zurew

Showing off the good genetics

Now we are talking, and yes you are totally right. If you want to use that to justify your position thats fine. But i am not convinced yet about your position. Right now our 'debate' is about this. You prefer individual freedom over another potential kids life , who will be miserable and will die young (who will have an incurable disease, and will live with it in his/her entire [short] life). ---> that is a position that you are fighting for right now. I gave a silly hypothetical to see if you draw your line somewhere, not necessarily to trap you. I know this is not necessarily going to happen in real life (however we can't know, but it is sure an unlikely example). The reason for the hypothetical to test your moral system in practice, and for me to see what your position is. If you would have asked me my own hypothetical my answer would have been ,that i would only regulate other people life in this instance, if i would knew 100% beforehand that their child will inherit a deadly disease that i know beforehand is incurable. In other cases i would not regulate anything about it.

Yeah i know that, i know the limits and the consequences of a democratic system where people are polarised and when corrupt people in power. However the question was, why would you prefer a 'good dictatorship' over a 'good democracy'? Lets say both systems outcome is the same, i would still prefer 'good democracy' for the reasons i mentioned above.

Basically the consequence of your moral system is that people can give birth to children who they know beforehand 100% they will have deadly diseases and they will suffer those consequences and will die young. That is okay in your moral world. If your are totally okay with that , thats fine.

We were talking about a moral system, you gave your justification. Using that justification to justify your moral system comes with consequences that you should be able to defend.

I see, so there is no line. So killing rapeing robbing torturing is allowed in your system, because everyone will die and suffer anyway.

I see, thanks. That was an informative video.

That looks rough. If i were a local car mechanic i would pay for the road builders not to repair any road, because more cars will be fucked up as time goes on and they will come to me and i could earn more money. But jokes aside, why those roads are not being repaired at all? (is it because those roads are not that freqently used, or for other reasons)?

Do you hold the same position as Rokazulu, or you can imagine a circumstance where you would say that it could be justified?

Not just that, but lets say you know 100% that they will die and suffer because of that inherited disease. Even in that case would you still say, that according to your morality that particular person should be allowed to have his/her own children? (testing where your line is, because you said, that there is no circumstance that could justify Eugenics.)

Its a moral question, would you be okay with a society where it is allowed for people to have children even though you and they know from the get go that that children will suffer and die from the disease This was a hypothetical and in this case there was no cure, to test your morality.

@TheWatcher It would depend on the context, but in the vast majority of the cases i would say that they should be allowed to reproduce, especially as we get more and more advanced medically. There would be a few exceptions, but they can't be justified because we don't have the ability to determine the % of the chances. For instance if we would be able to determine that your children will inherit a deadly disase (that we can't cure) from you with above 90% chance, then i would say you shouldn't have children.

Lets test this. If we could say that your children will inherit cancer 100% and we don't have any cure for cancer. Would you still say that that particular person can have his/her own children?

Why is good distatorship is better in your world than good democracy if the outcome is the same? The difference between good dictatorship and good democracy is that in good democracy all the good results are produced what you mentioned but there is a plus. The plus is that individuals have their freedom. Also, another big difference between the two is that a really good functioning, productive,happy society under democracy implies that, that particular society is highly developed, they are able to work with each other, they are able to agree on things, they aren't highly polarised, they are highly educated, they are intelligent and being able to make hard and difficult decisions for themselves without the need for and outsider 'mother' who will force them to be and do everything in 1 particular way. So in my world good democracy > good dictatorship for sure.

Not just you, this is a really fair critique. Always reducing everything just to "imagination" have its own limits, and sometimes doesn't really make any sense to bring it up in conversations, where the question doesn't necessarily points to anything absolute, but requires a relative answer. By reducing everything down to just imagination we are losing all the nuances , and the questioner won't be able to make sense of our answers. Asking for definitions or giving our own definitions from the get go can really help to make the conversations more fruiteful and productive. I think that most of the misunderstanding in this forum comes from the fact, that we don't use the same words the same way and we give different meanings to different words. The other big problem i see is the content vs structure problem. Some people ask about a problem or question that is related to a content, and the answer that will be given will be structure related. This is okay, when someone can give an advice to a person to find the root cause to a problem, but in most cases the advice won't be usable at all because that particular person either craving for attention and not for answer to solve the problem or that person craves for a usable productive answer that can be utilized, and not for answers like "you just imagining your problems" or "just wake up and you won't give any fucks anymore". A newbie who comes here, will use the word 'imagination' a lot differently than how we use it. Even when they hear the word 'consciousness' they don't necessarily refer to the same thing as we do. Most of our convos should start setting/clearing the foundation up , and then we can start to debate or have conversations but if we miss that, there is a high chance that we will misunderstand each other even though we might agree about everything or on most things.

Sure, but why the consideration matters, if given the right set of conditions they will always choose 1 thing over another.

Just because it would be harder to predict how animals would do in certain situations that does not mean it isn't possible to predict their behaviour 100%. This convo going to a determinism vs free will debate

How do you know that? How do you differentiate between a tree choosing to move to the sun vs an animals choosing what to eat?

I don't think its totally spontaneous. Even what seems spontaneous doesn't necessarily spontaneous. Also why these masters teach meditation yoga contemplation etc, if they think / know that it is spontaneous? It doesn't really make sense why would Peter teach about contemplation and enlightenment, if he really thinks that it won't help at all.

Would you say, that you can be really highly conscious, when you are really drunk (when you are so drunk that you can barely speak)? Also, i would say that even if what you are saying is true (that we can make a really clear distinction between states and levels of consciousness), there seems to be limits to certain states how much consciousness you can hold. I wouldn't say, that you can hold the same level of consiousness being really drunk compared to being sober or being high. So being in a certain state seems to determine how conscious you can get.

You don't know that. Maybe its totally random , but maybe not. If it would be totally random ,then why most spiritual teachers doing decades of spiritual work before they get enlightened? Also why some people say they get instantly enlightened after they are doing psychedelics? Just because Peter Ralston says something , that doesn't mean you have to take it for granted or as truth. Saying that relative stuff doesn't have anything to do with enlightenment would imply that there is no reason to do any yoga, contemplation , psychedelics or meditation or other spiritual practices. Or if you want to say, that even though they don't produce enlightenment, they can make it more probable, then we go back to the same debate, which method is the best or what methods are the most effective.

How?

What you don't yet understand is that your dream is made out of consciousness and you are too. Thats why ultimately speaking there is no difference between the things you are talking about because the "bulding blocks" of you and your reality is consciousness. Both "fantasy" and "reality" is made out of consciousness. It doesn't matter if right now you have the ability to change the dream or not. Because its still inside your consciousness, and its still made out of consciousness.

What would limit God to make Absolute copies of itself ? You are totally right in the 'you can imagine them into reality'. Thats true. However, we are talking about someting that is outside of your imagination. Basically something that you are not conscious of. You are 100% conscious of your solipsistic dream, you can create whatever you want, you can be whatever you want to be. I know, that nothing can be outside of my imagination/consciousness because i can't stop imagining, and thats the point, that from God's viewpoint nothing can be outside of his consciousness, because he is unable to stop imagining. He cannot escape his imagination. He cannot be aware of anything that is outside its own dream. The only thing that could be separate from God is an exact Absolute copy of God. Being Absolute comes with this cost, that you can't be conscious of other Absolutes and you can only interact with your own dream. These bubbles would be separate. They would be separate, because each God could do whatever he wants to do in his own solipsistic bubble, and no other God could intervene his dream. This is the Absolute power, being able to clone your Absolute self an infinite number of times. Each and every God could create and do whatever they want by being and doing their own dreams. Each and every God would be able to imagine an infinite other number of Gods in their own dream, but that still wouldn't change that possiblity, that other God's actually existing that they wouldn't be aware of.

He is not getting bamboozled. He is right. You can't leave your absolute solipsistic bubble. Anything that would be potentially outside of your solipsistic bubble you cannot possibly know anything about. We are talking about a claim, that cannot be verified. --> so the conclusion should be 'I don't know' not 'There isn't any'.