0/0
Ir al canal en Telegram
0/0 = undefined A labyrinth of ideas, A diary of curiosities Bot: @contactzero_bot
Mostrar más📈 Análisis del canal de Telegram 0/0
El canal 0/0 (@error0error) en el segmento lingüístico de Árabe es un actor destacado. Actualmente la comunidad reúne a 11 241 suscriptores, ocupando la posición 8 119 en la categoría Religión y espiritualidad y el puesto 6 883 en la región Arabia Saudí.
📊 Métricas de audiencia y dinámica
Desde su creación el невідомо, el proyecto ha mostrado un crecimiento acelerado, reuniendo a 11 241 suscriptores.
Según los últimos datos del 30 octubre, 2026, el canal mantiene una actividad estable. En los últimos 30 días la variación de miembros fue de 112, y en las últimas 24 horas de 6, conservando un alto alcance.
- Estado de verificación: No verificado
- Tasa de interacción (ER): El promedio de interacción de la audiencia es 9.86%. Durante las primeras 24 horas tras publicar, el contenido suele obtener 4.85% de reacciones respecto al total de suscriptores.
- Alcance de las publicaciones: Cada publicación recibe en promedio 1 108 visualizaciones. En el primer día suele acumular 545 visualizaciones.
- Reacciones e interacción: La audiencia responde de forma activa: el promedio de reacciones por publicación es 0.
- Intereses temáticos: El contenido se centra en temas clave como مُشَاعَرَة, رَجُل, ظِلّ, نِسَاءَة, اِبن.
📝 Descripción y política de contenido
El autor describe el recurso como un espacio para expresar opiniones subjetivas:
“0/0 = undefined
A labyrinth of ideas,
A diary of curiosities
Bot: @contactzero_bot”
Gracias a la alta frecuencia de actualizaciones (últimos datos recibidos el 31 octubre, 2026), el canal mantiene la vigencia y un amplio alcance. La analítica demuestra que la audiencia interactúa activamente con el contenido, lo que lo convierte en un punto de referencia dentro de la categoría Religión y espiritualidad.
11 241
Suscriptores
+624 horas
+537 días
+11230 días
Archivo de publicaciones
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.
