zurew

This should be put in the Entertainment/Fun section

Nope, this is why.

This is strange, cause i can see it both using youtube without an account and seeing it with an account. putting the sorting on 'newest first' is working for me well, even if i use UK's vpn. So it will be something with your account or i don't know.

Such as?

I did it after you made this thread. I can still see it but i think i know whats going on. You need to choose the option 'the newest first' because automatically the comment sorting is on 'the best comments' which basically means it will display comments with the most likes. Both option should display all the comments, but for whatever reason 'only the 'newest first' comment sorting option displaying Leo's comment.

I could find his comment, but it was hard to find. Some sort of moderation is always needed to have a good platform. The problem is how to find the right tools for moderation and how to balance it out. The 'being bias' problem will always come up, but it can be mitigated if one can set up very precise and clear rules. So if the moderators could follow some golden rules that could help, but of course, its super hard to make rules for every possible future scenarios. The other big problem is, that sentences and messages can be interpreted in multiple ways, so its is really hard.

There was this other thread, where not just metaphysical movies were mentioned, but you can find some there.

Hardy's paradox: How can we make inferences about past events that we haven't observed while at the same time acknowledge that the act of observing it affects the reality we are inferring to? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardy's_paradox

The question is where should he donate and how much and why. Becuase he could donate for a 1000 different issues, but is donateing will solve the systemic problems why things are arising or it will just make things a little better for a while? I think the thing is, if he would donate 75% of his money to try to mitigate the world's hunger, then there would be critics who would say "okay, but what about kids who have cancer,Isn't that more important? or "What about donateing for virus research, isn't that more important to protect humanity from potential pandemics?" etcetc. Most global problems wouldn't be solved, even if he would donate 100% of his money and assets. That does not mean that donateing don't have any purpose i don't want to make it look like that. But i think that he is contributing a very large percentages of his money for humanity. Just look at his companies and what he is working on. Could he do more? For sure, but compared to me or any normal person he is doing 100000% more. Then we can get into arguments like, yes he can do a lot because he has money etcetc. But i don't think that money is the only medium we could use to contribute with.

Anything that stateing you can get money free without any effort and without any risk, should set your alarm off.

This makes total sense even logically too. Thanks for your explanation!

I think you could be right. The only problem i see with this is the 'recognition of problems' part. Different countries with different political developments and with educational levels see complex problems differently. To add to that, we can even see highly educated people who have "interesting" worldviews like the Earth Creationists who believe that the World was created 6-7 thousand years ago. And they add to that, that global warming doesn't exist (caused by humans). And of course, the Earth Creationists group is not the only one i could add here, but in general we can say that when it comes to complex problems drawing the lines and making sense of the problem is pretty hard, and even if you have evidence and great arguments there will be a bunch of people who won't agree with you. So at the end of the day even if shit gets real, and the burning starts ,there will be a bunch of people who won't even agree that the problem came from x reasons, so they won't agree on the x solutions (cause they think that the root needs to be discovered somewhere else). So we have a situation where there is a disagreement about: If there is a problem at all what are the causality factors of the problems when will shit gets real and apocalyptic where there is no coming back. So having those three premises the solution making and acting on the solution part is really fucking hard. So when there is a disagreement about the "when will shit get real" part, then we have a dynamic where all the actors will wait as much as they possibly can, before they will be willing to make a sacrifice to start acting for the planet to survive. Just look at our conversation, we have somewhat a disagreement about when when will shit gets real so the action taking is really hard to agree on especially hard: when to start taking actions, what actions and at what costs.

By ego death most people mean killing an idea of a you, to be able to see yourself for what you actually are. Nothing actually dies, you just self reflect using an infinite mind, so you realize for what you actually are.

Yeah, its interesting to see that even if someone can create a technology that is super environmental friendly thats just the beginning. It needs to have a design that is suitable for the customer. Most customer doesn't give a fuck if its environmental friendly or not, or if they care, they care less about the car being environmental friendly and they care more about how they can use the car and how suitable the car for them for whatever use. I don't blame them though. I do the same. Its just an observation , that even if you create something, if you want to be able to sell it, it needs to get through a very hard process. Basically the lesson is, that if you are an inventor, who wants to save the world or want to make it better, you have to remember: You need to create your invention in a way that is in alignment with your idealistic goals and with the targeted customers needs.

Exactly. We are talking about being conscious so much and we sometimes forget about it. Being conscious can mean, not being reactive and being in charge. So being conscious can be used in this case as well

The good old days playing half-life, and half-life 2

@How to be wise Imagine, if Leo would be on all tv channels, and kids would be forced to watch him instead of tik-tok.

You need to balance out the 2 brain hemispheres, if you only focus on one and only use one, you won't be as effective as you want to be. This argument could be used for almost anything. Lets be it bodybuilding or learning or anything. One of the most important part is the rest part and to use your creative capacities too. Even Einstein played hours upon hours of music and then he went back to do hardcore physics.

This is very true. Probably in the far future (probably not in our lifetime) science will evolve into a state where multiple different kind of epistemic foundations will be used to make sense of reality. I know there are different kind of fields already, however they still have almost the same epistemic foundation. For example, if they want to find out if aliens exist or not they will be open to explore it from multiple angles. One angle could be the materialistic angle where we physically try to find evidence for life in the universe using physics, chemistry, biology etc. One other angle could be to explore the same "question" or problem using different states of consciousness. We could build infinite different kind of starting points, and go forward infinitely, and then we could combine all the insights together and see how many contradicts each other and how many could correlate. Not being attached to any epistemic foundation or not being attached to any state of consciousness would be really really interesting to see in science.

Please, drop here any tools/theories/videos/articles/topics/methods/books that could elevate our sensemaking abilities to a new level. By sensemaking i mean: tools and methods and thinking that can help us to get as objective as we can understanding real world events or people. ( so destroying all the filters, deception mechanisms, biases and going for factual information) Shortly: Sensemaking is the ability that help us, to get to factuality the best and most effective way possible. Articles: https://consilienceproject.org/how-to-mislead-with-facts/?fbclid=IwAR2O-nyGcrW4maVstqV3L_kcgAiPgcdBL7wns9GK3mOtc0SI1crnkkWtLlg https://consilienceproject.org/the_end_of_propaganda/ https://consilienceproject.org/challenges-to-making-sense-of-the-21st-century/ https://consilienceproject.org/democracy-and-the-epistemic-commons/ https://consilienceproject.org/its-a-mad-information-war/ https://consilienceproject.org/we-dont-make-propaganda-they-do/ The war on Sensemaking series: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LqaotiGWjQ part-1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QGrffjOFko part-2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQstRd7opv4&list=PLdUc8YnR4D8VGOwijTNkF7yql8Vhs_GCe part-3 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G70qtM66iY8 part-4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0v5RiMdSqwk part-5 Video list on sensemaking including some of Leo's videos and The war on sensemaking: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLp7j_ri9938vHGaGL-0jPZFvlM0BMJhBs

For me it used to be Counter strike 1.6. I played it normally, and i played it with zombies too. I don't play it anymore, but i think my favorite would be minecraft. It may sound just a childgame but it has many many possibilities and you can do so many different things in it. You can fully play out your creativity, you can find your own style of playing it. And even if you would get bored from the vanilla, you can play modded versions.

The most mysterious thing is the connection between no time and time | and the connection between nothing and something. Thats the easy part to say, that "ohh from the ultimate perspective there is no difference between the two, because all differences collapses, when you look it at from a certain level of conscioiusness". Thats fine, but to actually try to make sense of the no time - time connection and try to explain it how and why it works and why it doesn't work other ways, but this particular way.

This is very interesting, wondering why i haven't heard of this before.