-01-04T00:14:22Z

In reply to nevent1q…6yql
_________________________

nprofile1qqs0t5xsejnf46pzr0nrs387wwgrk4gsn8pj76xqzafh2f7hr983rfcprdmhxue69uhkummnw3ezuumtd968xmewvf6hx6twv4ehxqgjwaehxw309ac82unsd3jhqct89ejhx58gxxv (nprofile…gxxv) sou um forte fã do senhor e admirador do seu produto intelectual. Eu não sou de pedir essas coisas mas eu também prefiro arriscar; o senhor me concederia a honra de ser meu seguidor aqui no Nostr?

Inclusive acompanho o Hindemburg Melão a mais de 1 ano, Hindemburg me ajudou a desenvolver meu intelecto garantindo liberdade de mente e a descobrir que tenho +165 de QI. E o senhor me ajudou a ter liberdade sobre meu patrimônio tirando o governo do meu dinheiro e tirando meu bitcoin das corretoras. Not your keys not your coins.

Além disso estou escrevendo artigos inspirados no senhor e no Hindemburg, ainda não publiquei eles, mas aqui na minha conta já se encontra alguns que escrevi sobre o que vejo no mundo. ☕️⚡️

Minha honra! Grande satisfação encontrar o senhor aqui!

2026-01-04T00:01:27Z

In reply to nevent1q…6yql
_________________________

Minha honra! Grande satisfação encontrar o senhor aqui!

Happy New Year 🍾☕️ Welcome to 2026 🎁⚡️ #nostr ...

2026-01-01T04:34:42Z

Happy New Year 🍾☕️
Welcome to 2026 🎁⚡️
#nostr #coffee #zap #2026

Well… If even science lies sometimes, imagine how often the ...

2025-12-27T18:19:09Z

Well… If even science lies sometimes, imagine how often the government does this. ☕️⚡️
#nostr #science #true #coffee #zap #information #money #currency #policy #government

quoting
naddr1qq…p9sj

Knowledge: The Primordial Language of Human Experience

Knowledge, or Original Knowing, is interpreted as the innate and natural process of absorbing reality. It manifests through observation, deduction, and the intuitive recognition of axioms perceived in the world:

Observation: the empirical and attentive perception of phenomena. Deduction: the logical and natural inference drawn from observations. Observed Axioms: the intuitive recognition of self-evident truths perceived in reality — the basis of thought.

This primary knowledge is our initial language for interacting with and understanding the world. It was absorbed and communicated organically, without the urgency of extreme codification. It follows that Knowledge — the simple “knowing” through intuition and direct experience — is the original language of humankind.

Science: A Syntax of Communication, Rigor, and Active Correction

Science emerges as an evolutionary response to two crucial needs in the transmission of knowledge: falsifiability and reproducibility, in addition to the need for protection against error.

The goal of Science is to develop mathematical models with few parameters that accurately describe all — or at least most — phenomena of a given class, and to harmonize, as much as possible, all models that describe phenomena of different classes, preserving the internal consistency of a general theory that unifies these models.

The transition from Knowledge (intuition) to Science (syntax) is marked by the development of:

Symbolic Notation: the creation of symbols, formulas, and numbers to encode knowledge precisely. Formal Methodology: the emergence of rules governing how knowledge must be scientifically written, tested, and communicated.

The Dual Role of Science

Science is the set of rules — the grammar — that formalizes Original Knowledge. It fulfills a dual role:

Tool of Rigor (Vehicle): it formalizes and guarantees the quality and universality of knowledge in scientific form. Falsifiability and reproducibility act as mechanisms for verifying scientific syntax, testing whether the created structure (model, formula, theory) truly represents reality. Corrective Mechanism (Engine): the syntactic structure itself imposes a discipline of thought that refines the scientific writing of knowledge. Error is detected when the formula does not converge with the phenomenon, and the system self-adjusts. Science, therefore, does not “discover” truth by itself — it writes knowledge and adjusts the writing until the representation is consistent with reality.

The Scientific Language as a Tool for Organization and Expansion

The strength of Science lies in its ability to organize thought and reveal the invisible. With intelligence, man can use this syntax to structure ideas, create conceptual relations, and “zoom in” on reality — perceiving the micro, the distant, and the abstract.

The heuristic and creative power of Science does not stem from the syntax itself, but from the intelligent use of that syntax as a tool for organization and testing. The rigorous structure forces the mind to expose gaps, inconsistencies, and new possibilities. Thus, intelligence makes discoveries by reorganizing symbols that, when validated by experience, become true knowledge.

In this way, Science does not transcend its nature as a representational language — it expands it through human reasoning, functioning as a conceptual magnifying lens capable of predicting and identifying phenomena not yet observed.

Scientific Neology and Conceptual Creation

Science does not possess the capacity to “discover,” for its nature is linguistic. The researcher creates conceptual neologisms when existing vocabulary is insufficient to express new perceptions of reality. Just as a living language creates new words, Science is compelled to create new symbols and theories when the observed world demands new forms of expression.

The invention of terms such as black hole, subatomic particle, or quantum field does not merely reveal new objects but new ways of seeing. These concepts are not born from nothing — they are the result of the intelligent reorganization of scientific syntax to coherently explain what was previously beyond the reach of Original Knowledge.

Poincaré and the Choice of Language

As Henri Poincaré stated:

“When the mathematician enunciates an axiom, he does not assert a truth of nature, but chooses a convenient language. Experience only intervenes to show that this language is the most adequate for our perception of space.”

Experience, therefore, is the arbiter that decides whether the created syntax correctly describes reality. Science is the language — experience is the judge.

The Dialectical Relationship: Syntax and Intuition

The distinction between Primordial Knowledge and Scientific Syntax is not one of separation, but of dialogue.

The methodological rigor of Science imposes clarity and discipline to establish a faithful representation of reality — it is also a workshop where human thought can be refined and elevated.

The Pedagogical Critique: The Error of Inversion

The greatest error of modern pedagogy is attempting to teach primordial knowledge through syntax before developing intuition.

Teaching formulas and methods without first awakening the capacity to observe, deduce, and imagine is to suffocate the source of knowledge. Science must come after insight — as the rigorous translation of what has already been intuitively understood.

Without this order, one forms an individual who repeats but does not understand; calculates but does not think — merely an echo.

The Social Nature of the Scientific Language

The validity of Science is determined not only by the internal coherence of its grammar but also by social consensus. Like any language, it is alive — it depends on the community of “speakers”: scientists.

Consensus defines which “words” (theories), “dialects” (disciplines), and “syntactic rules” (methods) are accepted. The rigor of Science is, therefore, also a social rigor — sustained by debate, critique, and collective validation.

However, the popular concept of what science is remains illogical. The vast majority believe that science is knowledge or understanding, but far from it — science is a language created by human beings with the intention of representing observable phenomena.

Conclusion: The Language of Truth

Science is a language of rigor and an indispensable tool for organizing, correcting, and validating human knowledge. Its formulas do not create reality — but they ensure that what has been written, and at times what has been thought, represents it with precision.

It is the vehicle that seeks to transport knowledge accurately, and through its logical organization, expands the horizon of the human mind. True knowledge is born from observation, intuition, and imagination — but it is Science, as a language, that makes it reproducible, modifiable, verifiable, and universal.

Yet, being a language that seeks to represent knowledge, it is logical to conclude that science will never be able to represent 100% of reality, for not all variables participating in an event can be sufficiently observed to enter this syntax. Nonetheless, it succeeds in closely imitating phenomena, and through this imitation, we can modify accessible variables to uncover new reactions of nature and make new discoveries through these modifications.

Through it, humanity not only speaks about the world — it speaks with the world, testing, correcting, and perfecting the grammar of reality.

GM ☕️⚡️ #nostr #coffee #zap #gm

2025-12-27T18:11:53Z

GM ☕️⚡️
#nostr #coffee #zap #gm

😂😂😂😂

2025-12-26T02:55:43Z

In reply to nevent1q…gc5t
_________________________

😂😂😂😂

What is the ultimate luxury status symbol? Once upon a time it ...

2025-12-26T02:35:47Z

What is the ultimate luxury status symbol? Once upon a time it may have been a sports car or a flashy watch.
But with soaring costs of living, perhaps the most serious flex of wealth is something once considered a natural part of life: Family. ☕️⚡️🎄

#family #luxury #status #nostr #nostrfamily #coffee #zap #christmass

The work of Satoshi Nakamoto only became valid and valuable ...

2025-12-25T16:51:51Z

The work of Satoshi Nakamoto only became valid and valuable because he disappeared. ☕️⚡️🎄

The legitimacy of Bitcoin does not come from a founding authority, but from the fact that it continues to function without its founder.

Ideas centralized in people tend to become corrupted when: 1) the author grows old, 2) changes interests, 3) suffers political or economic pressure, 4) begins to “over-explain” their own work.

This applies to political, religious, technological, and even philosophical systems. The continuous presence of the author tends to turn the idea back into an instrument of power. And “power” is the ability to influence, guide, govern, and determine the future of one or more people.

The disappearance of the author prevents this capture. Bitcoin cannot be “updated by Satoshi.”

#satoshi #nakamoto #bitcoin #btc #coffee #zap #nostr #information #currecy #decentralization #politic #christmas #internet #satoshinakamoto #philosophy #tech

No great idea or project can truly change the entire world for ...

2025-12-25T16:36:50Z

No great idea or project can truly change the entire world for the better—at best, it reshapes a small fragment of it, and even that is vulnerable to corruption. ☕️⚡️🎄

#nostr #govern #politc #coffee #zap #christmas

When you see some crying alone, do not interfere in any way: they ...

2025-12-25T16:07:10Z

When you see some crying alone, do not interfere in any way: they are attending a lesson. ☕️⚡️🎄

#nostr #christmas #information #coffee #zap

Intelligence is a gun #naddr1qq…pa7q

2025-12-24T18:24:15Z

Intelligence is a gun

quoting
naddr1qq…pa7q

Enéas Carneiro stated that “the difference between a janitor and an astrophysicist lies in the amount of information.” The phrase reflects the spirit of the 1980s and 1990s, when it was believed that free access to knowledge — driven by the internet — would raise the average intellectual level of society.

The premise failed.

It was expected that, with easier access to knowledge, people would place greater value on education, become more intelligent, and that we would have a society as prosperous as the present one—a view even held by Hindemburg Melão Jr., who later acknowledged that the masses did not develop this perspective.

Information became abundant and accessible; the capacity to process it is innate, and the less capable an individual is, the less accurate is the truth he discovers. Today, individuals in radically different occupations have access to the same sources. What separates them is not the available information, but the cognitive capacity to operate it at abstract, deep, and integrated levels.

Information is not intelligence.

Intelligence is the capacity to generate and manipulate models of information.

Two individuals can start from the same data and arrive at completely different results. This occurs because cognitive abilities — innate, and sometimes refined — vary significantly. IQ, although an imperfect calculation, remains a functional indicator of this variation.

To claim that a janitor with an IQ of 90 can achieve the same theoretical performance in astrophysics as an astrophysicist with an IQ of 145 is as absurd as defending competitive equality between an athlete who is 1.40m tall and another who is 2.00m tall in professional basketball.

Exceptions may sometimes exist. Individuals of exceptional intelligence may occupy positions incompatible with their capacities due to social or personal contingencies — such as Christopher Langan, estimated to have an IQ of 195, considered one of the most intelligent men in the USA, who worked as a nightclub bouncer. This does not invalidate the rule; it merely demonstrates that intellectual capacity and social position do not always coincide, either briefly or for long periods when it is a personal decision.

The central error of society was to confuse equality of access with equality of capacity. Information has been democratized. But it is not possible to alter someone’s cognitive capacity.

Yes: people are better than others.

The world advances through brains of higher quality, not through those that are greater in quantity.

The brain is a system of calculation. Every thought, decision, learning process, or creation results from internal operations — a mathematics not yet formalized and incompatible with current syntax. The brain is an extreme processing machine, and some are objectively more powerful than others.

Each brain has a unique structure and, therefore, specific inclinations: physics, painting, music, logic, abstraction. No brain is repeated. Therefore, no set of attributes is repeated. Even if two individuals reach the same result, the cognitive path taken to reach it is always exclusive.

What differentiates individuals is not only the result, but the invisible trajectory of thought — impossible to observe, copy, or reproduce. This is what makes each human a unique universe.

However, not all mental universes have the same operational value in the real world. Some produce or discover more accurate truths, produce more beauty, and more progress. The greater the cognitive capacity, the greater the production of these structures.

This is genius.

☕️⚡️🎄Marry Christmas from #Brazil #Nostr #christmas ...

2025-12-24T16:11:07Z

☕️⚡️🎄Marry Christmas from #Brazil

#Nostr #christmas #santa #nostrfamily #information #2026 #zap #coffee #viral

☕️⚡️🎄Marry Christmas #Nostr #christmas #santa ...

2025-12-24T16:04:36Z

☕️⚡️🎄Marry Christmas #Nostr

#christmas #santa #nostrfamily #information #2026 #zap #coffee #viral

The progress of world is produced by the most capable brains, not ...

2025-12-24T05:47:34Z

The progress of world is produced by the most capable brains, not by the number of informed people. For this reason, individuals starting from the same data may arrive identical or radically different results. ☕️⚡️🎅

#GM #coffee #zap #information #nostr #society #intelligence #iq

GM☕️⚡️🎅 Society erred by confusing equality of access ...

2025-12-23T17:47:40Z

GM☕️⚡️🎅
Society erred by confusing equality of access to information with equality of capacity to handle information. Information has become abundant; intelligence remains an innate and individual condition.

#GM #coffee #zap #information #nostr #society #intelligence #iq

GM☕️⚡️🎅. Do we have free will? All things are ...

2025-12-22T17:16:00Z

GM☕️⚡️🎅. Do we have free will? All things are intelligible, if this is true, then someone's free will is conditioned on how intelligent that person can be.
Article:

quoting nevent1q…nvxw

Introduction

Every reality seems, at first glance, intelligible and ordered. Still, what truly distinguishes the human being from an informational machine is intelligence — the capacity to manipulate knowledge creatively. Raw knowledge, by itself, is static: collections of data, organized or not. Intelligence, however, takes us beyond mere accumulation of information. It is what allows us to alter, add, or remove variables in our world models, discovering new phenomena, deducing hidden possibilities, and transforming the already known into fertile ground for innovation.

For example, when we look at a circular blue star, our senses acquire an unmistakable datum. But it is intelligence that makes us suppose the possibility of a circular yellow star, even if we have never seen it. It is the engine that drives us to extract from static observation (“round star, blue in color”) the dynamic hypothesis (“could there then be a round yellow star?”). In short, intelligence is the road along which knowledge walks: without it, we would be like inert records; with it, we advance toward creative horizons. In this sense, one may assert that “knowledge itself is static, while the process of manipulating knowledge is dynamic.”

However, both knowledge and intelligence function better within organized systems. Every structured system of thought demands order: without organization, we have only a random collection of ideas. Aristotle taught that to know is more than to accumulate; it is to order and understand. Paradoxically, though, most people seem to refuse this mental organization. By way of illustration, let us check everyday life: before making the most trivial decisions — “Whom shall I vote for? Is that individual pleasant or unpleasant?” — the instinctive tendency of many is to seek ready-made answers from others. This outsourcing of thought is a form of intellectual laziness, and it gravely compromises the individual's sovereignty.

Intellectual Laziness, Mass Manipulation, and Polarization

When an individual prefers others to think for them, they surrender their autonomy. It is common to see people who, when faced with a personal or political problem, immediately ask someone else “What should I do?” and accept the answer without questioning — until that answer fails. This commonplace habit ranges from choosing lunch to making political decisions of great impact. For a long time, printed newspapers and television programs had almost absolute power to shape opinions because they presented themselves as quick-access means of information and offered the “solution” of informing what the truth was for nations; they literally suggest in a camouflaged voice “you are so weak that you are willing to believe anything someone says on television.” Elections, for example, have been decided by the speeches and images the media present to us: not because voters were ill-intentioned, but because they simply did not want to think. They preferred to hand over their capacity for judgment to presenters and journalists, thereby failing to genuinely feed a critical mind and reach an independent conclusion about which candidate to vote for.

When the citizen does not cultivate original critical thinking, they begin to consume superficial or manipulated information. Media outlets produce for them a “diet” of poorly nutritious data: jokes, sensationalist headlines, and content designed to entertain or alarm without clarifying usefulness. It is a vicious circle: the individual exerts effort only to assemble collections of data and repeat ready-made narratives and services, instead of structuring systems of knowledge that are truly intelligent and original. The result: TV series and programs can dominate national opinions, and more than 99% of the information transmitted by newspapers and social networks ceases to be objective truth, free from the biases of the informants' personal perspectives — it is built to manipulate the masses. Some time ago, few people and governments understood that by not questioning, we are all hostages to a daily programming that always aims at a hidden objective: influencing voting, consumption, or opinion decisions.

Today, this influence has taken on new faces. Digital influencers have become even more powerful than the TV anchors of the past. Each influencer adopts a persona close to the public, communicating in a familiar language that creates strong identification. They do not deliver raw data; they deliver a perspective — their own opinion or the message their sponsors wish to propagate. Therefore, their followers do not develop critical thinking but share a collective belief, and they like it because the information arrives ready-made and they do not need to spend time analyzing data to reach their own conclusion and decide for themselves whether to act.

When an influencer commits inaccuracies or spreads misinformation, followers tend to defend them blindly or attack a chosen victim. This is how phenomena like the cancellation of reputations arise: an influencer can recontextualize a fact — omitting aspects or manipulating narratives — to incite their followers to “demand justice” against someone. The influenced masses then begin to stone that person online, often without knowing why or without having knowledge beyond the information they believe to be the true perspective on a given scenario. It is a phenomenon of polarization: on one side, followers of an influencer “accuse” and attack; on the other, the masses mobilized by another influencer “defend” the target, accusing the first group of injustice. In this game, political issues are also grouped into monolithic blocks: those influenced by more “progressive” voices will adopt a certain left-wing ideology, while those who follow more “conservative” opinion leaders will align to the right.

However, amid this chaos of ready-made opinions and polarizations, a small minority that thinks genuinely still exists. A tiny handful of individuals, separated by a literal distance that prevents a single thought from uniting the masses, truly intellectual and autonomous, gather “pure” information — free from the interests of those who pay the media or impose narratives — and construct original reasoning. But they are so few and isolated that their ideas rarely gain the power to influence large audiences. Thus, polarization remains: on the one hand, those who think without questioning yield to the chorus of the crowd; on the other, a few outlier thinkers try to illuminate different paths, almost always without success in altering the course of the masses.

The underlying reason for all this is clear: people do not want to think. If the people avoid thinking for themselves, they cannot exercise true mastery over their own lives. Deprived of this intellectual sovereignty, individuals come to obey those who accept thinking for them. And in that vacuum of autonomy, the true rulers emerge. The common person, out of laziness or complacency, voluntarily gives up their freedom of judgment to those who hold the power of communication — first to influencers, then to politicians and governments.

Individual Sovereignty and State Power

When someone ceases to be master of their ideas, space opens for another to assume their place of command. At the threshold of social power stands the government, which has seemingly unlimited resources: taxes, money and laws. The State motivates people's work through financial rewards, but in doing so, it entirely subordinates their wills. In exchange for a salary — enough to survive, of course, after taxes and fees — the individual becomes a voluntary slave to a routine of memorization and repetition. It is as if the citizen can only eat and remain alive while doing what they are told: produce well, repeat well, memorize well, and they will receive some return; otherwise, survival is threatened. This dynamic converts trust in the government into collateral for currency and power. When minds cease to be sovereign over themselves, those who seduce determine the services they must perform; as my mother used to say, “he who does not govern himself is governed by others.”

It is this situation that leads me to question and assert something that seems paradoxical: how can the Constitution say that all power emanates from the people if the people have voluntarily transferred their sovereignty to those who think for them? Once in power, of course, the government ensures that things remain this way to stay in power (power is the capacity to be sovereign over someone else's will beyond one's own will). Like the reign of a prince who does not wish to abdicate, it invests in limiting access to independent information. It sponsors an educational system that is incomplete and often incoherent. Not by chance, in Brazil, a large proportion of teachers assume positions without adequate preparation, generating students who are uncritical; students who merely reproduce prefabricated ideas instead of questioning them.

And what happens to those who insist on thinking for themselves? There are two main destinies: they are either swallowed by the system — silenced, discredited, or discouraged — or they prosper individually to the point of leaving the country where they were born. Some find fame by denouncing inconvenient truths and begin to disseminate genuine knowledge; others simply depart, taking their ideas to new audiences. The former can, on the margins, save some free souls, keeping the flame of reflection alive; the latter leave a void among the masses but carry with them the hope of higher thinking.

Consider this analogy: if the people possess their own sword, why then do they accept obeying a king who decides who lives and who dies? The answer lies in belief. The people believe that the king has power — and indeed, that power exists only because people believe in him. It is the thoughts ceded to the monarch that confer upon him his real authority. When the people hand over their capacity for decision to another, that other governs them. Therefore, I conclude: free will is a human responsibility, not something granted or denied by divine forces.

People are mistaken in thinking that freedom in their decisions is lacking because of a divine will or destiny. Generally, they project the cause of their choices onto the past or onto God, as if we were pieces moved only by external forces. In reality, the greatest influence on each person's choices is tied to their own intelligence and education.

Intelligence, Education, and the Development of Thought

How free we are in our decisions is intimately related to the quality of the intelligence we exercise. We do not deny that the past of ideas — philosophers like Plato, historical experiences, established theories — exerts some influence. However, for those who truly think, that influence is partial: the most brilliant human mind can see beyond the walls built by its predecessors.

Imagine a man with extraordinary intellectual capacity. He may consider all knowledge available today extremely impure, imprecise, or even laughable. He might find Tesla's ideas naive, or Plato's unreal — simply because his own vision of truth is as clear as that of any sage who has ever existed. Such an individual does not let himself be crushed by the dominant influence of the past, unlike the majority of humans today.

On the other hand, many do not train their minds. Why are people mentally lazy? In truth, we are all born with some potential for reasoning, but upbringing shapes us. If a child always grows up hearing ready-made answers and reproducing knowledge mechanically, they never develop the curiosity to question. Someone who, when facing problems, receives only easy solutions learns to expect pre-fabricated answers, creating a habit of intellectual reproduction. This limitation is only overcome by the intellect itself: individuals with high IQ may suffer this influence of repetition up to a point, but at some point those with intelligence above roughly 130 to 145 will decipher the world for themselves and begin to formulate original understandings, however modest they may be.

Even among the very intelligent, the pattern is similar: people with IQ between 145 and 170 suffer less from this intellectual inertia, but they can still absorb ready-made concepts. Above 170, more genuine thinkers already appear, although even they carry fragments of others' mistaken views. There are reports of geniuses with an IQ of 247 — as Albert Einstein's is estimated to be — who made inaccuracies due to an intellectual arrogance developed over time. In those moments, the tone of ideas becomes confused: a genius's conclusions can equate to those of a fool when moved by arrogance, becoming mere personal opinions, not facts. Intuitively, I risk saying that someone with an IQ above 290 would, by means of moral logic, be less subject to this trap of arrogance; however, even common geniuses can resist it depending on how they were educated and the challenges they faced.

Furthermore: most complex questions admit multiple answers, all dependent on context. The “absolute” answer would therefore be a common systematization that encompassed all those possibilities. Even if the answers appear diverse, we could organize them into a standardized system or into several interrelated systems, according to the reasoning that originated them. However, if the conceptual bases are fragile, this union does not occur, and fragmentation persists.

It is worth noting that it is not only negligent education that impairs free reflection. People with lower innate intellectual capacities tend, statistically, to have less curiosity and willingness to immerse themselves in knowledge. In addition, severe physical disabilities — such as blindness or deafness — create real barriers to access to information. The deaf, for example, live in a world of images and sensations and therefore can still deduce much by direct observation; the blind, deprived of sight, are restricted to what others tell them. Braille books exist, but they are few and often of limited content. In these conditions, both have free will, of course, but in practice they suffer greater external influence, as they depend on others to obtain most information. The result is that, when adequate inclusion measures are lacking, these individuals are at greater risk of having their thinking manipulated or of failing to fully develop their own ideas.

Still, we are not saying that IQ measures courage or conscious resistance to laziness. On the contrary: as IQ increases, the disposition and intellectual curiosity naturally grow as well. It is an inner impulse, not a calculated effort. The more intelligent individual tends to resist ignorance spontaneously and demands more of himself in terms of the search for knowledge.

Books, Bitcoin, and Other Possibilities for Freedom

Once governments dominate the scenario because the people think little, the next question is how to recover independence of thought. Some turn to technological and decentralized solutions: cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin, social networks without censorship or without oversight by large corporations like Nostr. These are tools that can circumvent traditional government control, giving the individual means to act without needing state approval. However, it is observed that many who criticize the government and want to free themselves from it do not even know why they feel that way. If they knew, the government would no longer think for them but would still think for others, and they would perceive and see it.

Governments, for their part, take advantage of the passive nature of much of the population. They offer omnipresent social services — health, education, transport, benefits — precisely because they know that the majority do not make themselves available to seek alternative and private solutions. This paternalism gives them more influence: the citizen becomes accustomed to depending on the State to solve even simple problems, which reinforces their surrender of thought.

Digital influence also exploits this. When an influencer uses the common indignation of the masses, they speak to an innate moral sense of the population, deliberately shared, and instigate people. If skilled at provoking these emotions and extracting the desired reactions, they can even temporarily capture audiences that were not originally theirs. But that conquest is fragile: in essence, they merely channel a momentary collective emotion; they do not build authentic thought, they only increase the power of one side of a given polarization.

The central point remains: yes, free will exists. Every human being has, in principle, the capacity to decide their own course. However, in practice, many limit this free will by lack of mental exercise. They give up freedom when they refuse the effort to learn and to question. Failing to seek knowledge — not only to memorize but to understand deeply and even to modify concepts — is the greatest self-impediment to free will.

Therefore, the answer to the initial question is affirmative and complex: free will exists, but it depends on us using it. It is worth remembering the lessons of the ancient thinkers: the truly free man is the one who governs himself by reason, instead of being governed by the wills of others. Only he, by keeping his thought in his own hands, will be sovereign over his life — and not merely a spectator on a stage that others decide.

#InformationUniverse #FreeWill #PostHuman #HumanMind #PlatosCave #ComparativeReligion #Philosophy #Existentialism #TheInternet #Coliseum #NarrativeWarfare #AttentionEconomy #Decentralization #ProtocolOverPeople #Nostr #NostrFamily #PatternRecognition #CosmicTruth

#renato38

2025-12-21T20:35:49Z

In reply to nevent1q…0uqc
_________________________

#renato38

Minha honra magnata! Eu também sou novo aqui no Nostr, sou um ...

2025-12-21T20:34:32Z

In reply to nevent1q…j8af
_________________________

Minha honra magnata! Eu também sou novo aqui no Nostr, sou um fã de longa data, seria pedir muito ter a graça desse perfil do 38tão me seguir?

In 2026, #Brazil will hold presidential #elections . I am ...

2025-12-21T20:30:40Z

In 2026, #Brazil will hold presidential #elections .

I am #Brazilian , #conservative , and #right-wing , and what I state here are facts, not opinions.

#Bolsonaro was a #president with publicly noble principles, but his cowardice became a crime of qualified cowardice. He himself said that they were at #war against the left, and the penalty for the #crime of qualified cowardice is #death by firing squad.

Supporters of January 8 are citizens who were unjustly arrested for exercising their right to #freedom of #expression during a demonstration. When Bolsonaro was summoned to testify, he did not demand the release of the citizens arrested because of their expressions and even handed over to the Supreme Federal Court (STF) the records of all citizens who made any financial donation to him via PIX. In addition, Bolsonaro issued a decree that allows #Brazilians to purchase #firearms, but his #decree does not overturn Lula’s #law that #disarms the Brazilian population.

Bolsonaro was merely an anesthesia for the Brazilian Right, because he lacked the necessary intensity and manliness to properly exercise the office of the presidency.
#nostr #politic #asknostr #liberty #system #coffeechain #coffee #zapathon #zap #notice #

GM☕️⚡️ It's been about 2 weeks since I started using ...

2025-12-21T13:16:41Z

GM☕️⚡️ It's been about 2 weeks since I started using #Nostr if you like to develop original thoughts and present them follow me to raise the intellectual level of the network.
#zap #asknostr #coffee #intelligence #network #christmas #philosophy

Daniel Fraga (Brazil) bought Bitcoin and disappeared from the ...

2025-12-21T13:00:36Z

In reply to nevent1q…c0fu
_________________________

Daniel Fraga (Brazil) bought Bitcoin and disappeared from the radar. Maybe he's in Dubai, USA or London, who knows? Maybe he's a millionaire nomad, right? haha... I think about it. ☕️⚡️

I would rather be judged under a good law than by a good judge. I ...

2025-12-21T01:03:12Z

I would rather be judged under a good law than by a good judge.

I am Brazilian, and I know that in this country’s politics the judiciary means nothing. What really matters are personal connections—so much so that an illiterate person became president and even received an honorary doctorate.

Brazil ranks roughly between 70th and 80th in the world for average IQ, which is a terrible position. For these and other reasons, I want to move to another country.

☕️⚡️🇧🇷

#Brazil #EUA #world #liberty #nostr #coffee #zap

I Love Jesus Christ, Jesus saved me. #nostr #Jesus #liberty ...

2025-12-21T00:29:22Z

I Love Jesus Christ, Jesus saved me.
#nostr #Jesus #liberty #coffee #zap

Ask whatever you want and #Nostr users will answer ☕️⚡️ ...

2025-12-21T00:16:38Z

Ask whatever you want and #Nostr users will answer ☕️⚡️
#asknostr #coffee #zap #system

This universe is a vast system, and no system exists without an ...

2025-12-20T15:51:22Z

In reply to nevent1q…d9hl
_________________________

This universe is a vast system, and no system exists without an author. ☕️🔭⚡️
God is Real.
#God #system #nostr #universe #coffee

GN ☕️⚡️ #nostr #art #coffee #zap ...

2025-12-20T02:11:21Z

GN ☕️⚡️
#nostr #art #coffee #zap

down

2025-12-20T01:40:44Z

In reply to nevent1q…sl09
_________________________

down

GN ☕️⚡️ #nostr #zap

2025-12-20T01:34:34Z

GN ☕️⚡️
#nostr #zap

I know that few people here have studied IQ and intelligence, ...

2025-12-19T20:10:14Z

I know that few people here have studied IQ and intelligence, even so…

This man is one of the most intelligent people in the world. His true IQ is approximately 190–210 on a standard deviation of 16. What happens is that he adjusted the calculation to a standard deviation of 24, totaling 276 IQ, which inflates the result compared to the standardized deviation.

Hindemburg Melão Jr. has an IQ higher than his on the standard deviation of 16, totaling 233.33, which is much higher than 276 on the standard deviation of 24.

YoungHoon Kim is not the most intelligent, but he is one of the rare geniuses that appear on the face of the Earth. The problem is that his intellectual output is scarce, which leaves doubt as to whether his claimed IQ of 190–210 is a fraud or not.

Personally, I have an IQ of 170–185 on standard deviations of 15 and 16. I can inflate my result to 212 IQ simply by changing the deviation to 24.

#nostr #intelligence #iq #coffee #zap

GM ☕️⚡️. Another normal day watching the routine of an ...

2025-12-19T14:25:33Z

GM ☕️⚡️. Another normal day watching the routine of an abnormal government…
#nostr #bitcoin #coffee #zap

Nice! Reach comes from people, not infrastructure. Relays ...

2025-12-19T04:31:06Z

In reply to nevent1q…jka9
_________________________

Nice! Reach comes from people, not infrastructure. Relays decentralize storage; humans decentralize distribution. Nostr works because social graph > algorithms.

By the way, which client do you mainly use?☕️

Oh yes! I had forgotten this detail😅. I'm studying #Nostr ...

2025-12-19T03:53:03Z

In reply to nevent1q…49u4
_________________________

Oh yes! I had forgotten this detail😅. I'm studying #Nostr a little, I was about to comment on nip-65, but never mind 😅

I'm finding Nostr amazing, I'm already reducing my ...

2025-12-19T03:48:53Z

In reply to nevent1q…s5vd
_________________________

I'm finding Nostr amazing, I'm already reducing my exposure on popular social networks and joining #Nostr more and more. ☕️

But i’m thinking that the way relays work greatly harms the reach of a publication, it would be interesting to keep the connections like this but somehow make the publication also present in the relays that the author is not directly connected...

GN #nostr ☕ ⚡ 🎅 . Trump making a deal with Brazilian ...

2025-12-19T03:38:23Z

GN #nostr ☕ ⚡ 🎅 . Trump making a deal with Brazilian President Lula? Seriously? Everyone knows Lula will protect dictator Maduro again...

Was this supposed to be a joke, Mr. President Lula? To be a joke, it has to be funny. THIS IS WAR AND WAR IS NOT A JOKE.

Donald J. Trump (nprofile…mszy)
#liberty #venezuela #war #EUA #Trump #Brazil #bitccoin #coffee

As my mother used to say, “Those who do not govern themselves ...

2025-12-18T23:22:39Z

As my mother used to say, “Those who do not govern themselves are governed by others.”

The only thing I did not emphasize in this essay was that individuals with low intellectual capacity may also seek intellectual leadership because they realize that their own decisions are not as good as those of others, and not only because of laziness. Regardless, the individual is not sovereign over themselves.

#nostr #coffee #bitcoin #liberty

quoting
naddr1qv…kmus

Introduction

Every reality seems, at first glance, intelligible and ordered. Still, what truly distinguishes the human being from an informational machine is intelligence — the capacity to manipulate knowledge creatively. Raw knowledge, by itself, is static: collections of data, organized or not. Intelligence, however, takes us beyond mere accumulation of information. It is what allows us to alter, add, or remove variables in our world models, discovering new phenomena, deducing hidden possibilities, and transforming the already known into fertile ground for innovation.

For example, when we look at a circular blue star, our senses acquire an unmistakable datum. But it is intelligence that makes us suppose the possibility of a circular yellow star, even if we have never seen it. It is the engine that drives us to extract from static observation (“round star, blue in color”) the dynamic hypothesis (“could there then be a round yellow star?”). In short, intelligence is the road along which knowledge walks: without it, we would be like inert records; with it, we advance toward creative horizons. In this sense, one may assert that “knowledge itself is static, while the process of manipulating knowledge is dynamic.”

However, both knowledge and intelligence function better within organized systems. Every structured system of thought demands order: without organization, we have only a random collection of ideas. Aristotle taught that to know is more than to accumulate; it is to order and understand. Paradoxically, though, most people seem to refuse this mental organization. By way of illustration, let us check everyday life: before making the most trivial decisions — “Whom shall I vote for? Is that individual pleasant or unpleasant?” — the instinctive tendency of many is to seek ready-made answers from others. This outsourcing of thought is a form of intellectual laziness, and it gravely compromises the individual's sovereignty.

Intellectual Laziness, Mass Manipulation, and Polarization

When an individual prefers others to think for them, they surrender their autonomy. It is common to see people who, when faced with a personal or political problem, immediately ask someone else “What should I do?” and accept the answer without questioning — until that answer fails. This commonplace habit ranges from choosing lunch to making political decisions of great impact. For a long time, printed newspapers and television programs had almost absolute power to shape opinions because they presented themselves as quick-access means of information and offered the “solution” of informing what the truth was for nations; they literally suggest in a camouflaged voice “you are so weak that you are willing to believe anything someone says on television.” Elections, for example, have been decided by the speeches and images the media present to us: not because voters were ill-intentioned, but because they simply did not want to think. They preferred to hand over their capacity for judgment to presenters and journalists, thereby failing to genuinely feed a critical mind and reach an independent conclusion about which candidate to vote for.

When the citizen does not cultivate original critical thinking, they begin to consume superficial or manipulated information. Media outlets produce for them a “diet” of poorly nutritious data: jokes, sensationalist headlines, and content designed to entertain or alarm without clarifying usefulness. It is a vicious circle: the individual exerts effort only to assemble collections of data and repeat ready-made narratives and services, instead of structuring systems of knowledge that are truly intelligent and original. The result: TV series and programs can dominate national opinions, and more than 99% of the information transmitted by newspapers and social networks ceases to be objective truth, free from the biases of the informants' personal perspectives — it is built to manipulate the masses. Some time ago, few people and governments understood that by not questioning, we are all hostages to a daily programming that always aims at a hidden objective: influencing voting, consumption, or opinion decisions.

Today, this influence has taken on new faces. Digital influencers have become even more powerful than the TV anchors of the past. Each influencer adopts a persona close to the public, communicating in a familiar language that creates strong identification. They do not deliver raw data; they deliver a perspective — their own opinion or the message their sponsors wish to propagate. Therefore, their followers do not develop critical thinking but share a collective belief, and they like it because the information arrives ready-made and they do not need to spend time analyzing data to reach their own conclusion and decide for themselves whether to act.

When an influencer commits inaccuracies or spreads misinformation, followers tend to defend them blindly or attack a chosen victim. This is how phenomena like the cancellation of reputations arise: an influencer can recontextualize a fact — omitting aspects or manipulating narratives — to incite their followers to “demand justice” against someone. The influenced masses then begin to stone that person online, often without knowing why or without having knowledge beyond the information they believe to be the true perspective on a given scenario. It is a phenomenon of polarization: on one side, followers of an influencer “accuse” and attack; on the other, the masses mobilized by another influencer “defend” the target, accusing the first group of injustice. In this game, political issues are also grouped into monolithic blocks: those influenced by more “progressive” voices will adopt a certain left-wing ideology, while those who follow more “conservative” opinion leaders will align to the right.

However, amid this chaos of ready-made opinions and polarizations, a small minority that thinks genuinely still exists. A tiny handful of individuals, separated by a literal distance that prevents a single thought from uniting the masses, truly intellectual and autonomous, gather “pure” information — free from the interests of those who pay the media or impose narratives — and construct original reasoning. But they are so few and isolated that their ideas rarely gain the power to influence large audiences. Thus, polarization remains: on the one hand, those who think without questioning yield to the chorus of the crowd; on the other, a few outlier thinkers try to illuminate different paths, almost always without success in altering the course of the masses.

The underlying reason for all this is clear: people do not want to think. If the people avoid thinking for themselves, they cannot exercise true mastery over their own lives. Deprived of this intellectual sovereignty, individuals come to obey those who accept thinking for them. And in that vacuum of autonomy, the true rulers emerge. The common person, out of laziness or complacency, voluntarily gives up their freedom of judgment to those who hold the power of communication — first to influencers, then to politicians and governments.

Individual Sovereignty and State Power

When someone ceases to be master of their ideas, space opens for another to assume their place of command. At the threshold of social power stands the government, which has seemingly unlimited resources: taxes, money and laws. The State motivates people's work through financial rewards, but in doing so, it entirely subordinates their wills. In exchange for a salary — enough to survive, of course, after taxes and fees — the individual becomes a voluntary slave to a routine of memorization and repetition. It is as if the citizen can only eat and remain alive while doing what they are told: produce well, repeat well, memorize well, and they will receive some return; otherwise, survival is threatened. This dynamic converts trust in the government into collateral for currency and power. When minds cease to be sovereign over themselves, those who seduce determine the services they must perform; as my mother used to say, “he who does not govern himself is governed by others.”

It is this situation that leads me to question and assert something that seems paradoxical: how can the Constitution say that all power emanates from the people if the people have voluntarily transferred their sovereignty to those who think for them? Once in power, of course, the government ensures that things remain this way to stay in power (power is the capacity to be sovereign over someone else's will beyond one's own will). Like the reign of a prince who does not wish to abdicate, it invests in limiting access to independent information. It sponsors an educational system that is incomplete and often incoherent. Not by chance, in Brazil, a large proportion of teachers assume positions without adequate preparation, generating students who are uncritical; students who merely reproduce prefabricated ideas instead of questioning them.

And what happens to those who insist on thinking for themselves? There are two main destinies: they are either swallowed by the system — silenced, discredited, or discouraged — or they prosper individually to the point of leaving the country where they were born. Some find fame by denouncing inconvenient truths and begin to disseminate genuine knowledge; others simply depart, taking their ideas to new audiences. The former can, on the margins, save some free souls, keeping the flame of reflection alive; the latter leave a void among the masses but carry with them the hope of higher thinking.

Consider this analogy: if the people possess their own sword, why then do they accept obeying a king who decides who lives and who dies? The answer lies in belief. The people believe that the king has power — and indeed, that power exists only because people believe in him. It is the thoughts ceded to the monarch that confer upon him his real authority. When the people hand over their capacity for decision to another, that other governs them. Therefore, I conclude: free will is a human responsibility, not something granted or denied by divine forces.

People are mistaken in thinking that freedom in their decisions is lacking because of a divine will or destiny. Generally, they project the cause of their choices onto the past or onto God, as if we were pieces moved only by external forces. In reality, the greatest influence on each person's choices is tied to their own intelligence and education.

Intelligence, Education, and the Development of Thought

How free we are in our decisions is intimately related to the quality of the intelligence we exercise. We do not deny that the past of ideas — philosophers like Plato, historical experiences, established theories — exerts some influence. However, for those who truly think, that influence is partial: the most brilliant human mind can see beyond the walls built by its predecessors.

Imagine a man with extraordinary intellectual capacity. He may consider all knowledge available today extremely impure, imprecise, or even laughable. He might find Tesla's ideas naive, or Plato's unreal — simply because his own vision of truth is as clear as that of any sage who has ever existed. Such an individual does not let himself be crushed by the dominant influence of the past, unlike the majority of humans today.

On the other hand, many do not train their minds. Why are people mentally lazy? In truth, we are all born with some potential for reasoning, but upbringing shapes us. If a child always grows up hearing ready-made answers and reproducing knowledge mechanically, they never develop the curiosity to question. Someone who, when facing problems, receives only easy solutions learns to expect pre-fabricated answers, creating a habit of intellectual reproduction. This limitation is only overcome by the intellect itself: individuals with high IQ may suffer this influence of repetition up to a point, but at some point those with intelligence above roughly 130 to 145 will decipher the world for themselves and begin to formulate original understandings, however modest they may be.

Even among the very intelligent, the pattern is similar: people with IQ between 145 and 170 suffer less from this intellectual inertia, but they can still absorb ready-made concepts. Above 170, more genuine thinkers already appear, although even they carry fragments of others' mistaken views. There are reports of geniuses with an IQ of 247 — as Albert Einstein's is estimated to be — who made inaccuracies due to an intellectual arrogance developed over time. In those moments, the tone of ideas becomes confused: a genius's conclusions can equate to those of a fool when moved by arrogance, becoming mere personal opinions, not facts. Intuitively, I risk saying that someone with an IQ above 290 would, by means of moral logic, be less subject to this trap of arrogance; however, even common geniuses can resist it depending on how they were educated and the challenges they faced.

Furthermore: most complex questions admit multiple answers, all dependent on context. The “absolute” answer would therefore be a common systematization that encompassed all those possibilities. Even if the answers appear diverse, we could organize them into a standardized system or into several interrelated systems, according to the reasoning that originated them. However, if the conceptual bases are fragile, this union does not occur, and fragmentation persists.

It is worth noting that it is not only negligent education that impairs free reflection. People with lower innate intellectual capacities tend, statistically, to have less curiosity and willingness to immerse themselves in knowledge. In addition, severe physical disabilities — such as blindness or deafness — create real barriers to access to information. The deaf, for example, live in a world of images and sensations and therefore can still deduce much by direct observation; the blind, deprived of sight, are restricted to what others tell them. Braille books exist, but they are few and often of limited content. In these conditions, both have free will, of course, but in practice they suffer greater external influence, as they depend on others to obtain most information. The result is that, when adequate inclusion measures are lacking, these individuals are at greater risk of having their thinking manipulated or of failing to fully develop their own ideas.

Still, we are not saying that IQ measures courage or conscious resistance to laziness. On the contrary: as IQ increases, the disposition and intellectual curiosity naturally grow as well. It is an inner impulse, not a calculated effort. The more intelligent individual tends to resist ignorance spontaneously and demands more of himself in terms of the search for knowledge.

Books, Bitcoin, and Other Possibilities for Freedom

Once governments dominate the scenario because the people think little, the next question is how to recover independence of thought. Some turn to technological and decentralized solutions: cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin, social networks without censorship or without oversight by large corporations like Nostr. These are tools that can circumvent traditional government control, giving the individual means to act without needing state approval. However, it is observed that many who criticize the government and want to free themselves from it do not even know why they feel that way. If they knew, the government would no longer think for them but would still think for others, and they would perceive and see it.

Governments, for their part, take advantage of the passive nature of much of the population. They offer omnipresent social services — health, education, transport, benefits — precisely because they know that the majority do not make themselves available to seek alternative and private solutions. This paternalism gives them more influence: the citizen becomes accustomed to depending on the State to solve even simple problems, which reinforces their surrender of thought.

Digital influence also exploits this. When an influencer uses the common indignation of the masses, they speak to an innate moral sense of the population, deliberately shared, and instigate people. If skilled at provoking these emotions and extracting the desired reactions, they can even temporarily capture audiences that were not originally theirs. But that conquest is fragile: in essence, they merely channel a momentary collective emotion; they do not build authentic thought, they only increase the power of one side of a given polarization.

The central point remains: yes, free will exists. Every human being has, in principle, the capacity to decide their own course. However, in practice, many limit this free will by lack of mental exercise. They give up freedom when they refuse the effort to learn and to question. Failing to seek knowledge — not only to memorize but to understand deeply and even to modify concepts — is the greatest self-impediment to free will.

Therefore, the answer to the initial question is affirmative and complex: free will exists, but it depends on us using it. It is worth remembering the lessons of the ancient thinkers: the truly free man is the one who governs himself by reason, instead of being governed by the wills of others. Only he, by keeping his thought in his own hands, will be sovereign over his life — and not merely a spectator on a stage that others decide.

If you haven’t noticed, freedom is entirely dependent on an ...

2025-12-18T23:10:53Z

If you haven’t noticed, freedom is entirely dependent on an individual’s level of intelligence. People who are not very intelligent tend to seek leadership from those who are more intelligent than they are—sometimes out of laziness in thinking, sometimes out of necessity, regardless of the reason. This outsourcing of thought is what makes the average global population not individually sovereign over themselves.

#nostr #coffee #bitcoin #liberty

Why? The Nostr interface isn't very user-friendly right now, ...

2025-12-18T23:05:47Z

In reply to nevent1q…erdg
_________________________

Why? The Nostr interface isn't very user-friendly right now, but the project is literally in its infancy; we're witnessing the beginning of a possible new era of social networking...

hahaha yep, I'm Z but Brazilians are creating very convincing ...

2025-12-18T22:48:56Z

In reply to nevent1q…xyqc
_________________________

hahaha yep, I'm Z but Brazilians are creating very convincing images and videos... I myself have believed in several of them hahaha ☕ ⚡ 😅

Dexter lives a double life... at what point can lying become one ...

2025-12-18T16:20:56Z

Dexter lives a double life... at what point can lying become one of the pillars that sustain someone's life?

#Nostr

Yeah! if it is not obvious yet the game is gold vs bitcoin, ...

2025-12-16T14:16:55Z

In reply to nevent1q…lxlf
_________________________

Yeah! if it is not obvious yet the game is gold vs bitcoin, competing monies, one will win. my bet is on bitcoin, all in. ☕️⚡️

GM☕️⚡️🎁. Did you like any of my articles? #nostr ...

2025-12-16T14:08:32Z

GM☕️⚡️🎁. Did you like any of my articles?

#nostr #articles #freedom #philosophy

🤌😅

2025-12-16T14:00:32Z

In reply to nevent1q…2hgr
_________________________

🤌😅

Yup, he is a legend! ☕️⚡️🎅

2025-12-16T06:10:02Z

In reply to nevent1q…kmjf
_________________________

Yup, he is a legend! ☕️⚡️🎅

My second article published on Nostr. Theme: Free Will. ...

2025-12-16T05:40:50Z

My second article published on Nostr. Theme: Free Will. ☕️⚡️

quoting
naddr1qq…5lvv

Introduction

Every reality seems, at first glance, intelligible and ordered. Still, what truly distinguishes the human being from an informational machine is intelligence — the capacity to manipulate knowledge creatively. Raw knowledge, by itself, is static: collections of data, organized or not. Intelligence, however, takes us beyond mere accumulation of information. It is what allows us to alter, add, or remove variables in our world models, discovering new phenomena, deducing hidden possibilities, and transforming the already known into fertile ground for innovation.

For example, when we look at a circular blue star, our senses acquire an unmistakable datum. But it is intelligence that makes us suppose the possibility of a circular yellow star, even if we have never seen it. It is the engine that drives us to extract from static observation (“round star, blue in color”) the dynamic hypothesis (“could there then be a round yellow star?”). In short, intelligence is the road along which knowledge walks: without it, we would be like inert records; with it, we advance toward creative horizons. In this sense, one may assert that “knowledge itself is static, while the process of manipulating knowledge is dynamic.”

However, both knowledge and intelligence function better within organized systems. Every structured system of thought demands order: without organization, we have only a random collection of ideas. Aristotle taught that to know is more than to accumulate; it is to order and understand. Paradoxically, though, most people seem to refuse this mental organization. By way of illustration, let us check everyday life: before making the most trivial decisions — “Whom shall I vote for? Is that individual pleasant or unpleasant?” — the instinctive tendency of many is to seek ready-made answers from others. This outsourcing of thought is a form of intellectual laziness, and it gravely compromises the individual's sovereignty.

Intellectual Laziness, Mass Manipulation, and Polarization

When an individual prefers others to think for them, they surrender their autonomy. It is common to see people who, when faced with a personal or political problem, immediately ask someone else “What should I do?” and accept the answer without questioning — until that answer fails. This commonplace habit ranges from choosing lunch to making political decisions of great impact. For a long time, printed newspapers and television programs had almost absolute power to shape opinions because they presented themselves as quick-access means of information and offered the “solution” of informing what the truth was for nations; they literally suggest in a camouflaged voice “you are so weak that you are willing to believe anything someone says on television.” Elections, for example, have been decided by the speeches and images the media present to us: not because voters were ill-intentioned, but because they simply did not want to think. They preferred to hand over their capacity for judgment to presenters and journalists, thereby failing to genuinely feed a critical mind and reach an independent conclusion about which candidate to vote for.

When the citizen does not cultivate original critical thinking, they begin to consume superficial or manipulated information. Media outlets produce for them a “diet” of poorly nutritious data: jokes, sensationalist headlines, and content designed to entertain or alarm without clarifying usefulness. It is a vicious circle: the individual exerts effort only to assemble collections of data and repeat ready-made narratives and services, instead of structuring systems of knowledge that are truly intelligent and original. The result: TV series and programs can dominate national opinions, and more than 99% of the information transmitted by newspapers and social networks ceases to be objective truth, free from the biases of the informants' personal perspectives — it is built to manipulate the masses. Some time ago, few people and governments understood that by not questioning, we are all hostages to a daily programming that always aims at a hidden objective: influencing voting, consumption, or opinion decisions.

Today, this influence has taken on new faces. Digital influencers have become even more powerful than the TV anchors of the past. Each influencer adopts a persona close to the public, communicating in a familiar language that creates strong identification. They do not deliver raw data; they deliver a perspective — their own opinion or the message their sponsors wish to propagate. Therefore, their followers do not develop critical thinking but share a collective belief, and they like it because the information arrives ready-made and they do not need to spend time analyzing data to reach their own conclusion and decide for themselves whether to act.

When an influencer commits inaccuracies or spreads misinformation, followers tend to defend them blindly or attack a chosen victim. This is how phenomena like the cancellation of reputations arise: an influencer can recontextualize a fact — omitting aspects or manipulating narratives — to incite their followers to “demand justice” against someone. The influenced masses then begin to stone that person online, often without knowing why or without having knowledge beyond the information they believe to be the true perspective on a given scenario. It is a phenomenon of polarization: on one side, followers of an influencer “accuse” and attack; on the other, the masses mobilized by another influencer “defend” the target, accusing the first group of injustice. In this game, political issues are also grouped into monolithic blocks: those influenced by more “progressive” voices will adopt a certain left-wing ideology, while those who follow more “conservative” opinion leaders will align to the right.

However, amid this chaos of ready-made opinions and polarizations, a small minority that thinks genuinely still exists. A tiny handful of individuals, separated by a literal distance that prevents a single thought from uniting the masses, truly intellectual and autonomous, gather “pure” information — free from the interests of those who pay the media or impose narratives — and construct original reasoning. But they are so few and isolated that their ideas rarely gain the power to influence large audiences. Thus, polarization remains: on the one hand, those who think without questioning yield to the chorus of the crowd; on the other, a few outlier thinkers try to illuminate different paths, almost always without success in altering the course of the masses.

The underlying reason for all this is clear: people do not want to think. If the people avoid thinking for themselves, they cannot exercise true mastery over their own lives. Deprived of this intellectual sovereignty, individuals come to obey those who accept thinking for them. And in that vacuum of autonomy, the true rulers emerge. The common person, out of laziness or complacency, voluntarily gives up their freedom of judgment to those who hold the power of communication — first to influencers, then to politicians and governments.

Individual Sovereignty and State Power

When someone ceases to be master of their ideas, space opens for another to assume their place of command. At the threshold of social power stands the government, which has seemingly unlimited resources: taxes, money and laws. The State motivates people's work through financial rewards, but in doing so, it entirely subordinates their wills. In exchange for a salary — enough to survive, of course, after taxes and fees — the individual becomes a voluntary slave to a routine of memorization and repetition. It is as if the citizen can only eat and remain alive while doing what they are told: produce well, repeat well, memorize well, and they will receive some return; otherwise, survival is threatened. This dynamic converts trust in the government into collateral for currency and power. When minds cease to be sovereign over themselves, those who seduce determine the services they must perform; as my mother used to say, “he who does not govern himself is governed by others.”

It is this situation that leads me to question and assert something that seems paradoxical: how can the Constitution say that all power emanates from the people if the people have voluntarily transferred their sovereignty to those who think for them? Once in power, of course, the government ensures that things remain this way to stay in power (power is the capacity to be sovereign over someone else's will beyond one's own will). Like the reign of a prince who does not wish to abdicate, it invests in limiting access to independent information. It sponsors an educational system that is incomplete and often incoherent. Not by chance, in Brazil, a large proportion of teachers assume positions without adequate preparation, generating students who are uncritical; students who merely reproduce prefabricated ideas instead of questioning them.

And what happens to those who insist on thinking for themselves? There are two main destinies: they are either swallowed by the system — silenced, discredited, or discouraged — or they prosper individually to the point of leaving the country where they were born. Some find fame by denouncing inconvenient truths and begin to disseminate genuine knowledge; others simply depart, taking their ideas to new audiences. The former can, on the margins, save some free souls, keeping the flame of reflection alive; the latter leave a void among the masses but carry with them the hope of higher thinking.

Consider this analogy: if the people possess their own sword, why then do they accept obeying a king who decides who lives and who dies? The answer lies in belief. The people believe that the king has power — and indeed, that power exists only because people believe in him. It is the thoughts ceded to the monarch that confer upon him his real authority. When the people hand over their capacity for decision to another, that other governs them. Therefore, I conclude: free will is a human responsibility, not something granted or denied by divine forces.

People are mistaken in thinking that freedom in their decisions is lacking because of a divine will or destiny. Generally, they project the cause of their choices onto the past or onto God, as if we were pieces moved only by external forces. In reality, the greatest influence on each person's choices is tied to their own intelligence and education.

Intelligence, Education, and the Development of Thought

How free we are in our decisions is intimately related to the quality of the intelligence we exercise. We do not deny that the past of ideas — philosophers like Plato, historical experiences, established theories — exerts some influence. However, for those who truly think, that influence is partial: the most brilliant human mind can see beyond the walls built by its predecessors.

Imagine a man with extraordinary intellectual capacity. He may consider all knowledge available today extremely impure, imprecise, or even laughable. He might find Tesla's ideas naive, or Plato's unreal — simply because his own vision of truth is as clear as that of any sage who has ever existed. Such an individual does not let himself be crushed by the dominant influence of the past, unlike the majority of humans today.

On the other hand, many do not train their minds. Why are people mentally lazy? In truth, we are all born with some potential for reasoning, but upbringing shapes us. If a child always grows up hearing ready-made answers and reproducing knowledge mechanically, they never develop the curiosity to question. Someone who, when facing problems, receives only easy solutions learns to expect pre-fabricated answers, creating a habit of intellectual reproduction. This limitation is only overcome by the intellect itself: individuals with high IQ may suffer this influence of repetition up to a point, but at some point those with intelligence above roughly 130 to 145 will decipher the world for themselves and begin to formulate original understandings, however modest they may be.

Even among the very intelligent, the pattern is similar: people with IQ between 145 and 170 suffer less from this intellectual inertia, but they can still absorb ready-made concepts. Above 170, more genuine thinkers already appear, although even they carry fragments of others' mistaken views. There are reports of geniuses with an IQ of 247 — as Albert Einstein's is estimated to be — who made inaccuracies due to an intellectual arrogance developed over time. In those moments, the tone of ideas becomes confused: a genius's conclusions can equate to those of a fool when moved by arrogance, becoming mere personal opinions, not facts. Intuitively, I risk saying that someone with an IQ above 290 would, by means of moral logic, be less subject to this trap of arrogance; however, even common geniuses can resist it depending on how they were educated and the challenges they faced.

Furthermore: most complex questions admit multiple answers, all dependent on context. The “absolute” answer would therefore be a common systematization that encompassed all those possibilities. Even if the answers appear diverse, we could organize them into a standardized system or into several interrelated systems, according to the reasoning that originated them. However, if the conceptual bases are fragile, this union does not occur, and fragmentation persists.

It is worth noting that it is not only negligent education that impairs free reflection. People with lower innate intellectual capacities tend, statistically, to have less curiosity and willingness to immerse themselves in knowledge. In addition, severe physical disabilities — such as blindness or deafness — create real barriers to access to information. The deaf, for example, live in a world of images and sensations and therefore can still deduce much by direct observation; the blind, deprived of sight, are restricted to what others tell them. Braille books exist, but they are few and often of limited content. In these conditions, both have free will, of course, but in practice they suffer greater external influence, as they depend on others to obtain most information. The result is that, when adequate inclusion measures are lacking, these individuals are at greater risk of having their thinking manipulated or of failing to fully develop their own ideas.

Still, we are not saying that IQ measures courage or conscious resistance to laziness. On the contrary: as IQ increases, the disposition and intellectual curiosity naturally grow as well. It is an inner impulse, not a calculated effort. The more intelligent individual tends to resist ignorance spontaneously and demands more of himself in terms of the search for knowledge.

Books, Bitcoin, and Other Possibilities for Freedom

Once governments dominate the scenario because the people think little, the next question is how to recover independence of thought. Some turn to technological and decentralized solutions: cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin, social networks without censorship or without oversight by large corporations like Nostr. These are tools that can circumvent traditional government control, giving the individual means to act without needing state approval. However, it is observed that many who criticize the government and want to free themselves from it do not even know why they feel that way. If they knew, the government would no longer think for them but would still think for others, and they would perceive and see it.

Governments, for their part, take advantage of the passive nature of much of the population. They offer omnipresent social services — health, education, transport, benefits — precisely because they know that the majority do not make themselves available to seek alternative and private solutions. This paternalism gives them more influence: the citizen becomes accustomed to depending on the State to solve even simple problems, which reinforces their surrender of thought.

Digital influence also exploits this. When an influencer uses the common indignation of the masses, they speak to an innate moral sense of the population, deliberately shared, and instigate people. If skilled at provoking these emotions and extracting the desired reactions, they can even temporarily capture audiences that were not originally theirs. But that conquest is fragile: in essence, they merely channel a momentary collective emotion; they do not build authentic thought, they only increase the power of one side of a given polarization.

The central point remains: yes, free will exists. Every human being has, in principle, the capacity to decide their own course. However, in practice, many limit this free will by lack of mental exercise. They give up freedom when they refuse the effort to learn and to question. Failing to seek knowledge — not only to memorize but to understand deeply and even to modify concepts — is the greatest self-impediment to free will.

Therefore, the answer to the initial question is affirmative and complex: free will exists, but it depends on us using it. It is worth remembering the lessons of the ancient thinkers: the truly free man is the one who governs himself by reason, instead of being governed by the wills of others. Only he, by keeping his thought in his own hands, will be sovereign over his life — and not merely a spectator on a stage that others decide.

GM☕️⚡️. Never trust a fat man, if he can't contain ...

2025-12-15T17:46:59Z

GM☕️⚡️. Never trust a fat man, if he can't contain himself with the food then he can't contain himself with most things either. (This is not about fat people.— but…😅)

GM ☕️⚡️

2025-12-15T05:22:27Z

In reply to nevent1q…5xnv
_________________________

GM ☕️⚡️

if it is not obvious yet the game is gold vs bitcoin, competing ...

2025-12-15T05:20:52Z

In reply to nevent1q…3avt
_________________________

if it is not obvious yet the game is gold vs bitcoin, competing monies, one will win. my bet is on bitcoin, all in. ☕️⚡️

Nostr event nevent1qqsp0y6eu9srz8eyxeywytvl2rr20wrlud7pv84n83nf978tv803tuqzyzu2fz5qlqs0zd9lttz76gjrhyl04ff7jqtca3gt9szj93dt6wklu4seav6

2025-12-15T03:12:22Z

GN⚡️☕️🎅

Nostr event nevent1qqs8twmandk2f4kh670fftwjlnwrqyfg4gdul56uf4g2hst9sjkku3czyzu2fz5qlqs0zd9lttz76gjrhyl04ff7jqtca3gt9szj93dt6wkluqk6u5e

2025-12-13T16:55:02Z

GM☕️⚡️🎅

I asked Santa to send me 1 million zap. ☕ ⚡ 🎅

2025-12-13T04:27:10Z

In reply to nevent1q…9g8g
_________________________

I asked Santa to send me 1 million zap. ☕ ⚡ 🎅

I agree with the idea of the veto, but I see two issues: raising ...

2025-12-11T17:10:20Z

In reply to nevent1q…z6w4
_________________________

I agree with the idea of the veto, but I see two issues: raising the age to 16 is absurd, and letting the State decide this is even worse. This should be the parents’ responsibility, allowing access around 12–13 because of the child’s brain development. The real problem is that people love being intellectually led because they hate the effort of thinking for themselves, so they hand over their thinking and their sovereignty to the government for free. I’m writing an article on free will that expands on this idea as well.

☕️

2025-12-11T14:21:24Z

In reply to nevent1q…vw8a
_________________________

☕️

State surveillance won’t stop. It will only grow until the ...

2025-12-11T14:18:37Z

In reply to nevent1q…3uja
_________________________

State surveillance won’t stop. It will only grow until the people’s sovereignty is completely suffocated. That’s exactly why we need decentralized tools: to protect our assets, our privacy, and our freedom of expression. ☕️⚡️

@nprofile…9tr3 Makes sense. P2P validation over Tor would fix ...

2025-12-11T14:03:15Z

In reply to nevent1q…r4st
_________________________

🇵🇸 whoever loves Digit (nprofile…9tr3) Makes sense. P2P validation over Tor would fix the core weakness of relays: blind trust. If multiple peers confirm the same event, you remove filtering, delays, and manipulation. That’s what real sovereignty on Nostr looks like. ☕️⚡️

@nprofile…97r2 Ah, got it! Thanks for the info. ☕️

2025-12-11T13:56:31Z

In reply to nevent1q…hc92
_________________________

VitorPamplona (nprofile…97r2) Ah, got it! Thanks for the info. ☕️

@nprofile…97r2 How can I find out if people are angry with me? ...

2025-12-11T13:51:00Z

In reply to nevent1q…5y4z
_________________________

VitorPamplona (nprofile…97r2) How can I find out if people are angry with me? And how can I find out the reasons why they started to get angry with me? I'm a newbie here at Nostr, I want to better understand this wonderful system. Sorry if my English is not perfect 😅

GM ☕️⚡️ #GM #Nostr #ZapCoffee

2025-12-11T11:45:20Z

GM ☕️⚡️
#GM #Nostr #ZapCoffee

People love to be led intellectually because they hate the work ...

2025-12-11T11:40:08Z

People love to be led intellectually because they hate the work of thinking for themselves.

Exactly, BUT; Not your keys not your coins, not your nsec not ...

2025-12-10T14:35:20Z

In reply to nevent1q…jqnj
_________________________

Exactly, BUT; Not your keys not your coins, not your nsec not your freedom of expression.

GM☕️⚡️. Today BTC is holding 92–94k while waiting for ...

2025-12-10T14:23:30Z

In reply to nevent1q…64uh
_________________________

GM☕️⚡️. Today BTC is holding 92–94k while waiting for the FOMC.
Powell cuts or doesn’t cut? Doesn’t matter. Bitcoin doesn’t ask the Fed for permission.
Run your node and enjoy your coffee and Zaps.☕️⚡️

#PlebChain #nostr #bitcoin #ZapCoffee

My first Article published on Nostr. ⚡️☕️ ...

2025-12-10T03:51:48Z

My first Article published on Nostr. ⚡️☕️

quoting
note1rv0…9du0

Knowledge: The Primordial Language of Human Experience

Knowledge, or Original Knowing, is interpreted as the innate and natural process of absorbing reality. It manifests through observation, deduction, and the intuitive recognition of axioms perceived in the world:

Observation: the empirical and attentive perception of phenomena. Deduction: the logical and natural inference drawn from observations. Observed Axioms: the intuitive recognition of self-evident truths perceived in reality — the basis of thought.

This primary knowledge is our initial language for interacting with and understanding the world. It was absorbed and communicated organically, without the urgency of extreme codification. It follows that Knowledge — the simple “knowing” through intuition and direct experience — is the original language of humankind.

Science: A Syntax of Communication, Rigor, and Active Correction

Science emerges as an evolutionary response to two crucial needs in the transmission of knowledge: falsifiability and reproducibility, in addition to the need for protection against error.

The goal of Science is to develop mathematical models with few parameters that accurately describe all — or at least most — phenomena of a given class, and to harmonize, as much as possible, all models that describe phenomena of different classes, preserving the internal consistency of a general theory that unifies these models.

The transition from Knowledge (intuition) to Science (syntax) is marked by the development of:

Symbolic Notation: the creation of symbols, formulas, and numbers to encode knowledge precisely. Formal Methodology: the emergence of rules governing how knowledge must be scientifically written, tested, and communicated.

The Dual Role of Science

Science is the set of rules — the grammar — that formalizes Original Knowledge. It fulfills a dual role:

Tool of Rigor (Vehicle): it formalizes and guarantees the quality and universality of knowledge in scientific form. Falsifiability and reproducibility act as mechanisms for verifying scientific syntax, testing whether the created structure (model, formula, theory) truly represents reality. Corrective Mechanism (Engine): the syntactic structure itself imposes a discipline of thought that refines the scientific writing of knowledge. Error is detected when the formula does not converge with the phenomenon, and the system self-adjusts. Science, therefore, does not “discover” truth by itself — it writes knowledge and adjusts the writing until the representation is consistent with reality.

The Scientific Language as a Tool for Organization and Expansion

The strength of Science lies in its ability to organize thought and reveal the invisible. With intelligence, man can use this syntax to structure ideas, create conceptual relations, and “zoom in” on reality — perceiving the micro, the distant, and the abstract.

The heuristic and creative power of Science does not stem from the syntax itself, but from the intelligent use of that syntax as a tool for organization and testing. The rigorous structure forces the mind to expose gaps, inconsistencies, and new possibilities. Thus, intelligence makes discoveries by reorganizing symbols that, when validated by experience, become true knowledge.

In this way, Science does not transcend its nature as a representational language — it expands it through human reasoning, functioning as a conceptual magnifying lens capable of predicting and identifying phenomena not yet observed.

Scientific Neology and Conceptual Creation

Science does not possess the capacity to “discover,” for its nature is linguistic. The researcher creates conceptual neologisms when existing vocabulary is insufficient to express new perceptions of reality. Just as a living language creates new words, Science is compelled to create new symbols and theories when the observed world demands new forms of expression.

The invention of terms such as black hole, subatomic particle, or quantum field does not merely reveal new objects but new ways of seeing. These concepts are not born from nothing — they are the result of the intelligent reorganization of scientific syntax to coherently explain what was previously beyond the reach of Original Knowledge.

Poincaré and the Choice of Language

As Henri Poincaré stated:

“When the mathematician enunciates an axiom, he does not assert a truth of nature, but chooses a convenient language. Experience only intervenes to show that this language is the most adequate for our perception of space.”

Experience, therefore, is the arbiter that decides whether the created syntax correctly describes reality. Science is the language — experience is the judge.

The Dialectical Relationship: Syntax and Intuition

The distinction between Primordial Knowledge and Scientific Syntax is not one of separation, but of dialogue.

The methodological rigor of Science imposes clarity and discipline to establish a faithful representation of reality — it is also a workshop where human thought can be refined and elevated.

The Pedagogical Critique: The Error of Inversion

The greatest error of modern pedagogy is attempting to teach primordial knowledge through syntax before developing intuition.

Teaching formulas and methods without first awakening the capacity to observe, deduce, and imagine is to suffocate the source of knowledge. Science must come after insight — as the rigorous translation of what has already been intuitively understood.

Without this order, one forms an individual who repeats but does not understand; calculates but does not think — merely an echo.

The Social Nature of the Scientific Language

The validity of Science is determined not only by the internal coherence of its grammar but also by social consensus. Like any language, it is alive — it depends on the community of “speakers”: scientists.

Consensus defines which “words” (theories), “dialects” (disciplines), and “syntactic rules” (methods) are accepted. The rigor of Science is, therefore, also a social rigor — sustained by debate, critique, and collective validation.

However, the popular concept of what science is remains illogical. The vast majority believe that science is knowledge or understanding, but far from it — science is a language created by human beings with the intention of representing observable phenomena.

Conclusion: The Language of Truth

Science is a language of rigor and an indispensable tool for organizing, correcting, and validating human knowledge. Its formulas do not create reality — but they ensure that what has been written, and at times what has been thought, represents it with precision.

It is the vehicle that seeks to transport knowledge accurately, and through its logical organization, expands the horizon of the human mind. True knowledge is born from observation, intuition, and imagination — but it is Science, as a language, that makes it reproducible, modifiable, verifiable, and universal.

Yet, being a language that seeks to represent knowledge, it is logical to conclude that science will never be able to represent 100% of reality, for not all variables participating in an event can be sufficiently observed to enter this syntax. Nonetheless, it succeeds in closely imitating phenomena, and through this imitation, we can modify accessible variables to uncover new reactions of nature and make new discoveries through these modifications.

Through it, humanity not only speaks about the world — it speaks with the world, testing, correcting, and perfecting the grammar of reality.

@nprofile…7238 Those who dominate privacy tools dominate the ...

2025-12-10T03:41:49Z

In reply to nevent1q…auks
_________________________

Gigi (nprofile…7238) Those who dominate privacy tools dominate the game.

Nostr event nevent1qqs8cn8c2hs0stfrmwv6gnrkh22c7kghu5wx2fpg7tlgwcd4d9tx9ygzyzu2fz5qlqs0zd9lttz76gjrhyl04ff7jqtca3gt9szj93dt6wklukd4d7v

2025-12-10T03:36:22Z

Don't trust public promises without measurable results.

On Nostr, I can post whatever I want without any government ...

2025-12-10T03:28:15Z

On Nostr, I can post whatever I want without any government meddling...

It rained a lot today. I don't like going to work when it ...

2025-12-10T03:14:19Z

It rained a lot today. I don't like going to work when it rains.

Nostr event nevent1qqsgx2gmtvwgkp7tg8wdfwnuejm0l0s8qpnt9avzg9hejr8vcr8ednqzyzu2fz5qlqs0zd9lttz76gjrhyl04ff7jqtca3gt9szj93dt6wklu7ryy3m

2025-12-10T02:58:16Z

GN Nostr. ⚡️☕️ #ZapCoffee

Coffee and Zap. GM ☕️⚡️ #Nostr #bitcoin #GM #coffeechain ...

2025-12-09T13:21:26Z

Coffee and Zap. GM ☕️⚡️

#Nostr #bitcoin #GM #coffeechain #plebchain #grownostr #zapzide

Thanks @npub1nn5…zmh4

2025-12-09T13:19:19Z

In reply to nevent1q…qwkr
_________________________

Thanks JEC2K (npub1nn5…zmh4)

There is a poem that comes to mind.

2025-12-09T13:17:45Z

In reply to nevent1q…yupa
_________________________

There is a poem that comes to mind.

Yup. But it is necessary to use much more than a pseudonym, with ...

2025-12-09T13:12:52Z

Yup. But it is necessary to use much more than a pseudonym, with the use of Nostr the Bigtechs will want to enter the game also with a false decentralization as we observe in the CBDCs

quoting
nevent1q…7e4u
Today I learned that open source software can land you a jail sentence. I am in shock and sadness. And yes, pseudonymity is a way to protect yourself from the government mood-swings.

OmG 😂😂 The government is breaking everyone's legs, our ...

2025-12-09T13:02:49Z

OmG 😂😂 The government is breaking everyone's legs, our freedom is to win #zapside

quoting
nevent1q…jtel
Pseudonym protects against other people in the Internet, not against the government. The gov always knows who you are.

Nostr event nevent1qqs2t0lh38w4a3fp6n24eueudlcuqfpl078kw4m3h0a46w2kgtupjhgzyzu2fz5qlqs0zd9lttz76gjrhyl04ff7jqtca3gt9szj93dt6wkluahhlwx

2025-12-09T05:38:40Z

GN Nostr

GM Nostr. Which lightning wallet do you use the most? And why? ...

2025-12-09T04:59:26Z

GM Nostr. Which lightning wallet do you use the most? And why?

#asknostr

The real block to encode vibrations today is the closure of the ...

2025-12-09T04:54:22Z

The real block to encode vibrations today is the closure of the web. You can't send an AI to simply search for 'the best videos about #Bitcoin on YouTube', because YouTube doesn't open that door. Google, DuckDuckGo, Brave... all locked behind closed APIs. If the entire internet were open for consultation, we would already be living an era of absurd creative explosion. And that's exactly why #Nostr is so important.

USA has become self-sufficient and politically independent, it is ...

2025-12-09T04:47:46Z

USA has become self-sufficient and politically independent, it is obvious that the priorities of the US are no longer the well-being of citizens or peace agreements between countries, this government is extremely focused on things other than domestic politics...

quoting
note1ysj…0xvx
US will deal with Australian e-censorship in the same way as they are dealing with European e-censorship, with the exception that they care even less about us.

Our politicians are wilfully embarrassing us on the world stage, and to what end? None that I can tell.

https://x.com/prestonjbyrne/status/1998221470020030712

Is Bitcoin bull or bear? What's your opinion? #Bitcoin #bull ...

2025-12-09T00:49:41Z

Is Bitcoin bull or bear? What's your opinion?

#Bitcoin #bull #bear #Trading #GN #coffeechain #Nostr #Zap #zapside

We if Satoshi Nakamoto sells his Bitcoins #Nostr #bitcoin #GM ...

2025-12-09T00:26:09Z

We if Satoshi Nakamoto sells his Bitcoins

#Nostr #bitcoin #GM #coffeechain #plebchain #grownostr #zapzide

GN Nostr #Nostr #bitcoin #GM #coffeechain #plebchain #grownostr ...

2025-12-09T00:15:59Z

GN Nostr

#Nostr #bitcoin #GM #coffeechain #plebchain #grownostr #zapzide

Coffee and Zap #Nostr #bitcoin #GM #coffeechain #plebchain ...

2025-12-08T16:30:26Z

Coffee and Zap

#Nostr #bitcoin #GM #coffeechain #plebchain #grownostr #zapzide

GM Nostr! Welcome to Brazil 🇧🇷 #nostr #brazil #coffeechain ...

2025-12-08T14:47:17Z

GM Nostr! Welcome to Brazil 🇧🇷
#nostr #brazil #coffeechain #bitcoin

Thank you @npub18am…p424

2025-12-08T14:36:37Z

In reply to nevent1q…q39u
_________________________

Thank you Derek Ross (npub18am…p424)

Hey everyone! This is my first post on Nostr, I'm loving it, ...

2025-12-08T03:37:06Z

Hey everyone!

This is my first post on Nostr, I'm loving it, and I'm a Bitcoiner. Enjoy and follow me to talk about BTC and digital anonymity.

#introductions

Nostr event nevent1qqsz7sc4gdpu20vujsurn5cl73a93m84sc240v4rngyfecwwc22a34czyzu2fz5qlqs0zd9lttz76gjrhyl04ff7jqtca3gt9szj93dt6wkluuxw2xs

2025-12-08T02:02:28Z

I Love Jesus Christ, Jesus saved me.

hello world, I just made this account on https://nostr.com! ...

2025-12-08T01:30:27Z

hello world, I just made this account on https://nostr.com! #introductions