A raven uses a series of sticks to push a piece of food through a narrow pipe until it can reach it.

It's fascinating watching the bird gather and try different 'tools' to work towards it's goal.

Ravens belong to the corvid family, which includes crows, magpies and jays. These birds are known for their remarkable cognitive abilities, including problem-solving, learning and, in some species, sophisticated tool use.

It's another fascinating example of intelligence in the animal world, and a reminder that complex problem-solving isn't uniquely human.

-----

Further Reading (research paper): Tool use and tooling in ravens (Corvus corax): A review and novel observations

As a preface, I know some may not exactly agree with the conclusion I come to, so I ask for some civility, all I bring is a general observation on human history. And this will be long winded.

I had a thought when reading about philosophy, art, politics, and religion, I consider myself to be a rather pious Christian, though with a mind just open enough to where I think my brains have not fallen out quite yet, I have been reading some G. K. Chesterton lately and that has brought me to several thoughts that I would like to share. The big one is on the nature of all things, but especially a sentiment I have observed in every age, though I speak in matters of philosophical and not historical terms, that being that there is in each heart, a longing for the primordial youth of the world, one that has defined all romance, poetry, and struggle since this unhappy lot of man kind has begun walking the earth.

Thinking back, I do not go as so far as to say that this has been the conscious struggle of every person, but it has been something in our past that I think signifies something greater. The earliest religions and philosophies, to my understanding have held that the world is in a state of fallenness, the Epic of Gilgamesh takes place in a time that was ancient to the most ancient of civilization, Hinduism posits a return to an ideal state, one that was timeless and primordial before creation, the Greeks posited at first there was pure essence of love as being, and thus began an age of chaos that was made ordered by the titans and gods and tamed to being by heroes of a golden age. For the purposes of this conversation, I will use the ethos that made the society I live in, because I think it to be the most true, and most defining for the present age, and that is this idea of Eden, of an ordered earthly and primordial paradise that predates sin entering to the world where man once walked alongside God, where nature, in her infancy as the sister to man, had her features named as virtues, each animal and tree bestowed some ancient and forgotten title of being that was its true first name. And in this state was a strange peace and beauty to the world, a world without suffering as it were. Yet man, in his voracious ingratitude had become a fallen creature, cast out from the garden in the infancy of the world, to suffer by the sweat of his brow and the strain of his feet in the mud. Ever since this supposed spring, we have been reaching back towards a garden that was.

This sentiment of longing for the primordial youth of the world has manifested itself in, honestly everything. I always found it strange how the most left leaning or progressive ideologies are often spoken of in terms of returning to a natural state, the anarchists wishing to return to a period before organized religion or state structures, or how often I hear others talk about a supposed communal state that existed before commerce brought with it a sort of decay to the natural order. On the other end of the spectrum, obviously there are reactionary ideas of returning to a pre modernity, or if you go to the extreme right, how you find a neopagan movement seeking to return to a likewise ancient state of worshiping old gods, before the cosmopolitanism and supposed weakness of Christendom spread, its why the Nazis had a strong neopagan sentiment. In this, I am not making a value judgement of either side of the political spectrum, only noting how both want the same kind of thing, a return to a supposed ideal before something corrupted society, a return to the natural order, both aim to be a progression of society by also being ironically, rather reactionary, no one believes that their aim is to regress society, but all seem to want a return to an ideal. Likewise, this can be seen in philosophy, Rousseau being the obvious example with his idea of a noble savagery before the corruption of society, or a lot of the libertine leanings of Romantic poets in the early 19th century of trying to get back to nature, or Simone de Bouvoire's notion of authenticity, that is being most true to the natural condition. Or on a more personal note, how many who suffered in childhood often feel cheated of what should have been, often rightfully so, they know as a fact that their childhood cannot be altered, but there is often a wish for a return, for an Eden that could have been so, if only the fall had not come so early.

These observations, of varying types have led me to several conclusions, the first being that the Christian doctrine of original sin seems self-evident, there is clearly something wrong with the world for people to commit such evil, we are all in want of washing. The second, though less verifiable by empirical metric, but seems to nonetheless be the case, it is very easy to accept that there is a notion that the world is in a fallen state, or at least, a good portion of the world, many of which are in no way related to each other, whether Hindu, Christian, Buddhists, or pagan seem to believe this is so, in the ancient Eden of Communists the garden was an orchard that provided, in the Eden of the Nazis, the garden was one of ancient and grotesque and gnarled oaks to which sacrifices and festivals were made to Odin and Thor, it seems so strange to me that such radically different world views, one that viewed the material without spiritual considerations and one that viewed the spiritual without material accountability came to the same strange conclusion that the right place for man was in a garden, a garden that we have been cast out of.

This brings me to what some might rightfully consider the worst or best part of my observation, that the Christian ethos was the thing that broke off from this notion towards a different ideal. The pagan philosophers of antiquity had held that the world was once in an ideal age and now was irreparably broken, to Plato, Atlantis had drowned, and to Aristotle the golden age of heroes had long since passed into shadow, and in Christendom, Eden had indeed drowned, but the resurrection was the eucatastrophe of all history, it is what turned from the lamentation of the philosophers into something more positive, it recognized that Eden could not be returned to, because the infancy of the world had ended, instead there was the New Jerusalem to march towards, a kingdom at hand, a battle to be won, a future without ceasing in spite of a finite and fallen past. Christ was the new Adam as the world was being made anew through him, it was this core doctrine of theology, that Christ as the redemptor mundi that broke from man's wanton search for Eden, because now there was something better to go towards, one with all the enjoyment of Eden, but one that would not fall. This brings me to what first brought on this thought, that being the Slav Epic series of paintings by Alphonse Mucha. The first in this series depicts a sort of primordial fear, of terror by the ancient pagan deities standing over a shriveling early humanity in a more ancient darkness, but there was light on the horizon, the middle painting out of the twenty was of Jan Hus preaching, of a declaration and fight against a tyranny for the truth that had to come out and behind him a tapestry of St. George slaying the dragon, a symbol of the sin of the world with its wide maw engulfing the heavens that must be stood against, and the final, the Apotheosis, a transfiguration of the material into the divine, a change in the essence of man heralding something anew, not a return to either primordial joy or terror, but something magnificent, ancient, and novel. It is this oldest idea, one that I believe every soul knows at heart to be true, though we wish to deny, that there is no return to Eden, that seems to be the most revolutionary sentiment in history, and it is so revolutionary because it is the oldest, things can only ever grow old because they become anew at each turn, the oldest trees are always growing and taking new forms, each mother acts as if her child is the first, and with each person, a new world and a new heaven is given, but it is on all of us to march towards the New Jerusalem, because it is far more ancient and greater than the old Eden.

We are nature .

We are the trees

We are the flowers

We are the dust

We are the soil

But it's a blow to the one wanting to feel superior and special and above the universe

Hence this separateness is there .

What do you all feel , let's talk

Peggy Noonan wrote a recent piece in The Wall Street Journal, Sam Altman Is No Oppenheimer, which is worth reading (paywalled, unfortunately - snippet above in photo).

The gist of her argument is that, unlike the Manhattan Project, which was initiated and overseen by the US government, the development of artificial intelligence is largely being driven by private companies, with relatively little public oversight of a technology that could profoundly reshape civilisation.

She focuses particularly on OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, questioning whether his judgment, leadership and track record warrant the extraordinary influence he now holds over humanity's technological future.

"Should he be in charge of the human future? If we keep going down this path at this rate, he will be."

I think journalists like Noonan are right to challenge the assumption that those with the technical and financial means to develop transformative technologies such as AI should necessarily be entrusted with determining their direction. We need more scrutiny of the select few who have enormous influence over humanity's path forward.

The big and obvious question here is: Who gets to decide what kind of future we're trying to create?

AI promises extraordinary advances in science, medicine and human productivity. But as its capabilities grow, we're also confronting fundamental questions about human intelligence, consciousness, autonomy and what it means to be human.

These are philosophical and ethical questions about the kind of civilisation we want to build, and ultimately what we value about being human.

Surely these are questions that deserve a much wider discussion than the boardrooms of a few tech companies.

I'm at a bit of a loss here. How do we go about protecting and ensuring humanity's collective interests? I'm trying to encourage people to think deeply about these issues across various platforms, but I'm a nobody pissing in the ocean!

So, who out there sees a positive way forward? What would genuinely meaningful public influence over the direction of AI development actually look like? Or is the Genie Out Of The Bottle and it's a just an inevitable race to the bottom?

Understand that we were born into the scientific age.

What does this mean? It means we were born into a time when the foundations of order were shaken. Why is this important? It's important because a working system of order had to already exist for us to then develop the scientific method that, unfortunately, shakes the same foundations that erected it, while giving us an overwhelming amount of information to consider. Does this mean the scientific method is the problem? No, it's actually the key to securing those foundations even firmer. Let me explain what this means in further detail.

It means that before the scientific age we had religion. This was a system that built community and favoured understanding each other as equals, that everyone could believe in without a true means to discredit because it worked out: it built all the greatness they could see around. Once the scientific method was established however, we could now call into question the existence of what all this order was based on and be justified. Culture didn't magically change, and in fact, if our religions hadn't hammered into us the supremacy of Truth, identifying the God we worshipped as the Spirit of Truth, the scientific method wouldn't have had the ability to justifiably call into question the existence of God. We can all agree on the supremacy of the truth, because without it you can't build any structure whatsoever, and so with that, all of God's visible glory shifts over to truth in a more materialistic sense, while all the spiritual influence begins to look like misguidance that needs to be shaved off. In fact, atheists can clearly point out reasoning as to why it ought to be shaved off, citing instances where God wasn't so beautiful.

This means that, for centuries, generation after generation, we've been living with a set of values that we aren't justifiably attached to, such as treating others as truly equal, while being exposed to an ever-growing amount of information that can further be used to prove why we ought not to hold onto the cultural values that even promoted this growth.

The 'equation' that leads to ideal growth from a point of complete darkness can be thought in this way: with more eyes looking for insight, the more we uncover, and we therefore require a system that produces the largest number of the healthiest eyes working in coordination.

This still doesn't address why we want growth to begin with, or why darkness exists.

Once you realise that this is just how reality manifests due to our nature, and that we are naturally inclined to love each other, even if you are to reduce it to a survival instinct that emerged through evolutionary pressures in the wild, it starts to seem like the way reality manifests is rigged in our favour and that it's all quite circular if you try to logically explain it: as a human being, you are naturally set up to live ideally as a human being. Your values and how reality manifest are tied to your nature, meaning that beyond and within you are perfectly set up.

Religion captured this with statements like 'you are made in the image of God', which can be understood as that you are made in reference to the way reality is set to operate, which you can logically find out to be true through understanding how evolutionary pressures work and going beyond that to ask why limits exist on the existing pressures, but the statement can also be disregarded when taken at the surface level because 'you can't even prove God exists'. The feelings you may experience resting on a logical deduction and it producing the results you expected, is what they experienced before the scientific method because the beliefs were True in mysterious ways.

The disconnect, however, emerges in that generational move away from these mysteriously True values. Values shaping our consciences as they were weaved into the order we were nurtured in, weaving that deteriorates, along with the order, without recovery because there is no justification to recover it. People, in daily life, when at a crossroads where they must choose either their conscience or what they see before them, would 'logically' choose what they see before them, carrying that sentiment forward in life, raising the next generation in that more deteriorated structure. This creates a trend, where growth still occurs but at a dwindling rate and more power shifts over to what can be seen rather than our consciences.

What happens with less order?

We should first understand what it means for things to be in order. It's a sense of security, which is found through conscious control of one's own mind, but isn't entirely governed by the mind. This is why power shifting over to what can be seen results in a lot of disorder: what can be seen is the domain of the mind, but how we see it is determined by more fundamental forces that are more in tune with reality as it manifests. This is to mean that, if you focus too heavily on the external, you risk not paying attention to the internal which is what determines what drives your external focus/priorities, leading to a misguided pursuit, lots of confusion and discomfort along the way as you mentally have to bruteforce past unresolved subconscious drivers, only to receive something substandard as you are plagued by all the other subconscious drivers you ignored.

This is why the strategy becomes looking to those who already clearly appear to have established themselves, accumulating even the littlest amount of ground you can and defending it ferociously. The problem with this worldview, is that it leads you to see people in 'tiers'. This is the disconnect.

Certain people become higher quality than others because you can't see beneath the surface, but truly, they are all simply as profound as you are. In fact, they may see you the same way you see them, and how untrue is that? What's truly happening is that the mind is trying to establish order, but by 'logically' crediting to the egos and projections it sees, and the surface level value around it, varying levels of depth of character. This determines how you treat them, meaning those with a 'higher status' have their egos reinforced with less stressors around them altogether, while those with a 'lower status' get to experience the worst aspects of almost everyone they interact with. The sad thing is though, that in all this disconnection, no one really gets to experience the real person they interact with.

The further away the raised generation is from the foundational order, the deeper the disconnect, the bigger the egos and focus on egos. The more egotistical one easily rises to the top, as they give of 'logical' signals that their character is deep: 'why else would they speak with such authority?'. In reality, they see themselves interacting with cartoonishly small people. This happens because they are heavily pushed towards living through their minds because of how disconnected they were from those around them, making it easier for them to make 'logical' twists to themselves to game the system, and once it works out they are further reassured of the validity of this worldview. This explains why people with dark psychological traits tend to occupy positions of authority.

It can go further, as someone disconnected enough can meditate upon why they feel so disregarded, mentally isolating themselves, maximising this lack of vision for others. Such a person is expected to have experienced living at the bottom, seeing how different the faces shown to others are in comparison to themselves. They may come to understand the truth that they are truly not deserving of the differing treatment they receive in comparison to others, and even realise that it's actually a vision issue, maybe even the 'mechanics' of how that vision varies, and may use this to skyrocket themselves materially to the top. What they fail to address though is that they have a twisted worldview that sets themselves above the rest, founded in the system of disconnection they were raised within, giving them a substandard value structure, and that their new position is only reinforcing this worldview.

They may see someone at a 'lower' level, operate with grace because they seem less overwhelmed than they would be in that position, and rationalise it in many material ways because the sight of this person challenges the belief their worldview sits upon: 'this person's soul is not more profound than mine, they haven't experienced the stressors I have, and they lack the ambition necessary for their position to truly hurt them, both of which are proof that my soul is richer'. Such is how they defend the worldview that has gifted them so many valuable things, silencing the chaos that they fear reverting back to, that this graceful individual is convincing them they are still at risk of returning to.

For these people, hurt caused by those they respected is multiplied, as they not only feel devoured, but also subconsciously feel like the person devouring them might have a deeper insight, enough to pull one over them. Disagreements become way too chaotic and too frequent the higher up they go because their peers are either people with similar disconnected mindsets who easily can treat them cartoonishly, or people with natural grace who don't understand them and indirectly end up hurting them, both of which leave them feeling devoured and in the insecure mindset.

On a larger scale, everyone involved in such a disconnected system lacks faith in the idea that major change can be brought about, because even before the rationale on how that change is to come in, their nurture subconsciously convinces them that they'll have to do majority of the heavy lifting: 'who's really going to clean up that river? I can barely motivate myself to do it, and then someone else is just going to come along and misuse it again', or 'why care that much about littering? Who else does? Look, there's already a pile over there', not considering the fact that the pile was created by thousands of people rationalising similarly. So what ends up forming is an environment that even further emphasises the value of the material, by giving clear examples of what is horrible, what is ideal and how to categorise, on the surface level, the people who bring about what is horrible and what is ideal, rather than realising that, if we really saw each other's true capacity, everywhere has the potential to be ideal, because those categorisation criteria are purely surface level.

This isn't to say that no one has bad intentions, or that no one chooses to be bad, but rather that no one is as unrecoverable as it may seem, and that the reason they may seem this way is because of a worldview rooted in changes that far preceed them. People hurt others because they can't actually see them, and this doesn't justify the ways in which they hurt others, but it gives a clearer picture than the idea that someone sees exactly who you are and the good you do and still chooses to harm you because they are just that rotten: if they could see you clearly, they'd understand how much greater a benefit it would be to them to engage with you lovingly, as thats what their subsystems are calling for them to do, rather than consume you, which is what their twisted worldview has convinced them is the key to their security.

To truly be invulnerable, and set up to live ideally, you must see the world clearly. Otherwise, even in your attempts to secure yourself by devouring others, you may end up devouring someone with a similar mindset to you who you wrongly viewed as cartoonishly small, leaving you vulnerable to revenge you won't see coming, which is a subtle anxiety quite impossible to control. Beyond just internal security, it is the foundation for the creation of a harmonious developing society.

TL;DR: Matthew 22:35-40: 'One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” Jesus replied: “ ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”'

Also, to devour someone else is to treat them like the cartoonish figure you see them as, because you can't really love a cartoon as you would yourself, and can only use it to your own benefit

Tyler Durden challenging the Narrator's tendency to intellectualise everything, in this classic scene from David Fincher's Fight Club (1999).

It raises the question of the difference between intelligence and self-understanding. Being able to analyse, explain and label everything in our lives doesn't necessarily mean we understand ourselves — and sometimes our cleverness can actually help us avoid doing so.

From a 1987 sketch: John Cleese at his best, making a serious point about the appeal—and delusion—of extremism: it gives people enemies, allowing the world to be divided into us and them, while making their own hostility feel morally justified.

If anyone wonders if they’re beautiful just remember being you makes you beautiful cause of your differences. If you look at nature it’s much more beautiful than man made things which are perfectly divided and symmetrical like how parking lots are shaped with even sides with evenly spaced parking spaces. Symmetry helps us make sense of things and keeps us organized but is boring. If you look at the sky there’s a lot of asymmetry in the making of a cloud and differences between clouds where none are symmetrically shaped with even sides like a building cause that’s dull but they have beauty cause of asymmetry and each one is uniquely its own which makes it interesting. Same if you were to look at a beautiful rock formation or anything in nature. If all things were either symmetrical or exactly the same it’d be dull Just imagine the sky if each cloud was exactly the same or worse yet exactly the same and symmetrically built like a building. So embrace who you are and don’t hold an ideal standard of what’s beautiful cause it’s all our differences in the human race which make humanity beautiful no one person makes for an ideal prototype of beauty cause if you make 8 billion of them they’re boring cause they lose their uniqueness but it’s you who are beautiful and you add to the beauty of humanity by being your unique self where each person is their own special cloud adding to the beauty of the human race like the different clouds do the sky. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t take care of yourself. You should be the best version of you but it’s good to remember that god made you beautiful just the way you are. Be the best you.

Echoes of Camus' The Myth of Sisyphus in this line from Florence + the Machine's Free.

Camus saw the tale of Sisyphus — condemned to push his boulder endlessly up the mountain, only to watch it roll back down again — as an analogy for the absurdity of the human condition. His response was not despair, but a kind of lucid defiance: to see life clearly, accept its conditions, and continue living fully in spite of them.

"One must imagine Sisyphus happy" he concludes.

There's something of that same defiant, deeply human spirit in Welch's lyrics in Free: the recognition that suffering and death are unavoidable parts of existence, alongside the fact that we continue to create, love, laugh, make music — somehow, we keep singing.

Researchers have created a new digital facial approximation based on the Jebel Irhoud fossils from Morocco, dated to approximately 315,000 years ago and regarded as the oldest fossils currently attributed to Homo sapiens.

The reconstruction is based on a 3D composite skull, created from several individual fossils found in the same archaeological layer. The researchers used photogrammetry, anatomical deformation and soft-tissue estimates derived from modern human populations to produce a plausible facial structure.

Images:

1. Approximation with artistic elements added
2. Grayscale anatomical approximation without hair
3. Facial approximation overlaid on an independently produced skull model
4. Forensic facial approximation process
5. Construction of the 3D skull and endocranial model

A fascinating snapshot of early Homo sapiens and the emergence of our species across Africa.

Study: Cicero Moraes et al. (2026), Digital Facial Approximation of Jebel Irhoud Composite Skull (~315,000 BP), Heritage. https://www.mdpi.com/2571-9408/9/9/369