0/0
Open in Telegram
0/0 = undefined A labyrinth of ideas, A diary of curiosities Bot: @contactzero_bot
Show more📈 Analytical overview of Telegram channel 0/0
Channel 0/0 (@error0error) in the Arabic language segment is an active participant. Currently, the community unites 11 253 subscribers, ranking 8 119 in the Religion & Spirituality category and 6 883 in the Saudi Arabia region.
📊 Audience metrics and dynamics
Since its creation on невідомо, the project has demonstrated rapid growth, gathering an audience of 11 253 subscribers.
According to the latest data from 30 October, 2026, the channel demonstrates stable activity. Although there has been a change in the number of participants by 112 over the last 30 days and by 6 over the last 24 hours, overall reach remains high.
- Verification status: Not verified
- Engagement rate (ER): The average audience engagement rate is 9.86%. Within the first 24 hours after publication, content typically collects 4.85% reactions from the total number of subscribers.
- Post reach: On average, each post receives 1 108 views. Within the first day, a publication typically gains 545 views.
- Reactions and interaction: The audience actively supports content: the average number of reactions per post is 0.
- Thematic interests: Content is focused on key topics such as مُشَاعَرَة, رَجُل, ظِلّ, نِسَاءَة, اِبن.
📝 Description and content policy
The author describes the resource as a platform for expressing subjective opinions:
“0/0 = undefined
A labyrinth of ideas,
A diary of curiosities
Bot: @contactzero_bot”
Thanks to the high frequency of updates (latest data received on 31 October, 2026), the channel maintains relevance and a high level of publication reach. Analytics show that the audience actively interacts with content, making it an important point of influence in the Religion & Spirituality category.
11 253
Subscribers
+624 hours
+537 days
+11230 days
Posts Archive
11 241
The Cartesian idea of a disembodied mind may well have been the source, by the middle of the twentieth century, for the metaphor of mind as software program. In fact, if mind can be separated from body, perhaps one can try to understand it without any appeal to neurobiology, without any need to be influenced by knowledge of neuroanatomy, neurophysiology, and neurochemistry. Interestingly and paradoxically, many cognitive scientists who believe they can investigate the mind without recourse to neurobiology would not consider themselves dualists.
11 241
This is Descartes’ error: the abyssal separation between body and mind, between the sizable, dimensioned, mechanically operated, infinitely divisible body stuff, on the one hand, and the unsizable, undimensioned, un-pushpullable, nondivisible mind stuff; the suggestion that reasoning, and moral judgment, and the suffering that comes from physical pain or emotional upheaval might exist separately from the body. Specifically: the separation of the most refined operations of mind from the structure and operation of a biological organism.
11 241
What worries me is the acceptance of the importance of feelings without any effort to understand their complex biological and sociocultural machinery. The best example of this attitude can be found in the attempt to explain bruised feelings or irrational behavior by appealing to surface social causes or the action of neurotransmitters, two explanations that pervade the social discourse as presented in the visual and printed media; and in the attempt to correct personal and social problems with medical and nonmedical drugs. It is precisely this lack of understanding of the nature of feelings and reason (one of the hallmarks of the “culture of complaint”) that is cause for alarm.
— Descartes' Error
11 241
In other words, nothing in my formulation urges acceptance of things as they are. I must emphasize this point, since the mention of feelings often conjures up an image of self-oriented concern, of disregard for the world around, and of tolerance for relaxed standards of intellectual performance. That is, in effect, the very opposite of my view, and one less worry for those who, like the molecular biologist Gunther Stent, have been concerned, justly, that the overvaluing of feelings might result in less determination to uphold the Faustian contract that has brought progress to humanity.
— Descartes' Error
11 241
Knowing about the relevance of feelings in the processes of reason does not suggest that reason is less important than feelings, that it should take a backseat to them or that it should be less cultivated. On the contrary, taking stock of the pervasive role of feelings may give us a chance of enhancing their positive effects and reducing their potential harm. Specifically, without diminishing the orienting value of normal feelings, one would want to protect reason from the weakness that abnormal feelings or the manipulation of normal feelings can introduce in the process of planning and deciding.
11 241
There seem to be far more varieties of negative than positive emotions, and it is apparent that the brain handles positive and negative varieties of emotions with different systems. Perhaps Tolstoy had a similar insight, when he wrote, at the beginning of Anna Karenina: “All happy families are like one another, each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.”
11 241
I have said little about pleasure. Pain and pleasure are not twins or mirror images of each other, at least not as far as their roles in leveraging survival. Somehow, more often than not, it is the pain-related signal that steers us away from impending trouble, both at the moment and in the anticipated future. It is difficult to imagine that individuals and societies governed by the seeking of pleasure, as much as or more than by the avoidance of pain, can survive at all. Some current social developments in increasingly hedonistic cultures offer support for this opinion.
