The following was written for my philosophy class. The assignment asked for 6-8 observations of my online behavior (here I have 6) and then gave several questions about content we discussed in the course in relation to the observations. The following sections are divided accordingly, and they can be read in any order, though they were written in the order presented.

 Several authors we have read throughout the class are referenced in parentheses when I use an idea that I first saw in their writing. There is a works cited section after the concluding paragraph.

 These are the six observations that I mentioned in the introduction.

Highlighted: My Professor (Lassiter) With a Doctorate in Philosophy Calls Me a Nerd.

 I don't want to be a nerd, but being a nerd isn't really the kind of label one decides for themselves. It's a narrative (Bruner) prescribed for you, this case being "this guy really likes computers and he uses Linux." Maybe my appearance or behavior offline wouldn't put me in this group (though I AM pursuing two engineering majors, which certainly doesn't help), but online? The lack of inhibitors on my behavior doesn't change it, because most of mine are self-imposed. What about me makes me a nerd then?

 The first thing that comes to mind is music. I listen to a large variety of genres that I wouldn't play for other people in the car, and a couple that I would. I don't want to show you most playlists that I've made because I never delete them and many are embarrassing, but I'll share this screenshot of my front page:

The front page of a man who didn't think he was a nerd.

 Would a nerd like Chevelle? A nerd would certainly like Weezer, ambient music, and vaporwave, so disregard this screenshot if I'm not a nerd. Please disregard the username as well. Only a nerd would name themselves that. A nerd would also tell you to listen to Long Whale Song and George Clanton's music because both are very good in different ways, but I'm definitely NOT doing that right now. Moving on,

A Playlist made by the same man full of british experimental electronic music

That man spending $150 on vinyl records of said music

 Certainly, I have not made my point in that I listen to a "large variety" of genres. This small glimpse into the music I like alone is enough to do so, and you don't even know what else is in my vinyl collection.

 Much like in real life, as I am studying engineering, I like to find problem-solving challenges online when I have the energy to spare. This desire manifests itself mostly in the video games that I play, but also in content that I consume online. Take this sample from my recent YouTube watch history:

Neurotic Goose plays Minecraft modpacks in unintended ways that introduce unique problems.

 Asides from being a way to be lazy without being bored, there exists a plethora of problem-solving content on the internet that is at the very least entertaining, if it is not a good way to look for problems to solve. In that interest I recently started playing GTNH (the modpack played in the videos above) myself, and it so far has been a fun way to put my brain to use. Playing a single-player video game is definitely not an online activity, but maybe I can give you an idea from a Factorio playthrough I had with some friends:

One of the worst games of Factorio I've ever been in. Ignore my hilarious 2019 username that is probably too small to see.

 I could continue on to talk about how most video games I like playing require some problem-solving, but that wouldn't bring us anywhere new. Most of them aren't really something I would consider myself good at, anyway. Maybe one can see some of this interest in this website and server set-up (the webring), which is creating problems to solve them, in essence.

 As you might have noticed, the behavior described in the previous segment is notable for how haphazard it is. Take the current (as of writing) state of my website's front page:

Last updated December 2025! Roadmap doesn't have a backlink, and Updates is empty. I haven't put that sound file on a server that can host it. The link to anonymouspepper2012.com doesn't work and I haven't even fixed it.

 Now, I am not an expert when it comes to making a website. Everything but the song was made by me, and all of the tools to make it were configured by me, but there are a myriad (for the size of the site) of issues that wouldn't even take that long to fix...and I haven't. This is symptomatic of a wider problem that I have with myself, but it is definitely worse online. I can get myself to start something, but if there's nobody keeping me going, I'm not going to finish anything.

FL Studio project for a song I was making with a friend that has been stagnant for months.

This screenshot of a private wiki we have was my last contribution to it several months ago and it isn't even a finished edit.

 These are just a couple examples, but there are more. I guess I'd rather be watching YouTube videos instead?

Time total is seven hours and forty six minutes for this day!

 Recently this has gotten slightly better, but if I want to actually finish working on something that I started on my own terms or have the ability to focus on one thing at a time (most of those video were watched on a second monitor while playing games!) I need to stop spending my time doing things that require zero effort. That way, I can get more used to applying myself, which would make effortful tasks more enjoyable. Though really, since I'm going just fine otherwise, I don't have to do anything.

The CRAZY Family is a project started by a friend of mine. I have worked on "...when DAY BREAKS", "Zamily ZUYDIS", and an upcoming episode that has not yet released because of laziness.

 My friends and I tend to embroil (hyperbole) ourselves in creative expression. Seen above, The CRAZY Family is a rip on sitcoms made mostly in MS Paint. In the past there have collaborative let's play YouTube channels, shitposting efforts, murals, and this insane Minecraft build that started it all:

This behemoth of a ""theme park"" stretches down to the void and up to the build limit. It was inspired by Kowloon Walled City and took a few weeks to complete.

 Of course most of the stuff that we work on isn't too serious, which is a distinction from what I find myself doing offline. Offline, I've written poems for financial benefit, and made my own music, but most of my creative endeavours are online.

 This is a key quality of myself as a whole, but it is very apparent online. This is definitely a part of my friend group's microculture. Here is an excerpt from a recent few words I shared with a friend in DMs:

Guys, Spokane is on fire. I don't think your behavior accurately captures the situation.

 The conversation ping-pongs back and forth between "dude this is not good" (taking the situation seriously), "So scry......." (taking the situation seriously and making fun of myself for doing so), and "ASK APARTMENT ASHTON" (bullshit). I tend to be like this a little bit in real life too but an inherent fact about the places I spend my time online is that they are mostly removed from reality in some way or another. My friends and I tend to be more serious while on a call but mostly we talk about what we're doing, or we makefun of stuff. Unless there is an immediate concern or it is pertinent to the conversation, the real world is seldom discussed, only when it's funny, really.

 For the past few years, I have spent a lot of time on my phone reading Wikipedia, and I've learned a few things from that as well. Mostly this is when I'm sitting down. I'll read about what I'm eating, the kind of music I'm listening to, or whatever happens to be occupying my mind at the moment (e.g. wood is infused with creosote oil to make railroad ties). Rarely, it will lead to a less ephemeral interest, such as the grouping of languages into families.

I would consider myself mildly well-versed in superficial knowledge of the Indo-European language family.

 This is also where I get my news, though I also get the NYT letter in my e-mail every morning, and I talk to my relatives about it as well. I'm not completely isolated. Offline, I guess I'm not that different, but pursuing knowledge requires poring through books and talking to people. I do go to college, and I talk to my professors sometimes, but it is much easier to satisy passing curiosity online, so that is where I tend to do so.

 I want to use this section to think about the fuzzy boundaries dividing these 'selves'. This is most clearly visible in the nerd section, where I was talking about music. I found the stuff I considered 'nerdy' on the internet. I used the music (streamed from online) to influence myself and my surroundings. Using a combination of systems of interaction / embodiment (Kagan and Lassiter, Krueger and Szanto) and the stage metaphor (Goffman), it is apparent that web-space influences both me and my reality directly and indirectly.

Professional diagram illustrating the aforementioned relationship.

 In a way, then, we can imagine that reality and web-space have the potential to be very entangled. The key here is that there is a potential, they can be partially removed from each other as well, as one might see in an anonymized (e.g. Discord in many cases). I don't think that I should talk about those kinds of spaces here because I do not participate in them. I will note however that because these spaces require and are influenced by people, they are going to be influenced by reality because the people are influenced by reality.

 I don't believe that my online self and my 'real' self are different masks (Goffman) that I wear. A better way to describe the situation as I see it is that they are the same mask in a different light, and that web-space and real life are different stages that I perform on. Online, my surroundings are different: I'm not talking to people in person, so there is no body language, I am in the same space as practically limitless knowledge, and there are far fewer consequences for my actions than in real life so long as I do not go viral. Of course this would change my behavior, because online I am embodied (Kagan and Lassiter) in what is essentially a different reality.

 I think it errant to assume that there is no 'online self' at all, though; I am embodied in part by my online self just as I am by my offline self, just as the boundaries of my mind blur when it collects outside information in the interest of solving a problem. This was made clear in An Introduction to Embodied Mind in chapter 9. Since those two amalgamated parts I have are embodied with different realities, and my whole self is comprised of the parts, I as a whole am embodied by these realities. So, the two aren't separated clearly, I said they are amalgamated. This is because they are like soup.

You may be able to tell them apart visually, but those ingredients are part of the broth and the broth is all up inside those ingredients. Mmm...soup.

 If I think about myself in the way that Bruner does, in terms of a narrative, it might be something like "I am an erratic being with no will other than his, living in order to best exist and fuel his own interest." Maybe I should mention here that this doesn't mean I think I act in 'selfish' (very ill defined) ways, because the combination of my will and best interest means I need to do good by the people around me. The narrative is the most distilled way I could think of my motivation, and thinking that I'm a "sigma male" or something does NOT factor into it or reflect who I am.

 From this, we can find other narratives that I might align with that fit me into a culture, and we might find some that outside culture would define for me. Informed by my online presence, we can find "curious individual who likes problem-solving and enjoys talking about niche subjects he is interested in", or "nerd". This one is prescribed, as I said in that section. It is clear how I would align with and be labeled as an engineer, given some aspects of the previous. It is also apparent in the "I am erratic" section that the people I spend my time with are also erratic. Maybe the narrative is something like "I like to poke fun at everything, and I mean EVERYTHING."

 Here I'm meant to talk about social media and how it impacts understanding of ourselves. Because I don't really use the social media intended for discussion in this part (i.e. Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, etc.) I don't have the experience necessary to know firsthand what the effects of using it are. The few times I tried posting on those kinds of platforms I didn't get much engagement from anybody, so now I understand myself as more of an outcast. That was the only thing I got out of that experience, and I don't think that it even holds much merit.

 That said, I think that putting oneself out there in general leads to more self-scrutiny over oneself, more so than others care, really. I am just now writing this to post on the website and it has led to this effect. I don't think that most people spend much time stalking the accounts of others, and people definitely forget most of what they see while they are scrolling unless it is an extreme stand-out. So, for most, I would assume that posting on traditional Web2.0 social media (i.e. Not like Neocities or Discord, though Discord has a little bit of that) is a source of unnecessary stress and destruction of self-esteem that brings more harm than good. Of course, this is a regurgitation of what I have heard in my schooling, because again, I have not experienced very much of this.

 What I have experienced, though, does make me think that it's part of our extended mind (Clark and Chalmers). Much like how the notebook 'replaced' Otto's memory (more accurately substituted it in a system), posting functions as a replacement for 'natural' expression, and those annoying reminders of who we were in posts from ten years ago function as a replacement for manual reminiscence. This 'first-wave of extended mind' way of looking at the situation doesn't differ all that much from the 'second-wave' vision. Scrolling, posting, engaging, and sharing can be seen as either replacements for offline functions we have to be used in an online space, or they can be seen as interfaces that allow us to be in the online space. There isn't much difference between the two.

Spotify "Wrapped" screenshot: are you kidding me?

 Honestly, I think these are a disgusting corporatization of parts of my identity that I don't need to be reminded of because I'm me. If they were showing me things I've done that I'm not proud of, or people that I was hanging out with that I don't like anymore, then if anything I think that it would be something pushing me to improve. It would not be a tool for me to wallow in self-pity, though I suppose I would need to be in the right mood for that to be the case. In that way it would not help my mental health. It definitely wouldn't help my continued presence on the platform.

 So, I am asked in the assignment, Does social media act as part of our extended mind, tracking who we are over time, or does it act as a hindrance to our own growth by constantly reminding us of the past? Social media definitely acts as part of the extended mind as replacements for parts of the mind in web-space or as interfaces for the mind to work in web-space. In that sense it also functions a little bit as Otto's notebook, keeping track of things that happened. As is argued in This New Yorker article, this will keep the memories more or less 'correct' depending on the situation, as it is very easy for pictures to miss context, which might hinder our ability to move on and leave things in the past.

 This kind of consequence is apparent in the notebook analogy as well; Otto needs a light for his notebook, and he has to carry it everywhere. Consequences of these substitutions then are not contradicted by their being a part of an extended mind, so both options are true.

 AI love as a concept is interesting in that it is a fairly advanced progression that can be reached if one thinks of replacing what we consider to be very human parts of life with technology. Though nothing inside of us is being replaced in this case.

 Considering whether or not these people are being irrational or not(see here), I wouldn't say so. We can see in all of these examples that these people sought out companionship in AI just like they might on a dating app, for reasons people might do so normally. They found something they could consider someone that fulfilled their emotional needs at the time. I don't think there's anything irrational going on here, except maybe AI relationships were not the best possible solution. Maybe they should have spent more time supporting their spouse, or gone to therapy, or...something? I'm not them, and I am most certainly not an expert that can deal with the heaviness of the situations listed in the article. Whatever floats their boat, I suppose.

 If we think about it the way Hume would, the passions called for companionship, and reason pointed to the easiest way to get something like that. There certainly isn't anything irrational about the situation. As can clearly be seen, the lives of the people in the article improved somewhat as they avoided loneliness, and used the companionship as support to fix the problems they had.

 So what of the capability for this love to be true? Obviously, AI chatbots can be loved. People love a lot of things, and they don't have to be human! I love my cat (not human), I love the Ocean (not a living thing), and I love space (a concept). Love is an intense affection for some thing, and AI chatbots are a thing, so they can be loved.

This dude really loves the ocean! He loves everything about it, everything in it, and even the mussels that are hardly more than rocks.

 Whether one can be truly in love with a chatbot is another subject entirely. To throw out any vague argument that could lead to a conclusion, people are in love with people who aren't in love with them all of the time, yet they are still in love. I don't see why this has to be restricted to people. People can be in love with whatever they want, because they can do whatever they want. I don't think this means that people should be in love with whatever they want, for reasons that I'll leave as an exercise for the reader.

 P.S. In all seriousness I do think it's very obvious but incest, bestiality, and pedophilia are very very bad and have real consequences as result of the subject of "love" (ick).

 Alright I'm done. I've spent 18 hours the past two days putting this together, and I think that I really liked thinking this hard about all this stuff. Of course I have issues with what I've put down here, but I have to be done. Thanks for reading it all.

 If I had to keep thinking about any part of this, I might start to wonder about how social life is affected by actors that are not human. It was implied in the "AI Love" section that I thought that so long as a thing is personable and capable of convincing others that it has a personality it can participate in all kinds of relationships, but I wonder how far that goes. If at some point in the future, language isn't an issue, could I talk to a whale online in an anonymous setting and have no idea? What implications does that have?

 If you're a random person seeing this, why did you read it all (presuming this isn't the only part you've read)? You don't know me and I think you're weird. Send me an email lol

Andy Clark and David Chalmers. The Extended Mind. Oxford Journals, Jan. 1998.

Joel Krueger and Thomas Szanto. Extended Emotions. Wiley, Aug. 2016.

Charles Lassiter and Aaron Kagan. An Introduction to Embodied Mind: Thinking Outside the Head. Routledge, Apr. 2026.

Jerome Bruner. Acts of Meaning: Four Lectures on Mind and Culture. Harvard University Press, Jan. 1990.

Erving Goffman was a sociologist that came up with the mask/stage metaphor. We didn't read any works by him but he is who I am referring to.