trenton

When you say "surpassed on the highest difficulty" do you mean that given an identical position, he played a move that was superior? The problem with this framing is that Scrabble is a game in which it is possible to lose with perfect play. Luck matters a lot and strategy can only mitigate it so much. From that perspective, I would imagine that the AI played the statistically optimal move but still lost. One advantage a human might have over an AI is reading the opponent's hand. For example, if an opponent played one move even though having a vowel would have allowed a clearly better move, then you can intuit that your opponent does not have those tiles while the AI would treat it as technically a statistical possibility. This would open a door for a human to outplay an AI in a game of imperfect information, which happens regularly in other games as well as in the case of Alpha Star.

I have been exploring the most foundational laws in logic. I have been trying to stress test them to see if they are true. This includes 1. The law of identity 2. The law of non-contradiction (also known as the law of contradiction) 3. The law of the excluded middle If you would like to try to refute them you can. The law of non-contradiction in particular seems to be the closest to refuted, though this seems debatable. Firstly, the law of identity is the most stable one in my opinion. A=A. If it is the case that existence is, then existence is. I haven't come up with a clear counter example. Secondly, that law of non-contradiction seems to hold in most cases. The closest thing to a test would be "this statement is false." Some argue that it is genuinely both true and false at the same time. Dialetheism is something I would like to check for those who claim contradiction is not an error. The counterargument is that "this statement is false" doesn't give any truth value at all and is completely vacuous. But then would that make this neither true nor false? That is still a third category of truth. The way I think about contradiction is that there are different types of contradictions that are allowed. Some contradictions resolve by disambiguating. Some by setting a reference point. Some are a difference in perspective. Some may be the result of limited human concepts for explaining reality, and this would be semantic or linguistic contradictions. The contradictions I treat as genuine problems would be self defeating performative contradictions that fail their own test. For example, "all statements are meaningless unless they can be empirically verified." Logical positivism has an actually damaging contradiction because it fails by its own standard. This is the same as claiming "nothing is true." The problem is that if that statement is true, then there is at least one truth. It the statement is false, then the truth is that the statement is false. A contradiction is not necessarily an error, but there are specific types of contradictions which are actually problematic for a logical system. Some contradictions are self defeating within a logical system. Beyond this domain, I'm not sure I would say that no contradiction is ever allowed. That can be debated. The law of the excluded middle appears to hold when formalized in a narrow and specific way. That is that a proposition is either true or false by virtue of the structure of a proposition which thus serves as a truth claim. It seems the liar paradox would be the closest attempt at a counter example. Self reference is the main source of paradox in these cases. I haven't seen any attempt that isn't self referencing. Do you think any of the laws of logic are true? If one is false, then which one and why?

Is it possible to actually have a stable definition? If I wanted to, couldn't I ask for a definition for every word with which you defined another word? This would create an infinite regress or a circular definition. Once again, it looks like the laws of logic should survive still within the domain of propositions, so long as it is considered to be on a deeper layer than language. Also I would like to check out Quine.

Wait. Are you being clever with this statement? This might be a genuine counter example to the laws of logic. If the laws of logic claim that all three are true, A, B, and C, but C is false, then by the law of the excluded middle, it must be false to claim that A, B, and C are true. If you don't intend to break logic with that proposition, then I would like to see the precise reasoning for why the law of the excluded middle breaks. I am skeptical of it because it looks like it holds given a very narrow framework for what counts as a proposition. Otherwise, in formal logic a very specific set of criteria are demanded in order to define what counts as a genuine counter example. The argument for the law of the excluded middle is that if a claim is not true, then it is false. There isn't really a middle ground between true or false. There are logical systems that use other truth values though, meaning it isn't really universal or inherent to logic itself. It only works within a very narrow domain of structured propositions. Beyond that it would collapse. I think the problem is that the law of the excluded middle assumes a mind independent reality. If reality is mind dependent, then there could easily be more truth values. I think 'indeterminate' would be a clean counter example to the law of the excluded middle. For example in sorites paradox, there is no objective heap without an arbitrary line. In that example, it is not the case that a thing either is or is not a heap. Instead a heap is indeterminate. It is therefore neither true nor false that a thing is a heap. The criteria required to defeat the law of the excluded middle is to create a proposition that is neither true nor false. I believe the heap paradox is a clean counter example. "A heap has exactly 5000 grains." This is genuinely neither true nor false. It is an arbitrary line, or a self constructed truth with no mind independent reality as to what a heap is. Does this succeed in refuting the law of the excluded middle? Otherwise, the laws of logic are narrowly defined such that they only operate within cleanly defined terms which themselves can be neither true nor false by their constructed nature.

That is where I explored when I considered this as well. If logic can't tell if the premises are true, then logically that applies to the laws of logic as well. From that standpoint it can't be known if the laws of logic are true or false. I don't think the epistemic regress problem demonstrates that the laws are false, but rather that they are unknowable in their truth value. Logic does concede that it can't tell you if it's premises are true. It therefore limits itself to the specific domain of defined propositions which in turn are structured such that they either are true or false, thus following the laws of logic. This looks like a circular argument if logic is thus used to justify logic. A proposition which enters that system will not break the system due to the rules that system set up for what counts as a proposition. Logic is therefore a system that succeeds on its terms, but not necessarily on other terms like fuzzy logic among other logic types. Succeeding on its terms does not mean it is true according to logic.

By a squared triangle, I assume you mean a three sided shape with four sides. A counter example would be a shape that is both a square and a triangle by having three and four sides. It is a fairly stable example. I think once you pin down limitations, it creates a situation in which one finite thing cannot be another finite thing. Therefore do long as you have defined parameters, there is by necessity limitations in which the defined thing logically can't be other than what it is given the limitations imposed by the definition. From that standpoint a true counterexample involving a squared triangle would probably be non duality. If you and I are one, then a square and a triangle are one. You may or may not accept this, but my point is that in order to break the law of identity, one would have to dissolve the entire concept of identity altogether in order to get to anything remotely resembling a counter example. This isn't really the game logic is designed to play. One thought I had regarding contradiction would be reality as a whole necessarily operating independently of our human concepts. For example, there is the law of impermanence in which change is unchanging. At that point how do we distinguish between reality being constant change and constant persistence? If there is no real difference between change and not change without human concepts creating ground rules and limitations, then doesn't existence itself have this paradoxical nature which can't be cleanly pinned down without human concepts ultimately collapsing under their self imposed limitations, thus leading to contradictions? What do you think about "everything except change is changing?"

He is probably conflating open mindedness and moral relativism mixed with compassion for evil with being a terrorist sympathizer who wants death to America by any means necessary. In my case, I understand what would cause a person to become a terrorist and why they would want death to America, but I also recognize that beheading innocent people doesn't actually resolve the underlying grievances they have with economic exploitation. It is designed to shock and terrorize people, but isn't actually making the middle east better off by provoking Western backlash. I could simply argue that the ends don't justify the means even if somehow destroying the twin towers would end economic exploitation, which it didn't. If a person understands evil at a deeper level, and they express this, it is common for them to be lumped together with terrorist sympathizers who share these goals. This is probably where the accusation comes from.

@Leo Gura you mentioned you were killing mosquitoes and then realized you were committing a genocide. I just now had a similar problem. I recently learned about the spotted lantern fly. It is considered a parasite that destroys a lot of trees in my part of America. The government and various authoritative sources encouraged squashing the insects and destroying the eggs. Prior to this information, I simply observed one of these insects and started trying to figure out what it might be. Once I got this information from the government that it was a parasite that it wanted help eliminating, then I started thinking that killing these parasites would make me a good citizen. I just got back home from my walk. I found one of their breeding grounds and squashed a whole bunch of them. I can't count how many. Other people saw me squashing them and cheered me on for being a good citizen. However, once the dead bodies started piling up, I started having second thoughts. I started thinking, "oh, this is mass murder." I then started thinking of this behavior was really conducive to higher consciousness. Maybe I was being helpful to ridding parasites from nearby plants, but higher consciousness and being a good citizen come apart easily when being a good citizen means commiting a genocide. Now I'm thinking about something like a Nazi who was trying to be good by ridding his nation of a parasite only to kill countless Jews.

I have stepped into the realm of dating and was easily overwhelmed. In my case I have a combination of autism and childhood trauma I'm attempting to overcome somehow. I have been recommended dating by three different therapists, partially because they believe I am nothing like what my parents made me out to be. There is this constant fear that makes me not want to share my true feelings with others, leading me to being deeply intellectual in person. I tend to be more open online than in person. In person, I seem to come off as more guarded. Even if I believe I am fine, I still instinctively feel a sense of danger and uncertainty that makes intimacy slower for me. In person, I usually open up in the following way. First, I ask who you are and what you like to do. I check for any areas of special interests or expertise which helps me to identify patterns in how you think and what you value. I don't speak emotionally immediately. Instead, I start by playing games with you such as Tic-Tac-Toe, or more complex games like chess. This throws people off, but at the same time I do get more of an opportunity to see how you think. I notice how you approach different kinds of problems and what kind of mindset you might apply. This oftentimes surfaces limiting beliefs such as "I'm not a genius, I could never be good at chess." I start to see the discomfort with deeply intellectual approaches and systematizing approaches. This doesn't mean there is something wrong with you, it just means that your specialty is outside of intellectual domains. Furthermore, I might notice personality traits in the mindset applied to a chess game, such as when I managed to detect a person's subtle aggressive mindset where it did not apply, implicating unresolved anger issues. This turned out to be true. In this sense, games are helpful for slowly mapping out how other people think while emotional talk tends to happen sideways or in smaller ways. I don't like rushing straight into intimacy. Over time, I do extend this analysis from beyond abstract strategy games. Morality is a major topic I will watch you on. I will pay attention to your moral reasoning as this is where I start to catch red flags. I get especially concerned when it comes to the morality of deception. Those who have a more loose sense of morality around deception is where I start to feel less secure. Oftentimes, I can observe how the moral reasoning corresponds to different stages of development across various psychological models. Sometimes, they appear especially self-serving and flippant. I also tend to be bothered by low brow humor which frequently spills into sexual harassment. When it comes to religious reasoning, I feel somewhat mixed. On one hand, at least they take morality seriously on some level, but the problem is the lack of critical thinking. When I deviate too far from the expected position, sometimes I end up in uncomfortable positions in which I feel judged or ostracized by those who don't question the source material to see if it is true. I did encounter some Catholics when I was out on my walk who tried to convert me, and I saw so many problems with their arguments, especially when they conflated divine authority with the church and the Bible. They also didn't like Pantheism. In terms of morality, I tend to prefer people who see value in contemplating these things. I notice that they tend to come off as warmer and more compassionate. They seem less judgmental by comparison and are able to see multiple perspectives. I have an easier time talking to and feeling safe with people who are at least at this level of moral development. This type appears to be more generally honest and open-minded. Love starts to seem more like a value they seek to embody, even by understanding those who do evil things. I still tend to come off as deeply intellectual to this type, possibly as overly logical or rational at the expense of a disconnect from my feelings. I see a mixed awareness of autism among this group, with some saying that it explains a lot, and others not recognizing why it would be significant. It might become a problem with communication if I intellectually outpace this group too much and I don't easily connect on an emotional level. For most people emotional connection and intellect are separate, but for me they are intertwined. This gradually expands into discussions of spirituality, the nature of reality, and epistemology. These tend to be the most engaging conversations when we discuss how we know what is true. We tend to hit a hard wall when I tell them some of the problems with evidence and the fact that most true things cannot be proven. This is also connected to Godel's incompleteness theorem among other breakthroughs. From there we tend to freeze up because we don't know where to go once the limits of evidence itself is demonstrated. It opens up so many possibilities while simultaneously creating a deep mystery with no easy answer. Beyond all of this, we could have shared activities as I get used to your presence. Once I get used to talking to you, I become more fluent and tend to communicate emotions more naturally. However, I struggle to lead with emotions because it feels dangerous. We need to first establish safety through repeated interactions. During this time, I tend to develop a map of your patterns so I know what to expect from you. I come off as guarded or emotionally flat, but it feels necessary in case of potential danger. Much of my intellect is designed for survival and safety such as by consciously assessing risk through the autistic mind rather than intuitively picking up on cues that neurotypicals expect me to notice. I also know that emotional warmth can be faked such that it can be used for manipulation to harm others. Hence, warmth alone isn't good enough to make me feel safe because I have been manipulated in exactly this way multiple times, including by my mother and father. Finally, I start to see a woman as beautiful when I see her as a safe enough person for emotions to surface. I appreciate more the smile and eyes. Meanwhile, if you are cruel to me in some way, then it colors my perception of your outer beauty such that I now see you as physically hideous. However, it takes me a while to get to this point. This is incompatible with the current dating environment. If I use online dating, those sites tend to be fast paced. It makes me extra uncomfortable. There is also the Leo method of cold approach which just seems straight up agonizing to me. I just feel like it would be humiliating to approach women and talk to them in that manner. I would have to abandon my identity entirely and then rapidly escalate to sexualized talk even though all of this has deeply harmed me already in childhood and it looks extremely dangerous knowing there are others who have been traumatized by this behavior. I struggle to embrace that kind of behavior with good conscience as I would be approaching women until I get laid rather than knowing them more deeply and forming a bond over time to check for relational compatibility. I can't glance at a woman, rate her between one and ten and then hit on her just like that. Attraction doesn't work like this for me. How do I go about dating if I have these sorts of barriers to intimacy? I might even prefer written communication at times, but others get overwhelmed by my thought process in that case. I feel a sense of physical pain in my head when attempting to lead with emotions as the risk of attack is too high without trust first established. I feel like the entire dating environment has too many poor assumptions baked into it and it seems incompatible with how I operate.

I don't think I mentioned that I believe I have refuted the belief in Satan. Basically, the Christian devil was never a consistent coherent character and it changed throughout the history of religion. In fact there used to be a more complex demonology with Lucifer and Satan being described as two separate entities. When you look at these inconsistencies, it helps me to see that Satan is more of a modern cultural invention in religion rather than something that was always depicted this way. In fact, Satan comes from the Jobs story describing an accuser or an adversary. Technically, I don't know that this would be a hard refutation, but it does seem like the closest you would get to refuting the existence of Satan. It is more like a weak solve which points the intuition toward Satan is not real. In this thread I was focusing on hard refutations rather than weak refutations, so I didn't mention this. I could go into more detail if needed.

I have been trying to build my own metaphysical framework from scratch without simply believing sources like Leo who claims I am God. However, I discovered that metaphysics is very difficult and it is hard to make progress when there are multiple plausible frameworks. I often start running into the limits of logic when encountering plausible unfalsifiable claims. That said, I am exploring how far logic can get us in terms of understanding the nature of reality. The progress seems worthy of our attention because although difficult and rare, it is possible to refute some metaphysical claims. This doesn't tell us what reality is, but it can tell us what it is not if some frameworks are known to be wrong on their own terms. Meanwhile, there is this persistent foundational problem of selecting axioms from which ground or guide a logical system. It starts to look like logic is fundamentally groundless if it cannot verify the axioms from which it stands. What then grounds those axioms without becoming subjectivism? That all said, we can start naming metaphysical claims that I believe are clearly refuted on their own terms. Vitalism is an example of a refuted metaphysical stance. It held that organic matter was animated by a life force such that it was impossible to generate organic matter from inorganic matter. Chemistry proved that this was possible, creating a counter example to this framework despite it being logically consistent. Preformationism was the claim that a miniature human existed inside of a sperm and an egg. This was refuted through microscopes and prenatal tests which verified how a sperm and an egg develop into an embryo without a miniature human existing in the zygote. Newtonian physics claimed that time and space were absolute. This one was famously refuted by general relativity which holds that there is no privileged now for all observers. Aristotle claimed that nature abhors a vacuum. Science has demonstrated that it is possible to create vacuums through various experiments which changed assumptions about how reality functions. Spontaneous generation held that living matter such as mice and maggots were spontaneously created from non-living matter such as meat and bread. This was refuted by sealing a flask such that the mice and maggots couldn't get into it. It suggests that it was difficult to store food away properly in ancient times to the point that people thought the food just turned into animals rather than animals getting into the food through openings in the storage. Logical positivism is self defeating because it claims that all claims need to be analytically true or verifiable. This claim is not analytically true or verifiable, therefore logical positivism refuted itself. Water monism claimed that water was the fundamental substance underlying all of reality. This is refuted by modern chemistry, atoms, and molecules. These can be manipulated into forming water through a more fundamental substance than water. This then runs into a common problem of pushing the problem down one layer. The next part I get mixed on is the unfalsifiable claims or unverifiable claims. Oftentimes unfalsifiability is treated as a sign that a frame should be rejected or as if it holds less weight. I don't think this is the correct attitude because there are definitely true things which cannot be proven, verified, or falsified. In fact if something were definitely true, then it shouldn't be falsifiable by nature of not being false. At the same time it is possible to have unfalsifiable falsehoods, meaning it becomes very hard to navigate this terrain in practice once I try to grapple with this. In my experience, I have seen things that cannot be proven or verified. This happens in criminal justice all the time. It includes he said she said scenarios, proving intent, plausible deniability, frame ups and set ups to corrupt evidence, evidence degrading over many years, and so on. From this point of view victims of crime know very well that what happened to them isn't necessarily provable or verifiable. It can include organized criminals using coded language to suppress evidence by hiding their identity so you can't prove it was them. In my worldview truth is therefore greater than what evidence can account for. This was mentioned in Leo's video about proof being a subdomain of truth as an extension of godels incompletes theorem. It seems to be proven that evidence and logic are insufficient for proving all possible truths. In terms of what logic can get us regarding metaphysics, it seems to be capable of refuting narrow metaphysical claims on their own terms through counter examples which are supposed to be impossible. Once a metaphysical claims becomes all encompassing and accounts for all possible experience, logic reaches its limits. This is why the most difficult philosophical debates involve claims which cannot be clearly falsified through more proof. I then start to hit a wall in terms of where to go next once I have multiple plausible metaphysical frameworks. Logic can refute narrow claims, but I struggle to adjudicate between multiple plausible positions which account for all observations. Leo's position is one example of such a position which cannot be falsified and in some cases cannot be verified due to genetics preventing someone from experiencing God consciousness. What do you think of finding refuted metaphysical frameworks? Can you find other examples? What are the limits of logic in this domain? Refuting metaphysical frameworks is difficult and rare, but sometimes possible.

@PsychedelicEagle I feel torn about Occam's Razor being used to filter out unfalsifiable falsehoods. The problem is that unfalsifiable truths can also be swept into this if a complex truth seems more unlikely despite actually being true. I think this concerns when Occam's Razor should be applied versus when it shouldn't. For example, suppose you were set up and framed for a crime you didn't commit. In this scenario all available evidence implicates you by design. It is impossible for you to prove who the real culprits are by design of a frame-up. The complex truth then gets rejected because it seems unlikely despite being true. I see all kinds of horrible misapplications of reason in this domain which makes me doubt how things like Occam's Razor should be applied. Last Thursdayism would be a fair example because it doesn't add any explanatory value. It would be useless either way. This resonates with the theological position that the Universe was created with the appearance of age, as a position to reject the theory of evolution. Last Thursdayism would probably be an invention by a rationalist making a Reducto Ad Absurdum against this theological stance by creating an equally unfalsifiable position aside from "the Earth was created 7000 years ago."

@Ulax @Lyubov In my experience exaggerating crimes and offenses is typical among drug addicts and trafficking set ups. These people lie about everything, sometimes even pathologically. It serves multiple functions. 1. You can intimidate others by claiming your gang killed more people than it actually did while adding details about genital mutilation as a form of psychological coercion with no need to actually execute these threats. This is how you get money from people through the threat without necessarily the intent to execute the threat. This is how my Dad got money for the drugs he sold, unless of course he lied about that too. Imagine you were in prison and you were afraid of someone killing you. In that case you could claim that you and your gang did a bunch of evil things to intimidate others even if it isn't true. "They caught me with drugs, but that wasn't half the shit I actually did" would be an example. 2. It makes it difficult for victims to distinguish between reality and mere stories. The possibility of various threats like murder, rape, kidnapping, drug poisoning, stalking, home invasion, and so forth all act as an ambient threat in your normal everyday experience as you are forced to be hypervigilant even if the attack never occurs. This was part of the problem I had with my dad and his gang as I could not tell which parts were exaggerated or fabricated while simultaneously the claims remained entirely plausible. I genuinely cannot tell how many sex trafficking deals my father and his gang were responsible for, and the uncertainty is what makes me constantly uneasy. 3. Drug addicts often have a sense of powerlessness in life generally. Due to being a slave to their addiction, they might make up stories in which they are bad ass gangsters living on the edge. This has been documented because they want to have a sense of being powerful and in control while masking their deeper insecurities behind the tough guy attitude which is oftentimes rooted in trauma such as child abuse among other problems. Boys who were sexually abused have been found externalizing this kind of trauma, leading to a criminal lifestyle. 4. Gangs operate off of a system of inverse morality. Offenses, especially sex offenses are often used as a signal of status. It is essentially the most toxic version of masculinity possible with rape and sadistic degradation being used as markers of power and superiority over others. The more outrageous the offenses, the better from the perspective of the gang because it demonstrates a sense of being unbounded by the law as in cases of murder or child sex trafficking. Think of it like lying on your resume. In the case of crime, these are considered bragging rights, similar to religious extremists who consider it something to brag about when you murder a non-believer or terrorize the heathens who don't convert. I hate this behavior so much. It is the kind of environment that shatters in sense of being grounded and safe due to the inability to distinguish reality from fiction. Truth seeking in this kind of environment is a nightmare and it is agonizing. If you value truth, then this kind of situation simply is not conducive to these values because you are being controlled through constant fear. And don't forget that snitches get stitches. Telling the truth is the highest offense among criminal environments. Telling the truth is the single act that is most likely to trigger retaliation, even more so than missing a drug payment.

Me sharing beliefs with those close to me is out of the question. Too many people just tell me I am too smart for them. I don't even make it to the spiritual domain. They can't even sit through systems analysis and research. I also have an autistic mind that doesn't compute with most people. Of course they are also total hypocrites when it comes to drugs. They are so scared of psychedelics. They are totally fine with weed, alcohol, and they don't really talk about Mom doing white powder while stealing money to feed her addiction. I'm surrounded by idiots and it makes my beliefs irrelevant. I need better people to talk to.

I need to flag this immediately. I took art classes and my art teacher told me this is precisely what we are not supposed to do. If you try to make art from your imagination, your art will turn out bad. The problem is that you are drawing what you think you see in your mind's eye. It will never be good art. In order to draw well, you need to draw what you actually see line by line. Most people fail because they are not looking at an object in front of them, or perhaps in a mirror and drawing what they actually see line by line to make a self portrait. You don't make a self portrait by drawing from your imagination. Meanwhile, if you were to draw from your imagination, it would probably be better to draw how you feel instead of trying to draw masterpiece. Don't grade yourself if you try to draw how you feel because you have a different style from others. There are also plenty of drawing tutorials on YouTube to help. Can you clarify how you have been attempting to draw. I could show you some of my pictures which I drew based on a dream that communicated my feelings. I need to see your artwork before I can judge it on its own terms.

You exploit the broader corruption that society at large takes for granted and benefit from it. For example, just write the laws such that your corporations make more money in the resulting system than others. The law itself literally is the corruption. Think of it like you are in Nazi Germany. How do you become untouchable? You become corrupt like a Nazi police officer. You now get to break into people's houses, rape them, and never face accountability because you are too low rank to be a priority to the Nuremberg trials. The same happens with private military contractors in the middle east who often act with impunity when they rape and kill civilians. Just exploit the broader societal corruption and it will enable you to act with impunity and no realistic consequences. You can think of it like organized criminals who bribe police officers. The corruption of society is what makes a person immune to consequences. In the case of Trump, he would be in prison if he were any other person. He stays in office because of the broader corruption of our government which enabled him. It is kind of like Darth Sidious from Star wars. He rose to power and became emperor because the Senate was corrupt and they enabled him because he served their financial interests throughout the war for the galaxy.

@BlessedLion I was two when I happened. Mom told me I would be in my crib crying "they're gonna bomb us" when the news talked about terrorism. When I look at 9/11 as an adult, I look and think it makes perfect sense. The attackers believed that America was an economic parasite which destroyed their land in the middle east. They have this"death to America" ideology because historically America has economically and militarily suppressed the autonomy of other regions. Terrorism is the result of radicals who identify super powers as responsible for their miserable circumstances. They respond by knowing they can't win in head to head combat and therefore resulting to shocking tactics that serve as tools to terrorize and therefore shake confidence in a super power. The outcome is that following the retaliation in the invasion of Iraq, the world increasingly lost faith in America. The target wasn't the buildings themselves, but what they symbolized to the world with America as an economic superpower. Meanwhile the religious ideology is largely propaganda. Many of the terrorists don't have a deep understanding of Islam. It is similar to states who use Christianity to justify brutality. It looks more like propaganda and PR work so the violence feels righteous and necessary. This is essentially the point of Islam and Christianity in this case while the underlying conflicts are the result of economic disruptions in the middle east due to the interventions of global super powers like the US. Of course I'm not saying the attacks were justified and that this should have happened. I'm saying that this is completely understandable and comprehensible given a study of how terrorists think and act knowing they can't win in direct confrontation. This would be the available option to them which avoids direct war while causing massive damage. I have done a lot of research in perpetrator psychology, so I can understand this while still maintaining that they need to be stopped. They are still killing innocent people and the attacks themselves do not actually fix the economic problems underneath these conflicts. In fact it makes the economic suffering in the middle east even worse by provoking prolonged interventions. Therefore, they shouldn't have blown up the twin towers, but I can understand why they did it.

@Leo Gura I have a question about the relationship between being a fan and being foolish. This involves areas in my life where I am a fan. I am under the impression that Trump supporters are fools largely because they are uneducated, similar to many foolish views in politics. They believe in many less and falsehood as a result, making them deeply unreasonable when challenged on the lies they believe in. In my case, I am a former Ben Shapiro fan because at the time I was interested in learning how to debate effectively. Ultimately, I discovered that persuasion and truth had very little to do with each other in debates. This is when I started losing interest in Shapiro because his facts are just misleading citations that don't actually mean what he says. Later on I did look into debating again with an AI. I found this more instructive because it became clear that I would never win a debate against AI. It is designed perfectly to attack every logical error. I learned more about why the truth loses in a debate through this process. That all said, why would we single out any group of fans as fools? Are fans foolish on a deep level because they surrender their sovereignty of mind? In that case if I were a fan of Leo, then it would make me a fool to simply believe you. In that sense, it doesn't actually matter who I am a fan of so long as the outcome is that I become less conscious, more conformist, and committed to truth due to labeling any idol as the Pinnacle of truth. Given your concept of a fan, is it possible to have a fan who isn't already foolish? Of course there could be degrees of foolishness.

I want to see what kind of horror stories you can come up with for a bird that mimics a broad range of sounds. I'll give you an example that came to mind. In this story, there is a couple who we will call Rick and Julie. They are lured into the woods by what sounds like a cry for help. Little do they know, the lyre birds of the forest are mimicking the voices of past victims who came before this couple. In the woods, there is a serial killer with chainsaw. He keeps the lyre birds as trophies because they remind him of the terror he inflicted on countless others. The couple is later pursued by the killer. Rick and Julie are running down a hallway in an abandoned house in the woods trying to escape the killer. After a brief silence, they hear the sound of a chainsaw down one end of a hallway. The couple runs in the opposite direction, thinking they were safe. But then they encounter the killer who turns the chainsaw on and attacks Rick. Rick starts getting cut up by the chainsaw as he screams in agony, telling Julie to run. Julie runs away from the killer down the hallway, where she encounters a lyre bird mimicking the sound of a chainsaw. Julie runs out of the house, finding the dead body of an officer who investigated the scene. She tries to search the body for a gun, but finds nothing. The killer appears again and chases her into a maze. As she runs into a maze, she hears the voice of Rick saying, "Julie! I'm over here!" Julie discovers it was only a lyre bird which is standing next to the disembodied arm of her lover. The lyre bird looks at her and says in Rick's voice, "I'm fine. We won't die here." The killer continues chasing Julie in the maze, but Julie runs into a dead end. The sound of a chainsaw approaches as she is cornered. Just when all hope seems lost, a lyre bird walks around the corner. Julie begins backpacking from the dead end. She then sees the silent killer activate his chainsaw as she runs down the only path available. Julie runs frantically as she is surrounded by the sound of chainsaws, screams of past victims, and Rick calling out to her. Julie barely escapes the maze with the killer right behind her. However, just at the end of the maze, she trips on a wooden pole which was set horizontally at the end of the maze by the killer for exactly this purpose of tripping his victims when they ran through this specific spot. The killer had done this so many times that he knew exactly where people would be likely to trip and exploited it. Julie hears Rick calling to her as she desperately cries out for help. The killer is standing right over her, but suddenly shots from a gun fire. The killer is wounded as Julie stands up and runs. She then sees Rick with a missing arm and a gun firing at the killer. The killer falls, but Rick needs immediate care as he is losing blood. Tragically, Julie is unable to help Rick in time. The story ends with Julie weeping over the dead body. Just before the credits, a lyre bird minus the sound of a victim screaming. What stories can you come up with for lyre birds? Is this an interesting one?

I have a weird question regarding the ethics of environmentalism. This is about the moral or ethical value of plants such as a tree. I would agree that in a society, humans and animals should have rights. The idea seems to be that as living, conscious, sentient beings both humans and animals have the capacity to experience love or suffering. Therefore, if we are to reduce unnecessary suffering, then we should be kind to humans and animals. The part that I'm not sure about is in regards to other life forms such as plants. A tree doesn't appear to be conscious or sentient in the same way as humans and animals are, but it definitely is still alive. I would question whether or not it suffers in the same way as we do. If we say that trees should not have rights, then it appears that any value the tree has is a matter of property laws that restrict logging. Therefore the value of a tree is in its utility to a human society rather than the living being having its own value. My questions are the following. Is a tree conscious? How do we know one way or the other? Why should we consider humans and animals as having moral value? How do we compute this with the moral value of a tree? Why would a tree have moral value on its own terms, regardless of its utility to someone else? Should a tree have rights? If so, then what rights should the tree have? How would we separate tree rights from animal rights if destroying trees would by extension be destructive to broader wild life? How do we know if a thing is conscious or not? The cells in my body move in an orderly way, but would we consider the cells in my body conscious, or is consciousness something different the cells moving in my body? On top of that, if consciousness were produced in the brain as neuroscience claims, then would it be the total creature that is conscious, or would it be some kind of neuron or neurons that are individually or collectively conscious? How do we separate that from the body? Would consciousness be something unified throughout an entire being, or would consciousness be a series of relationships between cells which create the illusion of being a self? In my experience, consciousness appears to be a unified experience of existing rather than fragmented between many cells. Additionally, if consciousness were produced in the brain through some kind of relationship between cells, then am I this relationship between cells, or do I have a brain that isn't me? Is the brain produced by consciousness or is consciousness produced by the brain? How would we tell the difference? The most important question seems to be, "What the hell is consciousness?" This carries implications for tree rights depending on where we land.

I mean, if a soybean plant has less consciousness than a cow, then it looks like we should eat plants more than meat. The reason is that a cow would suffer a lot more in a factory farm than a plant would. In fact, plants often grow fruits for animals to eat because those fruits contain seeds which can naturally be pooped out to help the seeds spread. It looks like the plants want us to eat them in that sense, but the cows would clearly resist being eaten if we see them being attacked by a bear. So if plants appear to be designed for us to eat them because it benefits them, then we probably should eat plants instead of cattle. This seems to be a sound moral philosophy in my opinion. There might be exceptions if a person has gut problems which might require them to eat meat instead of plants.

@enchanted Why do you think it will be a couple hundred thousand years rather than about 5 to 10 thousand years?

I tried finding a path outside of University. I failed. There simply are no feasible options other than going to University. Any job available sucks. There are no realistic business opportunities. The competitions such as chess tournaments cannot be won on the highest level without being born into a privileged position with a stable family that supports your dreams. I believed that hard work would allow me to actualize this dream. Once my family refused to give the necessary support, I lost my sense of direction. I ended up on Actualized.org because I was looking for some alternative life purpose which I never found anyway. I'm going back to University in January. I plan on picking up a part time job in the meantime to help pay for the loans. I have an associate's degree. I didn't finish partially because I didn't have a clear sense of direction. Furthermore, I had medical complications from depression which disrupted my attempt to finish a Bachelor's degree. I plan on majoring in Sociology and transferring to Germany long term. There is no future with my family. And there is no future without at minimum a Bachelor's degree. Bill Gates predicted this a long time ago. Now that I am done grieving the death of my dream, I can start building a completely different life in a completely different context, completely unrelated to the family that abused me. I found a pill that works on my OCD, so it helps with the spiraling thoughts. However, I need to build up tolerance because of the side effects. Psychiatric drugs are brutal to me. If I could improve my tolerance somehow, it would be perfect for putting to rest my spiraling thoughts that fixate on the abuse my family did to me. I just can't make it stop without some kind of medical intervention. Long story short, there is no real option in this economy outside of going to University. Trust me. I tried. It is not worth it.

I imagine that a leftist would say that the terrorism is rooted in grievances caused by Israel's unfair policies for people treated less than them. Therefore, stopping racism and discrimination against people who did nothing wrong would be one piece of radicalizing more people toward becoming terrorists. This is the same pattern with the war on terror often radicalizing people even more toward terrorism. Therefore, Israel's reaction would have predictably caused even more terrorism given the historical patterns of the war on terror. Obviously, it is way more complex than that, but it probably is a piece a leftist would say. In terms of how I, specifically stop terrorists from attacking Israel, I don't think there is much I can realistically do because I am in America. Posting on the internet probably won't change these things. As for actually stopping all of the terrorists, I doubt the methods I mentioned would even be enough even if they would help partially. This sort of thing might be as difficult as trying to figure out how to prevent 9/11. If terrorists have the element of surprise, and peaceful policy isn't enough on its own, then it creates a need for some kind of defense. However, it needs to be a measured and proportionate defense, as a disproportionate reaction would make it worse. Israel maintains its right to defend itself, but in order to do so optimally, it would need to avoid the "blowback effect" which would be caused by excessive aggression. There would need to be a fine balance which is hard to do practically when emotional stakes are high in the middle of ongoing terrorist attacks. Therefore, the predictable outcome would be the overreaction or disproportionate aggression that we see right now. Terrorists often bank on this reaction specifically to turn others against the nation that was hit. This was part of the plan behind 9/11 as well, knowing that democracies have this specific structural weakness when mass panic causes the overwhelming majority to demand safety and reassurance through a projection of strength even if that projection ultimately backfires. This is roughly the territory concerning why good, proper, proportionate policy typically does not happen in these situations.

I did some further self-reflection and contemplation regarding Godel and other significant proofs related to it. In terms of what it implies for my worldview, so long as I try to map out the self, the map becomes part of the self and therefore requires mapping. This creates an infinite regress with no end. This is one of the limitations of self-analysis. It seems to explain why my thoughts go in circles over the same things looking for an answer where my thoughts can never be a perfect map by their nature as part of the mind. Self-knowledge is therefore incomplete through maps. It seems that foundationalism in logic ultimately fails if it is fundamentally impossible to have a fully grounded worldview due to the nature of thought and belief being self-referencing. There is no system complex enough to not have any gaps. This would be a limitation of belief as by design it is another map. The foundation is therefore imagined. I think this does seem practical in terms of understanding the limitations of analysis as a means of finding self-knowledge through systems and maps. I kept running through the same loops because a perfect map would need to account for itself as part of the territory. This is what I was already doing as I mapped my mapping of myself.