karltiboleng

If there's a robot that's programmed to generate pain sounds whenever it's hit, would it be ethical to hit it or even destroy it? How would we know that it's actually feeling pain, as opposed to just making sounds? In the same vein, if AGI exists, would it be ethical to destroy it? What do you guys think?

Does a skeleton and internal organs = pain? Could we say with certainty that it does not feel pain? It may sound kinda out there but is there a way to know for sure?

I have a few that I would like to share, some of my faves! Not that short but... We are no longer facing a material crisis. We have plenty of resources: TVs and clothes and goods that we don't need. The problem we face is existential and spiritual. We have so much stuff and so many opportunities that we don't know what to give a fuck about anymore. - Mark Manson The desire for a more positive experience is itself a negative experience. And, paradoxically, the acceptance of one's negative experience is itself a positive experience. - Mark Manson There's too much money here. No one should be hitting the lotto for $36 million and we got people starving in the streets. That's not idealistic, that's just real. There's no way Michael Jackson, or whoever, should have $100 million dollars and there are people starving, there's no way. There's no way these people own planes and there are people who don't own houses, apartments, shacks, drawers. - Tupac "It's all about love... making someone else's existence just a little easier. Nothing else matters, I know this now." - Terence McKenna It's clearly a crisis of two things: of consciousness and conditioning. We have the technological power, the engineering skills to save the planet, to cure disease, to feed the hungry, to end war; but we lack the intellectual vision, the ability to change our minds. We must decondition ourselves from 10,000 years of bad behavior. And, it's not easy. - Terence McKenna “We are caged by our cultural programming. Culture is a mass hallucination, and when you step outside the mass hallucination you see it for what it’s worth.” - Terence McKenna "Man sacrifices his health in order to make money. Then he sacrifices money to recuperate his health. And then he is so anxious about the future that he does not enjoy the present; the result being that he does not live in the present or the future; he lives as if he is never going to die, and then dies having never really lived."

As long as the whole world doesn't transcend survival (i.e. stage turquoise), the world will never know peace. So yeah virtually impossible.

Really interesting! I think it sorta represents the back and forth dynamic between each stage, between individualism and collectivism as well. It's like from one stage (e.g. blue), then you go to individualistic orange, then you go back to collectivist green, but green is a "improvement" of blue where it transcends blue and orange but includes elements of both stages.

I believe visualization and logic plays a key role here. Logic in a sense of not letting your emotions getting the better of you, not letting yourself fall into any addictions or unhealthy patterns while indulging in a desire. While visualizing towards your purpose, not allowing yourself to stray too far from it.

Social validation / groupthink.

Exactly! We need to stop putting ourselves on a pedestal.

@andyjohnsonman Hmm yeah that's true. But anyway I feel that this is a more "yellow" approach, so to speak. I think that yellow looks a lot like orange, but it's an integration of economic growth and a socialistic "love for all" paradigm. Of course there is no clear answer on how to achieve this, but I think their approach closely resembles yellow. Remember that tier 2 takes the "good" parts out of each stage and integrates them all. No stage is better than another, they're all paradigmatic value judgments. So I think that they felt that mostly people were acting out of fear, and they took a more logical approach, so as to not stifle economic progress too much.

Don't confuse the model for reality

@Parththakkar12 "We don't particularly care about how our change could negatively impact someone else" "You're just playing with fire" Exactly this!!! I think this is the issue with advocating these positions. Our egos are not ready, as a collective, for these teachings. This is why Leo will never go mainstream... at least not in the near future. I think we are at the onset of green, and it would be foolish to rush evolution. You'd just receive too much backlash.

A post I came across today on facebook. Although her english isn't the best (I think she meant "you were chosen", not "you chose"), I feel that she was just trying to nudge people towards being more accepting and loving. But thousands of people are currently bashing on her calling her the most stupid person ever and things like that. Call out culture makes me sad...

She is advocating stoicism. She has posted other things about how we should deal with the cards we're dealt with and that our actions are just manifestations of our inner worlds. But I think the majority cannot understand these perspectives. An eye for an eye turns the whole world blind...

@Fathime I can relate. I've been doing intermittent fasting for awhile now and I've been getting a lot of stomach pains recently. I'm not too sure if I should keep going...

@28 cm unbuffed Yea I think so! Sounds like you have to turn inward more.

@28 cm unbuffed For me, consciously "stepping out" and becoming self-aware of your everyday thoughts and actions really helps. Notice those moments when you feel like getting back into contact with your friend. Like cutting an addiction, consciously pull away from those moments that you feel this way. Meditation during these moments really helps as well, to stop yourself from acting how you don't want to actually act.

I dunno, my life hasn't exactly been butterflies and rainbows either. But keep the faith and focus on what you can control! And also, we have the same birthday. Heh

An excerpt from The Power of Now that really resonated with me and I think really applies here: "The greatest catalyst for change in a relationship is complete acceptance of your partner as he or she is, without needing to judge or change them in any way. That immediately takes you beyond ego. All mind games and all addictive clinging are then over. There are no victims and no perpetrators anymore, no accuser and accused. This is also the end of all codependency, of being drawn into somebody else's unconscious pattern and thereby enabling it to continue. You will then either separate - in love - or move ever more deeply into the Now together - into Being." I don't think it necessarily has to be a romantic relationship in this case, I feel that this applies to any relationship with another person. Wanting to help another but then suffering because the other doesn't act the way you expect them to - it's ego. Will you only be satisfied when they act like you want them to? Living in expectancy of something only leads to disappointment. Wanting to help another is a noble cause, no doubt, more people should do it, but the important thing is to detach from outcome, because that isn't in your control.

For me, I have struggled a lot with this in the past. What worked for me: I do contemplation and meditation to try and become more aware of myself. I think try to take a step back from myself, as if seeing my own body from a third person perspective. I ask, "Why am I feeling what I feeling right now? What has happened to lead me to this very moment, of where I am right now? So what about these past events, why do they make me feel this way? What can I do about the situation in the present?" Pain is an indicator that something in your life has to change. Through adversity comes growth. I find that adopting an actionable mindset - taking action is very powerful. So is asking "so what" about anything. This thing has happened? So what? Does this ultimately matter in my life, and even if it does what can I do about it? Also, practice letting go on a regular basis. The answers might not come to you straight away, for sure, but keep the faith.

I will attempt once more to get through to you - you cannot force ideologies unto others. This is the problem with religion, feminism, the war on terrorism, the war on drugs, any form of identity politics in general. It it a valiant effort that you've gone vegan, I really respect that. But this is something that people will have to come to realise on their own. Proselytizing just leads to backlash and hate. It is true, no doubt, that many people try to justify their laziness by citing half baked claims about the pitfalls of veganism. But let them be. Debates can be healthy but you're definitely doing it in an unhealthy manner. Especially posting cartoons that ridicule people who don't agree with you, now that's just silly. Really consider opposing viewpoints and try to understand where they come from.

@Scholar Please, take a step back and read your posts carefully. Turning inwards leads to the most growth

Perfectly put, thank you.

Oh dear... I am not trying to justify any behavior. I am trying to point out the pitfalls of green ideology. This is essential when approaching this topic, as we need to be aware of our underlying assumptions we put forth a position. Why do we identify more with animals than other beings? Because they walk like us? They shed blood like us? When we identify with animals and not other beings, we are expanding our sense of self but not for the entire cosmos. Notice this at play here. It is a scary notion to think about, I know. This is the most emotionally laborious work one can do. Our sense of reality and life itself is at stake here. But this needs to be addressed when going into this work. "Oh, I would be singing a different tune when my baby was killed!" Yes, of course. I am aware of this survival bias. But it is what it is, a bias. Without survival life cannot function. Transcending survival is pretty much one of the hardest things to do. We are all agents in God's divine plan, all sentient beings included.

Yeah definitely it can be used dangerously, in the wrong context. But it still holds that the view of "a bad father" is relative. Who is it bad for? The wife and children. Why? Because they feel pain and this undermines their survival. Is this bad in their view? Probably. But not absolutely. Is it bad in the eyes of the father? He probably, in some twisted way, believes that beating his wife and kids will teach them valuable lessons. If one advocates for a position, this doesn't necessarily mean that they haven't considered opposing views (although most probably don't...)

@Scholar Sure, get a third party's view. I already at length described why your position is untenable but you are too closed off to see that. I emphasise that I am not dismissing the position of veganism, but I do not dismiss opposing views either.